Liberals and Progressives Are Not Welcomed in the Democratic Party

[Yavin4]

That's just the simple truth. This does not mean that there are NO Liberals and/or Progressives in the Democratic party. It's just that the Democratic leadership does not reflect our views nor our values. They don't believe in the same causes as we do, and that's why they don't fight back.

The Democratic leadership wants the party to be a "centrist" party which means that they will always seek compromise on EVERY issue. The Democratic philosophy allows the Republicans to go a far right as they can knowing all along that the Democrats will compromise with them rather than fight them.

Does this mean that Liberals/Progressives should abandon the Democratic party entirely? No. I vote based on how it will affect people without any power whatsoever, and if a vote for the Democrats means that a little old lady in Milwaukee, Wisconsin gets her meds, then it's worth voting for them, in the short run.

In the long run, Liberals and Progressives must form their own political power, and no, the Green party is not it. Liberals and Progressives must do the hard work of building a political party among the working class of America, not just the college towns of America.

[Tace]

1. The Dems Are Sucking The Same Corporate Tit As The Pubs

I've come to the same conclusion as you. However, I don't see it happening in the United States of America. I'm seeing another nation built on the foundation of what used to be the USA.

[AZBlue]

51. They are politicians. They run for election.

And, until we clean up the election process, it's unfortunately the only way to get elected.

[displacedtexan]

2. What if we had a free press?

Would you still feel the same way?

I think we'd all feel a lot better about the work many brave Dems are doing to make people's lives a bit easier.

[BL611]

3. Not to sound rude

but your line of thinking seems far more acquainted to college towns than among the working class...

[liveoaktx]

5. Not to sound rude but his or her comments speak to me and

I'm in rural america.

[jwirr]

28. What rural America? So am I and we are very Democrat &

very Liberal. I think that much of what is done fails to reach the ears of the people because of the media bias. They are going to have a lot to answer for if we ever get democracy back on the road.

[Yavin4]

9. The Democrats Got Out of The Business of Representing the Working Class

when Clinton got passage of NAFTA. They don't even want to know the working class. The DLC strategy is to pin their hopes on their beloved "swing" voter. The suburban soccer mom who is more concerned with violent video games than the lack of national health care.

[BL611]

20. NAFTA

is not my favorite bill in the world, but it has been way over hyped as a cause of job loss (try CHINA, which has nothing to do with NAFTA). In fact much of the reason why Democrats have had to depend more on corporate donors is because of the decline of unions, which is in no small part due to the labor movements narrow minded focus on things like NAFTA instead of restructuring itself to face the changing realities of the economy (i.e. organizing the service sector, pushing for wage insurance, trying to strengthen the international labor movement, etc.). Quite honestly I believe the "progressive" movement has failed the democrats, at least as much as the other way around...

[samhsarah]

23. True that.

Why not just call a spade a spade. They aren't the Democratic Party. They are the "Swing Voter" party.

[Armstead]

10. I think the lack of clarity is exactly why so many working class...

...people are estranged from the Democratic Party.

Liberalism is still mainstream. It just needs a political voice again. Truly liberal and progresive poliies would resonate with the working class and middle class, if they were ever presented honestly and clearly.

[leftchick]

13. wrong

her line of thinking is spot on with this forty something middleclass working mother of two.

[Warpy]

16. Not to sound rude

but I'm solidly working class and I'm over 50 and those comments sound right on the money to me.

[Warpy]

4. That's really what the grassroots DFA is all about

Dean is a smart man who knows the party has just about destroyed itself by ignoring its base and whoring after corporate contributions while appeasing the far right instead of taking care of its own base.

The party has always changed from the outside in and from the grassroots up. Check out party history and you see that periodically they allow a bunch of hidebound conservatives to take over the leadership and screw the party up enough to keep it out of power for a few decades.

The DLC are just a bad stink passing through. Their time is about up.

[MadHound]

6. Trouble is that the centerist Dems like Hillary

Are taking away that little old lady in Milwaukee's meds. Welcome to the two party/same corporate master system of government, and yes, liberals and progressives aren't welcome in this party anymore, except for their money and their vote.

And if you continue to enable this party with your vote, if you aren't going to hold the bastards to acount, how can you expect them to change?

Sorry, but after thirty plus years of working hard for the Dems, putting in blood, sweat and tears, and all the while becoming ever more marginalized within the party, I've had it. I'm not going to continue to enable this two party/same corporate master system of government. The Greens may be small, but they fight for what's right, and I'd rather go down swinging. Besides, I think that if there's no filibuster, the Greens are going to be getting a lot bigger.

