Go find another Party

[toddaa]

Dear Elected Official who claims Democratic Party affiliation,

It's time for you to put up or shut up. If you are an elected official who calls yourself a Democrat, it's time for you to stop worshiping at the alter of the swing voter and your corporate masters and start fearing the rank and file.

If you do not support ending the madness in Iraq, go find another party.

If you do not support filibustering Alito who will turn over the last freedoms we have to protect ourselves from the corporate elite, go find another party.

If you do not support impeaching a president who has violated the U.S. Constitution, go find another party.

If you do not support a national health care plan that insures everyone, go find another party.

If you do not support a progressive revenue plan that taxes corporate wealth instead of personal income, go find another party.

If you do not support the rights of women to decide on personal matters of health without the government looking over her shoulder, go find another party.

If you do not support a clean and renewable energy plan that favors the environment over the needs of the corporate elite, go find another party.

If you do not support open and fair elections that can be audited, go find another party.

If you do not support restrictions on the limited liability charter of corporations and returning individual rights to the people, where they belong, go find another party.

These are non negotiable. Obviously, we all have differences about how to achieve these items, but I am pretty sure that going on Sunday morning talk shows isn't a strategy. Talk's cheap, it's time to start acting like Democratic representatives of the working and middle class, rather than a frightened little groveler at the feet of the corporate elite.

Signed,
Rank and File Democrats who are sick of feeling powerless. We put you in office, and we can take you out.

[mike_c]

1. kicking and recommending-- awesome post!

Go find another party indeed!

[Patchuli]

2. You got that right!

Maybe we should send a copy of that to all our elected Dem leaders from the people of DU?! :bounce:

[FlemingsGhost]

3. Maybe rank and file Dems who are sick of feeling powerless ...

need to go find another Party.

"We put you in office, and we can take you out."

You are correct. Talk *is* cheap.

[toddaa]

16. Yep, time to stop posting to DU and get involve

I love reading and posting to blogs and forums like DU, but I suspect my Congressman could give a shit. I'm going down to my local party headquarters and I'm going to stir up trouble.

[havocmom]

17. No WE are the party. We need to find other candidates!

You know, people like us!

Find and support fresh faces who share your values and are willing to fight for them instead of selling out cheap and settling for jobs (and jobs for family members) with the soulless corporations/lobbyists.

[FlemingsGhost]

26. "We" can be any Party we choose. (n/t)

Flem.

[OrwellwasRight]

4. Word.

but to find DUers who already think the Congressional Dems are doing a good job, see some of the posts in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=144794&mesg_id=144794

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. Ramen!

[mdmc]

19. wow, nice sig!

they look like brothas!

[FreedomAngel82]

47. They look like twins

Isn't it amazing? Very scary.

[Rainscents]

6. BRAVO!!!

:toast:

[undeterred]

7. Sending to Feinstein

[radio4progressives]

63. good deal! she needs to see this... NT

:applause:

[Steve A Play]

65. All of our "representatives" need to see this!

Spread this message far and wide! Send this to your Congressmen and Senators. Post the OP on as many other boards as you can think of. (Don't forget a link back here!) It's time for 'we, the people' to take a stand and demand real representation! Enough is enough, time to organize and take back our party!

Kicking for the night owls. :)

Steven P. :kick:

[babylonsister]

8. Excellent! And agree! nt

[Cascadian]

9. HOORAY!!

Throw the traitors out! Bring in the REAL Democrats!


John

[Vincardog]

10. Public Financing of Elections and the end of Corporate Influence

I want my country back. NOW

[hfojvt]

11. I support a progressive personal income tax

Should I find another party?
These people are not going anywhere unless they are defeated in the primaries. Hillary has an opponent for the primaries. Get him on the ballot and make a statement there. Run somebody against Lieberman.