[QC]

7. The problem is that the party leadership is rich.

Filthy rich, to be more precise. Therefore their interests are, by definition, opposed to those of the vast majority of the party's rank and file members. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for the likes of Robert Rubin or, yes, John Kerry to advocate sharply redistributionist tax policies, debt forgiveness, an end to job exportation, etc.

You're absolutely right: it's time for a working-class party. Our interests are not served by having to choose between two aristocrats every four years.

[earth mom]

35. Spot on. eom

[samhsarah]

8. Why not just call it the "Progressive Party"?

I would join it. In a heartbeat. I'm done with this shit.

[Dr Fate]

11. Wrong- they welcome your money & volunteer time, just not your advice.

For advice, they look to "swing-voters" and their faked media-driven perceptions.

[Coexist]

14. that is SO how I feel today

I am not a swing-voter, so they assume my vote is sewn up.
It doesn't feel good.

[Dr Fate]

18. Well, become one and then maybe they will listen?

I dont know if that is the answer or not.

I would prefer they filibuster in effort to uunify the base rather than ignore us once again.

[Coexist]

21. Sad thing is - I truly thought they would do it (the filibuster)

A tiny part of me is hoping I am wrong - and I will gladly eat crow.

SCOTUS is such a big issue for me. This is what I let all the other stuff go for.

But please don't advocate moving to a 3rd party - the police are out today and I am tired of that discussion (with them, not you). I don't know what to do. I am weary of being let down.

The parody "I am leaving the party" threads just aren't funny, or irritating today. They are just stupid.

[Yavin4]

24. I'm Not Fully Advocating Leaving the Party

What I said was that in the short-run, 2006 and 2008, I will still vote for Dems, but in the long run, Liberals and Progressives will have to form their own political party.

[Coexist]

25. I know - its just that emotions are high and I am already sick

of the silliness. Not you, your post was great. Just the idiocy that didn't take long to set in.

[liveoaktx]

26. I'm with you-I'm still waiting to see if the Dems will filibuster and

will watch till the bitter end. But I also believe that I have no representation in this government. My senators are Republican (cornyn and hutchison). My congressman is a blue-dog Dem (Edwards) who has voted for the patriot act, for war, and for the DOMA.

The talking heads say all the time how their consituents want "red meat" to fire them up. Well, so do I. I want some red meat in the form of the Dems fighting back.

Here in Texas a few years back a bunch of state Democrats who didn't want to be railroaded by Tom DeLay and the republicans into redistricting left the state to prevent a vote. They ended up losing but they are HEROES. We call them the "Killer D's".

EVEN if the Dems are going to lose, they could make a stand.

[Coexist]

27. I love your "Killer D's"

Let's hope our Senate Leaders are willing to take one for the team - lose if you have to, but go down fighting.

The people who wouldn't vote for them because they are "obstructionists" over the slime that is the Republican party today - they never would have voted for them anyway.

[Radical Activist]

12. True. That's why they push moderate Dems even in liberal districts.

Its not about electability. When they start pushing moderates in areas where a socialist could hold office, then you have to accept that they are fighting against any liberal running for office.

Liberals have to fight for control of the party. Taking back the Democratic Party is probably a lot easier than making a successful third one.

[cascadiance]

37. I still think we need to have a strong group that is a "counter-DLC" org.

If we could merge the various other splinter groups like the Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America, Moveon.org into one organization that we feel collectively looks out for and can be an advocate for the progressive point of view, I move that we put all of our money in such an organization so that they could wield as much or more clout that the DLC does in pushing the Democratic Party's agenda in a certain direction. If we put our money in that organization INSTEAD of the Democratic Party directly, we will have a lot more clout to be heard from than the way it is now with the DLC pushing the leadership around. That way we don't have to cross the barrier of completely starting a new party or building up the Greens, etc. We can put an ultimatum to the Democratic Party that they need to either divorce themselves from the DLC anti-Democratic agenda, or we will put our money into another party. Point out to them that it would serve both the Democratic Party's and our collective wishes better if we work together (and in the process throw out the DLC) to counteract the Republican machine rather than us splitting off to form a new party, but that we've gotten to the point that we cannot accept being part of a losing Republican Party Lite that the Democratic Party has become with the DLC calling the shots any more.

I'm wondering if we could get the Progressive Democrats, Democracy for America, and Moveon.org (and other groups that might want to join in) to try and merge together, and what legal barriers there would be to doing that with campaign finance laws, etc. Certainly want to do everything above board and not have a TRMPAC or Abramoff style of money laundering going on, but I think we need to use today's system more effectively if we're going to regain power, before we can put in truly progressive campaign finance reform like public financing, etc.

[Radical Activist]

39. That's what PDA was founded to do.

Their mission is exactly what you're describing. Why not make it that umbrella group and invest the resources to make it more than a splinter group?

[cascadiance]

49. I see that the various groups PDA, DFA, Moveon.org all have good parts...

... to them that I don't want to lose. That's why it's troubling that we have "splintered" voices from them that cannot unite as effectively to force the Democratic Party's hand as well as the DLC can. If we can get them to work together and speak with one voice and one set of dollars, and hopefully in a very decent way to represent all of our wishes effectively, that would be the way to shut down the DLC influence.

If the Democratic Party is now told the following, perhaps it could make a difference:

"Now we, <new Progressive Organization>, control the money from progressive voters that want representation for their views. No longer are these folks donating to you, and they've empowered us to speak for their wishes and either hold back money (that you've been used to getting directly from them) from you or giving the money to you. We will only give this money to you if you do <blah> now. If the DLC says no, then tough beans! You have to decide which organization is more important to your future, because the money isn't going to come unless we get heard and have it translated into actions we want to see happen!" If you decide against us, we will look at the Green Party or other effective party that we will try to build to more adequately represent our members' wishes.

If this is what will happen, then perhaps we can loosen the grip of DLC on the Democratic Party. It would be interesting to see if Jim Dean were to head up this joint organization (as the now head of Democracy for America), how that would work with him talking to Howard Dean, his brother, who's now head of the DNC.

But I think we really need to consolidate our forces to have more clout. That's the message I'm trying to give here. How we can do that is something we can debate here. Hopefully we can find a good way to unite all of these organizations with each other so that they can each bring their strengths and good people to work together on fixing this system that has been failing us so much recently.

[Hestia]

44. Totally agree re: One Organization

I too have thinking about just One Organization -- with these trying economic times, I don't have the money to give to all of the organizations that I would like to. Why can't I give to one that will cover all the bases?

Or...have MoveOn.org, Progressive Democrats, After Downing Street, etc. pool their monies, rent a building/office on K Street, sharing rent and resources, utilities and One Address, where we can send our money for support? Make them a powerhouse on K Street. This would help us to help them. Pooling money and resources, they/us could hire our own lobbists. Vet voting from us as to how much money should be given to the Democrats. Board Members should come from out here in the US, rather than just DC. Make the Democrats come to us! It just can't be done right now with all the organizations spread out all over the country diluting what precious funds we do have.

Have Unions, NOW, Teachers, etc. under one umbrella (other than a political party) to hash out what the stands/stances should be and then WE get to vote on it, the Board would not have the final say.

In doing this, I cannot see any other way to get beyond the Corporation Monies being poured into DC.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. "political party among the working class of America"

The best Idea I've heard yet!

[lostnfound]

17. The power to influence is never given; only taken

I agree in general with what you are saying. I think Liberals/Progressives need to be strategic in identifying who is on our side in congress (i.e., the Progressive caucus, for starters), forming coalitions among grassroots groups, identifying specific races where we can replace a DINO with a Progressive Democrat, and working to increase the strength of those who are on our side in congress until they represent the majority of the D's in congress. There's currently sixty or so on the progressive caucus. How many more does there need to be, before they will control the party?

[LittleClarkie]

19. You're mistaking the DLC for the leadership

just because they have leadership in their name.

So, get your ass into a leadership position.

[Yavin4]

22. No, It's Not Just The DLC

It's the CONGRESSIONAL leadership of the Democrats who do not want Liberals/Progressives influencing their decisions.

In American politics, it's all about money. With money, you can hire pollsters, campaign staffers, and air time. To a politician, that's all that matters to them. They live in fear that their Republican opponent will get more money than them.

[no_more_rhyming]

32. You're Close

"They live in fear that their Republican opponent will get more money than them." Actually they live in fear the the Republicans will force them to spend it.

[sybylla]

29. Don't confuse the Dem Party with elected officials who call themselves Dem

They are two different things. Liberals and progressives are solidly in charge of the Democratic Party.

People who call themselves Dems but are clearly centrists are in charge of Liberal and Progressive politics in Washington

Support the party. Don't support the wolves in sheeps clothing trying to tear it down.