[toddaa]

14. No, but progressive income tax doesn't solve the problem

The richest 2% in this country does not earn income and so they would not pay any income tax whatsoever. Taxing wealth, as opposed to income, is the only way to restore equity to the system. A progressive income tax is certainly worthwhile, but ultimately amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[hfojvt]

18. they do not earn it

but they do get it. I understand Teresa Heinz gets alot of her income from tax free munis, but we probably do not want to get rid of them either. But you are talking about taxing personal wealth as well as corporate wealth (although wealthy people usually incorporate for tax reasons)

[toddaa]

25. Corporate v. Personal

It's not a question of who pays, it's a question of who pays how much. When the bulk of revenue comes from working and middle classes, there is something horribly wrong with the equation. Fixing the income tax doesn't adequately resolve the issue that the bulk of wealth in this company is owned by multinational corporations who have figured out a way to make billions of dollars without paying any tax on it.

You know what? We probably are in complete agreement, but are quibbling over terms. Let's just say that we need to end corporate welfare and restore equity to the tax system so that it favors working and middle class people, rather than the wealthiest 2%.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. She donates a lot of her money to charity though

[Viva_La_Revolution]

35. Yep, as long as it includes investment income...

and interest income, it would work.

[Talismom]

12. Fantastic! Bookmarked it and will make copies to send via snail-mail with

letters to my Senators and Rep tomorrow! Thanks!

[JeffR]

13. Awesome

:kick:

[IndyOp]

15. You can't take them out until elections are free and fair --

And if elections aren't free and fair they are on their way out anyway, so your threat doesn't count.

[leftofthedial]

20. rockin!

:thumbsup:

[ClayZ]

21. That says it all!

Thanks!

[helderheid]

22. just sent this to some local groups - this is absolutely spot ON!

[DanCa]

23. Right on Bruddah and nominated.

[G2099]

24. Mybe it's time for the people to go find another party

[AgadorSparticus]

49. are you saying that the democratic party is NOT the people's party?

that it is the politician's party?

[mousie]

27. excellent post!!

[Wilms]

28. Seriously. n/y

[AuntiBush]

29. Our Dems are Powerless because of Stolen Elections & $$$ Fraud

We need to support them. How would you feel up there on the front lines, with doors slammed in your face, 900 pages handed to you with an hour or so before having to vote on these issues... being laughed at, kept from everything (the most secretive govt ever in our history). Come one folks. I know it's frustrating. God knows I've lamented a few times myself, but we're all only human here, and so are our Dem leaders.

Are you quitters? Hell no. If you quit on the Dems, the NEO-CONS win. Get it!?!

Didn't anyone look into Durban's eyes as he tried to question Alito? The eyes were very telling.

Granted, I'm thankful for DU - a place I can rant and rave, whenever I feel the need to. And we can vote against Dems we feel are Dinos, whatever, but right now we have to stand together.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED... Well, WE'RE GONNA FALL.

[bvar22]

30. Help!! I've already fallen, and I can't get up!

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Catrina]

96. I would feel like Rep. Conyers, and I, like him, would do something

about it. Then I would expect my Democratic colleagues, like Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Zell Miller, to UNITE WITH ME to wipe the smirk off the faces of those who would dare to take away MY right to represent the people who elected me, not the corporations represented by the likes of Jack Abramoff and his corrupt and crimianl ilk.

And if I lost my job over it, I would not care. I've done that already, standing up for what I believed to be right, so why can't they?

It is their fear that the Republicans use. Their fear of losing their precious careers. Rep. Conyers did not get one word of support from the top Democrats in his party.

As for signing the Patriot Act, well, I forgive for that, since they were anthraxed when Sen. Daschle questioned it. But the 9/11 spell has worn off and Bush is politically wounded, yet they've done nothing. It's time to start calling for investigations into all that happened back then. Yet, only Rep. Conyers, Sen. Byrd and now today, thank god at last, Al Gore, have consistently spoken out against the crimes of this administration.

The country IS in a Constitutional Crisis, as Al Gore said, possibly more so than ever before.

Silence is no longer an option on the part of the Democratic leadership. We will know whether they are true democrats now, by their actions from this point on.