[jonnyblitz]

30. isn't that what the vilified Nader has been saying all along?

just saying..:shrug:

[samhsarah]

33. Nader should villified for what he did in 2000....

If not for him, there would be no election for Bush to steal. It would have been a landslide and we wouldn't be where we are now. There would be no Alito nom. because President Gore would have put up a candidate. I used to think Nader was a great guy, but a great guy would have taken one for the team and stepped aside.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. The votes that Nader got were available but Gore moved right.

Nader didn't "steal" anything, Gore (who I voted for) didn't go after the progressive votes that Nader got.

[samhsarah]

38. Point is he shouldn't have had to go after them.

Nader should have stepped aside. I didn't say he "stole" anything. He had a constitutional right to run, and I commend him for the moral stand he was trying to make. But it was the wrong time. And he knew it. I don't think he did it because he wanted Gore to lose, he was just not concerned with it at all and that bothers me. It bothers me even more, that after he saw what happened, he went and ran again in 2004. A true leader will put the best interests of the country as a WHOLE before his own moral imperatives. Look at where this country is now. It's a moral sewer. So what did Nader accomplish in the end?

[jonnyblitz]

57. but the OP is saying essentially what nader said..

is the point i tried to make. but people who freak out at the mere mention of nader's name never notice the point..they just go on an anti-nader rant

[samhsarah]

58. I get what you're saying...

But it's one thing to say it, to get pissed, to vent, another thing to aid, whether willfully or with best intentions, to aid in the sabotage of the Democratic presidential candidate's run for office when he is running against a full blown American Fascist.

31. what is wrong with the Green party

are you just interested in helping workers and poor people, what about the environment, and other Green issues?

[Skidmore]

40. Two words...

Ralph Nader. I won't support the Greens if there's any chance that they will drag that egocentric reprobate out of the woodwork again.

41. The Greens must have a hard time finding

leaders. I am not a big fan of Nader either. He is a good advocate, but not much of a leader IMO.

[samhsarah]

42. "And the President's laughing cause you voter for Nader"....

NOFX song.:headbang:

[Skidmore]

43. Ain't that the truth though?

[samhsarah]

45. Yup.

:eyes:

[bloom]

34. I think we need to take the party back

Molly Ivins recent column summed it up well - what most of us believe is actually the Majority view.

It's just not the Corporate view.

And it's the corporate view that gets validated in the media and supported by most of the lobbyists.

[sybylla]

46. The best way to take the party back is to become a dues paying member

Put your money where your mouth is.

It's the corporate view that gets validated by the centrist dems, too. Don't confuse them with the principles of the Democratic Party. The organization itself is very liberal and progressive. Unfortunately, the DLC is persuasive and pervasive. There is power in numbers and adding your name to the list is a start.

[cascadiance]

50. Read my post further up the page...

I think the problem with this approach is that if you donate to the party directly, then they take you for granted, which is why we are where we are now, where they are more apt to follow what the DLC wants them to do than what we want them to do. We need to unify our voices as part of a separate organization (NOT a party necessarily), that will hold back funding to them (and large amounts of funding!), until they stop just listening to the DLC and become a true Democratic Party again in its policies and agenda.

If the Dems DON'T fillibuster, that is when we should all unite and say NO MORE MONEY from us, until they stop letting the DLC tell them what to do. Another organization will help us do this. We need to build that other organization (not necessarily a whole party, but it could become a party if the Democratic Party chooses to stick with the DLC instead).

If the Dems DO fillibuster, I vote that we do follow your approach to all throw in tons of money to reward them for listening to their constituency instead of the DLC. But we need to make it clear that there is a price to be paid for listening to the DLC when their agenda is contrary to the true Democratic Party constituency's wishes.

[sybylla]

54. Who takes you for granted?

Party membership does not benefit the DNC financially. In my state the dues are minimal and all the money stays in the state. None of it goes to the DNC. In fact, DNC money comes to the state and local organizations to help local Dems. And this way you can have an influence on extricating your local pantywaist centrists.

Become a dues paying member, get involved in your local party organization. As the numbers build the DNC has increasing pull with the Dem representatives. Adding your progressive voice to theirs means that we may get to the point that we stop financially supporting the DLCers.

The Rude Pundit said a few days ago that for years these people (centrist dems) have been asking for our support because they are the only thing standing in the way of the pukes having their way with our country. If these centrist Dems don't think this is the time that they are supposed to take that stand, then we really have no need for them. We could have done no worse with a puke in their office.

I agree with Rude Pundit. These guys need to face the music. And at my next Dem convention, I intend to sing loudly and long. Join the party and join me in the choir.

[blindpig]

47. It would be the quickest way to turn the country around.

Party building takes time that we just don't have, things are so bad and getting worse. I would expect a nasty fight that could destroy the party. Though I hate to resort to such things I'm afraid a charismatic leader would be required for our side to win. Someone who could quickly rally the grassroots in such strength that resistance would be futile.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Walt Starr]

48. That's how the far right once felt about the GOP

They started withholding their votes. Took many years and several election cycles, but finally the GOP got the idea...

[truth2power]

52. I agree, Yavin. Even tho' I'm a registered Dem,

and have been for about 40 years, I don't feel any particular loyalty to the Democratic party, AS IT'S NOW STRUCTURED.

There's more I could say, but I'll just let it go at that.

[wixomblues]

53. The DNC just wants to win at all costs. And they imitate the winners

It's a shame that the winners are all Republicans. They win through consistency. Almost every Bush voter that I know voted for him because they knew where he stood, even if they didn't like it. They felt like Kerry was inconsistent and dishonest about his beliefs. There may be some merit to that, but what Democrats need to understand is that they will win by emulating the cohesive philosophy of the Republicans in form, not content. Republicans are all about large corporate profits, god, and military action. I'm even using nice words to describe them. So, if Democrats ignored these "groups", and supported religious freedom, efficient intelligence and espionage, and securing good manufacturing jobs and STRONG SUPPORT for small business(the backbone of our country and economy, as well sa myself), they would attract more votes. These are all reasonable platforms, and aren't races to the middle.

And while we're being honest here, the Republicans are loved by the small business community. They do encourage growth and their tax code gives us more money. However, they kill us by not safeguarding manufacturing jobs, which gives us less consumers and propel to buy our products. Especially in Michigan. But no party has been proactive about keeping jobs here and providing incentives for corporations to do so. If we could cut costs here, jobs wouldn't leave. Period. Let the government figure this out, but it's a very simple solution. Tax credits, incentives, ect....
You could strongarm a corp into keeping people, but forcing a corp to lose money is just ridiculous.

Whatever, neither party addresses the issue as a whole, and they don't work together, so, if someone wants to make a new party, count me in. I've voted green before.

[sybylla]

55. You're talking about the DLC not the DNC

It is a mistake of grave proportions to confuse the two.

The DNC is composed of grassroots Democrats and is a very liberal, progressive organization. It's power is derived solely from you and me as its members.

The DLC was founded by Clinton who managed to convince our thick-headed representatives that it was his centrist philosophies rather than his charisma that got him elected. These are the people who "imitate the winners." The DLC is essentially a lobbying organization that is an extention of corporate America and is composed solely of centrist Dems.

It is the DLCers who need to understand that they will not win by emulating the pukes.

Grassroots Democrats and the DNC do in fact ignore the "groups" you mentioned, they support religious freedom, efficient intelligence and espionage, securing good manufacturing jobs and are profuse in their strong support for the small business owner. You can read their platform online. Last year my state party platform and resolutions included wording that said essentially that.

The Democratic Party does address the exact issues you discuss. You don't need a new party, as some previous presidential candidates have led you to believe. The Democratic Party is waiting for you. They need your voice and your support if they are going to shout down the DLCer's and boot them out.

[cascadiance]

56. The key is that we need to attach conditions to our donations!

If we give directly to the Democratic Party, like many of us have been, then we're the "Sure Thing" that they rely on and think that they don't need to worry about in the case of making policy and other decisions, like whether we should strong arm Dems to fillibuster, etc. to get help from the Democratic Party. Right now, the DLC is the only "strong arm" that wields their influence and forces decisions their way. THAT is the factor that must change.

Now I know probably most here don't give any money to the DLC. But it is how we unite behind another organization and give money to it is the issue. I'd like to maximize what I can give to go to an organization that is as demanding as the DLC. The Democratic Party has shown that it hasn't worked for us giving to them. The DLC wins out in their priorities when making decisions. That is why we need to find another "funnel" organization that can wield more "centralized" clout as to what determines when the Democratic Party gets its money or not. And in the worst case, this organization can threaten forming a new party to put it's money in action instead if it feels that the Democratic Party isn't paying sufficient attention to it when comparing what it gets for its money versus the DLC.