I will wait to see who gets behind Al Gore and who doesn't. That will be their final test. I am sick and tired of being represented by weak Democrats who ARE laughed at, and taken advantage of NO MATTER HOW they cowtow to the rabid, fascist rightwing. For their country's sake, they need to get some courage. Others have paved the way for them. There is no more excuse for their collaboration with the enemies of this country's Constitution. They either stand up or get out of the way. The country is no longer divided. The majority of the American people are opposed now to this administration. So, what are they waiting for?

Final note: I wish the speech delivered by Gore today, had come from one of those planning to run for president, but sadly, it did not. It was long overdue, Gore no doubt realized that someone had to take action, and there was no point in waiting any longer for the 'Democratic leadership' to do it.

[Mme. Defarge]

31. and I would add ...

If you are not willing to publicly name and condemn Republican lies, conflicts of interest and crimes, go find another party.

If you are not willing to defend the legitimate election of your own party's candidates, go find another party.

[Southsideirish]

32. Brilliant! You are my new # 1 poster!! How can we get the "big shits"

to read it??? Hire a sky writer?

[mopinko]

33. rahm? are you listening rahm?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2367394

[stillrockin]

34. I love toddaa!

n/t

[Marleyb]

36. Whose Party? OUR party!

Thank you!
:toast:

[democrank]

37. Bravo, toddaa!

I love plain talk. Bet you did this without hiring a consultant. Good for you.

[Coexist]

38. I agree...

there needs to be a divorce - we just need to decide who gets the 'house'.

[Fovea]

39. 100% absolutely correct.

And I am completely past donating to DINOs who work in the interest of corporations and the hyper rich.

what little I can spare will only go to real progressives from here on in.

[PassingFair]

40. K & R to the Nth degree!

People, get ye to a DFA, PDA, or MoveOn group A.S.A.P.
The only way to get truth tellers into office is to
force office holders to tell the truth.
Or vote OUT the dead weight.
We need to send a message to the Feinsteins, Liebermans and Nelsons of the party that
we will not tolerate a virtual one-party system.

There needs to be a clear reasons (JOBS, PERSONAL responsibility) why people should
vote for democrats.

[Burried News]

41. Every point is spot on. Nominated. nt

[nicknameless]

42. Thank you!

[kliljedahl]

43. Another Kick & Recommend

Excellent post. It begins by shedding the DLC, corporatist shills to the Nth degree. They are not for the people, they are for the money and getting re-elected.



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Steve A Play]

44. We can and WILL take you out!

Awesome post!

K&R

Steven P. :kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. Well said! n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

46. I like it

Something that all citizen's should be into.

[AgadorSparticus]

50. best damn post!!!!

K & N

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Steve A Play]

56. Whine at us in the D.U.?

It seems that you're the one on this thread doing the 'whining'. :cry: :rofl:

What is it about the OP that bothers you exactly? Could it be the 65 recommendations for the "Greatest" page (at the time of this post) and the fact that this thread is showing up on other Democratic and Progressive boards and spreading?

We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.

By the way, I've been active in politics for the last 30 years and have been a full time voting rights activist for the past three. I've been in closed door meetings with members of my Secretary of State's office, the Voting Systems & Procedures Panel, (before it was disbanded) my State's Attorney's Office, and my State's Technologist's office. I was there when Dr. Herbert Thompson demonstrated the 'hack' method that resulted in Kevin Shelley de-certifying the Diebold TSx machines in my state. I've met in public meetings with Barbara Boxer, Anna Eshoo, Leon Panetta, and dozens of other State and Federal representatives over the years. I work as a poll watcher in my local county and have been active in over a dozen campaigns.

So tell us all, what do you do besides sit here whining at us here on the D.U.? Looks like you're in the distinct minority around here. :)

BTW, thanks for the kick! :hi:

Steven P. :kick:

[autorank]

61. You're wrong. Here's why.

There are THOUSANDS of members of Democratic Underground who actively work in campaigns doing everything from phone banking to "drive and drag" to higher level functions in campaigns. There are also campaign managers and advisers here.

Why do you paint this forum with a broad brush?

Have you done a survey in order to say: "All you 10,000 post D.U.ers do is sit on your asses and type trite little whines into D.U. forums, alternatively pretending to speak for the grassroots instead of the far left fringe, and advocating voting Green, Peace&Freedom..." You know CD, some sit some stand some do it driving down the road (as passengers). So what! They also walk the walk by working in campaigns.

If you think elected officials are not interested, then how you explain my access to elected officials. I'm an active DUer and I've worked in campaigns and I can talk to those elected officials I choose, either in person or writing.

You know a majority of voters favor most of the views on this board:
out of Iraq real soon,
Bush lied about WMD,
Bush doesn't give a damn about the people,
get a real Medicare drug program instead of this fake,
make drugs available to all through a third party program that negotiates the same discounts that the Veterans Administration got,
maintain civil rights gains and enforce the laws,
don't make the whole damn country sick through gross neglect of the earth and the air we breathe,
etc.,
etc.

We must be doing something right for you to show up.

[podnoi]

71. Many DU'rs are involved activists

I would be willing to bet that the percentage of active Democrats on this board is quite high (This Democrat is involved). If you are this fed up and paying this much attention you are likely ticked enough to be helping out in some practical way. It would behoove Leadership to pay attention to forums like this.

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. I would bet it is extraordinarily high.

The information I get here challenges me to act, inspires me to act, leads me to opportunities to act... I can't imagine participating at DU and not getting off your behind and doing something.

[Pacifist Patriot]

83. It's called projection.

Idiots who spend every waking hour culling the internet for a life assume the rest of us who use it as a communication tool do the same. Shocking that so many of us can communicate with one another here while working our asses off in a myriad of ways in the real world, isn't it?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

103. most americans do indeed embrace liberal values and policies

regardless of how many people seem to swallow the gop's media lies to the contrary. an example: most americans are pro-choice, which makes you wonder why a regular guy like bush keeps nominating anti-choice judicial activists to the supreme court.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

[donco6]

53. So you're writing the platform now?

Where did you have this debated? Not saying I disagree, just seems strange that you would unilaterally try to define Democraticism.

To each his own, I guess.

[lostinacause]

55. I agree. Too many people seem to believe that they can speak for other

people. Furthermore a restricted issues base will prevent improvement and advancement of the ideology, which is as far as I'm concerned a reasonable mix of growth and equality based economic policies leaning more to equality. Socially the typical democrat is "morally permissive" and works to protect minorities from the abuse of the majorities. To much focus has been placed on the institutions rather then working to develop and accomplish these goals.

[Steve A Play]

58. So what exactly in the OP do you NOT agree with?

:shrug:

[lostinacause]

106. I'm likely going to be flamed for this but here goes:

"If you do not support ending the madness in Iraq, go find another party."

The major problem with "ending the madness" is that it sends a very bad signal to the rest of the world; All it takes is enough deaths of American soldiers to get the American people to leave the country. In all likelihood America will either choose or have to do more actions in the Middle East. In the long run I believe that leaving will have a greater cost both financially and in lives. I also don't believe that Iraq is sufficiently stable. The last thing that we want is another person like Saddam in power.

"If you do not support impeaching a president who has violated the U.S. Constitution, go find another party."

I don't believe that this is possible given the current environment. If it is possible it would be better from a strategic standpoint to use it against the Republicans as a whole.

"If you do not support a national health care plan that insures everyone, go find another party."

A national health care plan may increase to total cost of health care if not done properly. My belief is that it is more important to bring the costs of health care down to a reasonable level first. Also national programs tend to run less efficiency. This type of thing is best instigated though individual states.

"If you do not support a progressive revenue plan that taxes corporate wealth instead of personal income, go find another party."

High taxes on corporations in a global economy give companies a comparative disadvantage against other nations. Americans already have to compete with labor at a much lower cost. Taxes have to be set taking the loss of jobs into effect. A graduated income tax may serve as a better method for pursuing equality at a low cost. I believe, though this would be very difficult to implement, that companies which impose external costs on society should be held responsible for the damages in the form of a tax on pollution. Better wealth generating mechanism directed at low income earners would also be beneficial.

"If you do not support a clean and renewable energy plan that favors the environment over the needs of the corporate elite, go find another party."