That is why I think unless the Dems do a fillibuster, from this point forward, Dems should be VERY picky about who they give money to. Give only to organizations that have come out and publicly stated that it would be THEIR choice to have fillibustered Alito, and can show a track record where they've taken similar stances and acted on them to influence legislation.

Just say NO to "blank checks"! We can no longer allow the DLC to be buying off the Democratic Party and its politicians!

[sybylla]

59. I repeat, you're confusing the DLC with the DNC

The DNC is the party, a collection of grassroots activists led by Howard Dean. The DLC is an organization of centrist "Democratic" politicians seperate from the party that does wield a great deal of power because they are the favorites of corporations, but the two organizations are not interrelated nor interchangeable.

Giving money to the DNC or witholding it has no effect whatsoever on the DLC. The DLC exchanges no money with the DNC and therefore cannot "buy off" the party.

Threatening to form a new party is not only pointless but serves to devalue the work the DNC - the grassroots activist - are already doing. With Howard Dean's rise to the chairmanship, a large part of the party's money is going to building grassroots support and party building activities on the local level. Get involved in your party and you can work towards changing the minds of your centrist representatives.

I agree that Dems have to be very picky when it comes to giving money from here on out. Tell your centrist, DLC politicians "no" when they call for money or ask for volunteers to get the message across. Say no to the Democratic Senate and Congressional campaign committees. Give your money directly to Dems you believe in.

[cascadiance]

62. I spoke of the Democratic Party. I didn't mention the DNC at all!

Now with your sentence:

"The DNC is the party, a collection of grassroots activists led by Howard Dean."

Is the DNC or isn't it the Democratic Party? You seem to be sending a mixed message here. I always thought of the DNC as the policy making arm/organization of the Democratic Party. I DO understand that the DLC is an organization founded by the Clintons that swaps corporate donations for favors, etc. In my mind, they are beyond help. I've not donated to them, nor do I plan to. Nor do they probably need my money, for the kind of mission they are on.

I am speaking of the *Democratic Party*! The *Democratic Party* evidently is not exercising strong enough control over it's member politicians to keep away the corrupting influences of the DLC over it from happening. The DLC's money going tot the Democratic Party has strings attached. And strings that we all don't like such as not doing a fillibuster, etc.

Arguably those who have given to the party should be the ones listened to and not the DLC, but that HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING!

I'm saying that we should form another organization like the DLC in structure, but completely opposite to it in mission! It will seek to hold back any money from the Democratic Party (that we normally would have given through no strings attached donations) unless the Democratic Party stops primarily listening to the DLC and pushes them aside. If they do behave, then this new entity will give the money to the Democratic Party.

You might call it changing the way we donate money to the Democratic Party so that NOW there will be strings attached to get it, where we just gave money before. I'm saying we need to move to this kind of donations, because giving directly to the party makes them "take us for granted", because there's nothing we are actively doing to communicate that we won't give them money if they listen to the DLC. Therefore the DLC has had open season on steering the direction of the Democratic Party.

With a separate organization (or union of organizations like DFA, Moveon.org, and PDA) trying to unite more to build a lot of clout, that is the way to drag the Democratic Party (hopefully not kicking and screaming) to the place we want it to be outside the nasty clutches of the DLC.

By having this as an organization, and NOT a party, we're not trying to start yet another party (at least at the outset) but trying to reform the Democratic Party by forcing it's hand in a different way than we have been. By building up an organization like this, if we fail to get the Democratic Party to listen to us instead of the DLC, that is the time we seek to have our clout perhaps go to the Greens or yet another party where we start fresh without the DLC baggage. I would prefer to go the route of reforming the Democratic Party and keeping the good politicians that are in it that might be interested in switching over to public financing, etc., but we should allow for the possibility that the Democratic Party now is permanently disabled and needs to be left to die if we can't weed out the DLC.

I'm NOT wanting necessarily to take the party to the left, as the DLC will try to paint us as trying to do. I welcome both truly moderate voices and liberal voices. What I DON'T want is the corporatist views, which is what the DLC really is, not a voice of moderates.

[messiah]

60. Left-Liberals and Progressives

will never have any political power.
The simple fact is that they will always be shouted down because they are beholden to a party of wimpy politicians.
Oh yeah the Green Party is dead and so is the left.

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. They CAN'T win without us. THAT'S the simple truth.

They NEED us and they NEED the FEMALE vote. This ScAlito crap will be the last straw for the Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW. Why should any woman support a party that doesn't fight for them anymore?

Why not join with an already established Green Party?