There is a very good economic model, which to the best of my knowledge has not been published yet (Yet it is being taught at institutions such as Harvard). This model basically says that pollution tends to decrease even with constant levels of pollution abatement. In fact the rate of growth of all pollutants has declined as a function of GDP. The real growth rate of pollutants is also declining (growing by a decreasing amount). The amount of some pollutants being emitted is also declining in real terms. Staying the course may be an appropriate given the desirability of some of these trends.

As you can tell my goals are not much different then the goals that most people here have. Does that mean that our values are necessarily that different? You would likely find that it is in the goals that individuals similar not the institutions that attempt to accomplish them.

[noiretextatique]

108. "staying the course"

seems to sum your point of view. the last paragraph about pollution is classic, btw.

[lostinacause]

117. To adequately describe the situation I would have to have gone into quite

bit of detail. The model I was referring to is a yet to be published NEB working paper, but as I have previously mentioned it is already being taught by many of the better institutions. It is a method of explaining the phenomenon of Environmental Kuznets Curves (http://www.abetterearth.org/article.php/892.html) in the context of macroeconomic growth. Given the complexities of this model I am not going to get into the specifics. Keep in mind that most of development and testing of methods for efficient pollution reduction (Tradable emission permits) has taken place in the US. Furthermore America’s spending on pollution abatement is among the top of developed countries. If abatements patterns stay as they traditionally have emission intensities will continue to go down and so for the most part will the emission levels.

If you can’t see the difference between what is currently happening and the rest of what I have said perhaps you should reread what I have written. If you still don’t see the difference, reread it once more and then ask questions. I would be happy to go into more detail as necessary.

[noiretextatique]

118. i don't see what any of this has to do with renewable energy

and even in the article you cited, the authors mention this:

"Whether environmental quality improvements materialize or not, when, and how, depend critically on government policies, social institutions, and the completeness and functioning of markets."

so, what's your problem with renewable energy as a government policy? i don't anyone could possibly argue that we will see environmental quality improvements with this administration's policies...quite the opposite, i would think, given its allegiance to the corporate sector.

[lostinacause]

119. Regarding the quote in the article; it was just for information on the

concept of EKCs. The Green Solow model, the one that I was referring to, explains that the level of abatement has remained fairly constant and yet we are still seeing decreases in pollution intensities and overall emissions. The reasons for these changes are technology and environmental policy that keeps the total resources devoted to abatement fairly similar. (The model is very complicated and as far as I know not avaliable to the public at this point since it has not been published.)

There are two reasons that one would desire a strong sustainability policy, economic and environmental. There is little economic justification except for high potential research grants and when the technology is feasible the proper infrastructure. The environmental arguments for the necessity of this is also weak given that the desired result is already happening and can be achieved more efficiently through other means.

[donco6]

115. The OP would say you are not a Dem.

I personally feel there is room for disagreement on these issues, as so aptly illustrated by your post.

[ScreamingMeemie]

105. There is nothing wrong with demanding Democracy.

Nothing whatsoever. I don't see this as unilateral. I see this as truths...being held as self evident.

[donco6]

113. I don't.

See them as self-evident, I mean. That category is already reserved.

And if we're going to have a single person start defining democracy, then we're all fucked.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. changing the Democratic Party from within

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not their ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to the long-term agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.
______________________________

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

[alittlelark]

57. I got a call from the Dem Nat fundraisers today....

I told them I will only give to candidates that are running on 'election reform' platforms. The big$$$ I used to give to them will instead go to individuals who can see that it's not worth painting the house while it's burning down.

I will not reduce my $$$ , but I will make sure it goes only to candidates that have thrown down the paintbrushes, and are picking up the FIREHOSES.

[stevietheman]

59. Those sound like good marching orders to me!

Soldier on, Democrats and Progressives! Fight fight fight!

[autorank]

60. Well, you're on my buddy list. This is a classic.

It doesn't get much better than this.

Why be a Democrat if you don't believe in the positions that benefit it's members.

We're not the Chamber of Commerce or the Congressional Country Club. We're Americans
who are working their asses off to maintain a disintegrating life style. We're fed up
with the bullshit we hear about out sourcing, failure to let Medicare negotiate with drug
makers, wars without reason or end, etc. etc.

We want action!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RECOMMENDED

[man4allcats]

62. Great Post!

Recommended!:thumbsup:

[Nutmegger]

64. Good post, I agree. n-t

K&R!!!!!!

:kick:

[radio4progressives]

66. K&R & BK'd Great Post! This is going around all the "internets"

someone linked this post at the pi forum and i'm really glad that happened.. heard it's on other forums too. Excellent! If you don't mind, i'd like to print and fax to DiFi (my Senator) and read it to her staffers. might try it out to a few others as well, if that's cool with the author..

:applause: :yourock: :applause:

[Justice Is Comin]

67. They're on their

last hourglass of sand with me this year. If they don't want to start a civil war over elections which are as rigged as those in Saddams' Iraq, they damn sure better do it over this laundry list of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree felonies plus treason. As clearly committed as if they found a check written to Bush from Bin Laden.

My avatar means something to me and Goddammit, it better start meaning something to them. Or my anger will be well represented right after Halloween.

[rucky]

68. Kicking, Recommending, Cutting, Pasting, Sending nt

[file83]

69. Either they should find another a party, or find another country.

[lamp_shade]

70. Kick

[Skidmore]

72. Can we turn this into a checklist or a questionnaire and send it

to candidates to complete and somehow make their answers known to the community? What organization could do this sort of thing? PDA? MoveOn?

[kiteinthewind]

73. DAMN!!! You got it!!!

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

74. Yeah! Just get the fuck out and stay out!

[Boo_Radley]

75. Great post, but . . .

. . . is it wise to alienate swing voters? The Republicans and their RINO garbage, attacking everyone who isn't a far right extremist, managed to drive out a lot of moderates or swing voters, and it's going to end up costing them their majority. Now, when Republicans do that, it's a GOOD thing, but would it be a good thing for Democrats to do it?

Other than that, you're right on the mark by my measure, but they can't build a majority, which they need in order to do things like vote down Alito, if they don't own the middle ground. That's not the way it should be, but it's the way it is.

I'm all for keeping (or getting, as the case may be) the party honest, but if we're too harsh and demand too much, we'll end up with another 8 years of creeping fascism as the Republicans hold majority power. Let them alienate the middle ground so we can gain it. But should we turn around and make the same tactical mistake?

You may not like the swing voters, but you need them. It's all about compromise and consensus building.

[lonestarnot]

76. ah blah blah blah Don't want people in the party that think is ok to

tape phone calls w/o court giving consent, or it's ok to go to war based on lies so they can line their pockets.

[Boo_Radley]

77. Of course not.

I'm just worried that we're going to end up leaving the Reign of Error in power if we don't accept that we have to compromise to get a majority.

[lonestarnot]

78. There are just some things that can't be compromised for anyone

like the CONSTITUTION!

[trotsky]

89. OK, so what are the "safe" stands you think Democrats should take?

Please elaborate.

[Boo_Radley]

91. All the same. I'm talking about presentation

I mean, I don't think it's a good idea to start bashing moderates. The Republicans went on a jihad against moderate voters and politic ans, calling them RINO, and anyone who doesn't support the most extreme policy, they insist are traitor commie America hating terrorists. That's going to hurt them in the long run, because they appear to be too fringe for the political middle of America. It's more the rhetoric than the policy, because people vote for image, and I think it's going to have a long term negative effect on their party. Now, if I'm right, that's great. I'm just worried that some Democrats, rightfully frustrated and angry, may end up doing the same thing.

I'm as pissed as anyone that the Democratic leadership let the BA attack Iraq, particularly without UN approval, let the Patriot Act pass, extended it, approved Roberts, and will soon approve Alito, and haven't managed to bring an impeachment or criminal proceedings for torture, war profiteering, or for any of the other criminal actions that have happened under this administration.

Maybe I'm just being neurotic, but I kind of sense a creeping angst among some progressive voters that, if it's voiced with too much passion, could end up eliminating the karma benefit the DNC should get after eight years of hysterical ranting and criminal policy from the Republicans. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to appease the squeamish middle, but in this world, it's the only way to build a majority, and without a majority, we continue to see Republicans destroy everything that's good about America.

[trotsky]

95. So answer my question.

What stands can the Democratic Party take that will "appease the squeamish middle"?

Bonus points for explaining how these stands differ substantially from what the Republican Party is selling.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. What is going to "alienate swing voters" about defending the Constitution?

:shrug:

[zippy890]

79. great post

and a big kick:dem:

[myrna minx]

80. Damn. That was a wonderful read. n/t

[lamp_shade]

81. ...

[bread_and_roses]

82. I'm sending this to Hillary and Schumer

Concise and to the point. K & R.

[Cults4Bush]

87. That makes 2 of us!

I expect Ill hear back from Hil in about 4 months if at all, her replies
rarely match up with any specific content or questions in my queries.

[PleadTheFirst]

84. Brilliant. Nominated!

[DiverDave]

86. Saved and printed

I think I my stroll over to the local Democratic party office with it.

[Kablooie]

88. God YES!

but I don't think it will have any effect.
The Democrats seem as bad as the Republicans when it comes to doing their job.

I'm probably going to leave the party soon.

I'm embarrassed being associated with such ineffectual nobodys.

[Petreader]

94. Ineffectual nobodies

I find the majority of Dems as bad as the Rethugs. They like the perks of the job, but ultimately do nothing to help their constituents.

[Steve A Play]

90. WOW! Looks like this is spreading!

I just got an e-mail from a friend with a link to www.democrats.com and this thread is listed there in their forums! (Front page, right hand side under the poll)

Way to go toddaa! :toast:

Steven P. :kick:

[msongs]

97. people who stand for nothing will fall for anything, Sen. Feinstein nt

[Steve A Play]

99. She would know

She relies on it to keep getting re-elected!

Steven P. :kick:

[LeftHander]

92. A Big KeBANG! Kick....

Excellent compilation.

[cascadiance]

93. We need to build a "counter-DLC" organization instead of just the Dems...

The DLC has earlier "coopted" the Democratic Party and it's priorities from us with corporate money they've solicited.

If we give money to the Democratic Party any more, it goes down a rathole compared to what the DLC gives, and we have no "strings attached" to our money that affects policy.

In an ideal world, we don't have special interests affecting elections, and we have "clean elections" laws keeping it out altogether, which would limit the power of what corrupts the DLC and other similar organizations. But we don't have that yet, so we need to exercise more power as a united "special interest" to fight this. We need to have a new organization that takes NO corporate donation money, and is completely Democratic in how it structures its goals to affect change. Some would say these already exist with the Democracy For America, Progressive Democrats, Moveon.org, etc. But we need to unite these together to give them more power so they aren't "splintered" like they are now, when they are up against the DLC.

We need to tell the "Sure Thing" Democrats, as Charles Goyette would call them, that have been giving to the Democratic Party while biting their lip that they need to now STOP giving ANY money to the Democratic Party and give to this other organization instead, that will lobby the party the way the DLC does now. It will be a war of lobbyists. If that's what they want then THAT's what they'll get. They will need to listen to our criteria now for big blocks of money to come to them through the same sorts of means that the DLC gave money.

This new organization will tell the Democrats that unless you start putting back core Democratic ideals into real goals of the Democratic Party, we won't be supporting the Democratic Party any more, and will look to a new party to build up. This way, if we donate to this new organization, it will either (hopefully) force the Democratic Party's hand if they want to survive to either come over to being traditional Democrats, or be relegated to being a "Republican lite" party that will die without traditional Democratic Party member support. The new party if we have to go to that, will have core "traditional" Democratic Party values at its core, but will listen to other moderate *voices* that want to be a part of it. But it will NOT listen to corporate money that tries to call itself "moderate voter influence" like the DLC did when it coopted the Democratic Party.

In effect this is a war on the DLC. Tell the Democratic Party through this sort of action that it needs to decide to either throw out the DLC's influence and accept our influence instead, or that we will create a new party that keeps the DLC out from the get go. I'm tempted to go to our local Dem group and start selling this idea to our members that at some point we stop calling ourselves a "Democratic Group" and we align ourselves instead with this newer organization.

Perhaps somehow we could merge the Moveon.org, Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats organization into forming this group. I don't want to take away from diversity of ideas of these varoius groups, but we need to build a "counter-DLC" that has enough clout to basically push DLC types out of the party we ultimately vote for, and hopefully where our decent politicians will eventually wind up in without "baggage"

[longship]

101. Nominated and kicked

:kick:ed

[Clara T]

102. kick for info

[ScreamingMeemie]

104. Well done! Great job!

:thumbsup:

[AgadorSparticus]

107. kick ass post!!

kicked!

[hiaasenrocks]

109. I understand your outrage and passion, but....

the last thing this party needs is to start telling people to leave if they don't subscribe to an issues-bases loyalty oath. You know who does that? The Repugs do it. That's why they lost Jim Jeffords a few years ago. That's why they repeatedly trash people like Specter and McCain. It's petty infighting that could cost them control of leadership in the Congress. AGAIN! Rather than recognizing the 90% agreement they have, they're willing to destroy everything else for that 10%. It's insane. Let's not follow their lead.

[HughBeaumont]

111. OUR issues protect EVERYDAY PEOPLE.

Everyday people that the Pukes pretend to care about, but piss on without fail.

THEIR issues protect corporations, business as usual, politics as usual, and pluto-theocracy uber alles.

THAT's the difference.

Standing up for the little people and their rights has absolutely NOTHING in common with what Repukes do as far as "issues-based loyalty" goes.

[hiaasenrocks]

112. I was referring to the

"go find another party" part of it. Obviously I was not comparing the issues themselves, as I said nothing about those issues.

My point is that if you agree with someone on a large majority of issues, you are better off having them in your party, so you can win elections and then work on implementing your entire agenda. The alternative is to jettison people who don't agree 100%, see your party diminish in numbers, stand on principle...and run a huge risk of losing elections and getting none of your ideas implemented. Then what?

And, of course, this "go find another party" can work both ways. The people with whom you disagree could very well feel that they "own" the party and tell you to leave. Then all you have is a party of internal bickering.

I don't want any of that. I want to win elections with the help of people who agree with me the vast majority of the time and we can work on the few remaining differences in the meantime. Telling them to get lost is, well, potentially fatal, in my opinion.

My opinion is that that's not the best way to run a party.

EDIT: formatting

[donco6]

116. I agree.

These types of posts are worse than worthless, IMO. They play to the lockstep instinct that seems to be so easily drawn out in all of us.

[Steve A Play]

123. Then why do you keep making them?

Oh, I just realized you were referring to everyone else here on this thread. Now you know how everyone else feels when reading posts like yours! Your entitled to your opinion as we all are ours. :)

[donco6]

124. Hyuck! You made a funny!

Too bad the post is long dead. Oh well.

[HughBeaumont]

110. K & R, damn it!

DINOs and appeasers can get the hell out. This administration is criminal, the Presidope is a bumbling idiot that makes Reagan seem like a genius, he's not in charge and THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! FUCK this appeasement shit.

[truebrit71]

114. Nice one!!!

I agree...time to get some DEMOCRATS back into office....

[ZombieGak]

120. This Is Why We Need a MULTIPLE PARTY System.....

But Dems would rather see voting rates between 36-52% and game an anti-democratic political system than ever push for reforms that open up the process to other parties that could give the Dems some competition.

Anyone wonder how many vote Democratic just because they are the lesser of the evils?

[Deja Q]

121. Okay, you've told them. What if they want to stay anyway?

I won't vote for them.

I may not vote at all.

(I am not attacking you and I nominated your post. The Dems are fairly spineless as far as I'm concerned and like I said yesterday regarding Hillary needing to respond to the "out of line" comment the WH made, she's got to respond or else we truly know where the Dems stand on everthing... and I shall soon check to see if she responded.)

[NoPasaran]

122. It's my party and I'll cry if I wanna

Cry if I wanna
Cry if I wanna
You would cry too
If it happened to you!