Would a Separate, Non-Partisan Progressive Sub-forum be a bad idea?

[Matsubara]

Lately, there has been an AWFUL lot of bashing of people who say that the democratic and republican parties are WAY too similar, or who support certain third-party/independent challenges against democrats from the left.

By the same token, I have seen some of the other side being equally uncivil to the "lockstep dem loyalists".

There are a lot of people who think third party/independent advocates or anyone resembling them ought to be banned outright - and such advocacy is already against the rules during a campaign...


But we all know there are a lot of us here who ARE left of the democratic party. A lot of us vote democratic a lot, but are not strictly party-line voters. And I think that a lot of us contribute a good, independent perspective to the board, and help prevent it from going full-on "corpora-dem".


But those who say that third party/independent advocacy is disruptive and might hurt a vulnerable dem candidate have a point.


So I propose that there be a sub-forum, which could be called "Left Field" or something like that, where people who find themselves dissenting from the party from the left, could go and talk, vent, whatever, without bothering party-line folks on GD, and by the same token, not get shouted down when we don't toe the line.

Because despite the hostility that is directed at us, we agree with the consensus of the board more often than not.

I seriously think it would go a long way to reducing a lot of friction.





Okay, here is the part where everyone tells me what an idiot I am. Let 'er rip.

[aquart]

1. I definitely think all of you should be together.

Doesn't the Green Party have a message board or something?

[Matsubara]

2. I'm not a green. I'm a registered democrat.

But nobody is guaranteed my vote.


And I did say "non-partisan' The greens are a party, IE partisan.

[Solon]

15. You have to remember, partisans are simple people...

There are good guys(Dems), and bad guys(Repukes and Greens), there is NO ONE ELSE, they do NOT exist.

[tkmorris]

7. Was that necessary?

[Matsubara]

11. Well, it did kinda make my point for me.

NT

[doni_georgia]

3. This is Democratic Underground

So, it kind of supposes one is a Democrat.

[Matsubara]

5. So "a democrat" means straight ticket to you?

That's not how I was raised. I was raised to vote my convictions on a candidate-by-candidate, issue-by issue basis.

[Solon]

14. I wonder how these folks deal with non-partisan local offices...

like county seats and shit, do they just not participate in those?

[doni_georgia]

20. I vote for the person - usually Democrat but

I just think you can hardly expect DU to set up a forum for independents who will only hurt the Democrat's chance of winning. We would have won in a walk in 2000 had it not been for Nader being in the race. The issue is for me getting these neocon nutfucks out of office. Now's not the time to start protest voting.

Bash away people. But if we want change, we have to unite - period. None of us is going to get 100% of what we want. That's not the way it works. I am far more liberal than the majority of Americans, so I know I will never get a president who is as liberal as I am, and I am okay with that.

[Matsubara]

22. So having us shouted down is "unity"?

What I'm proposing is not a forum to campaign for specific candidates per say, but rather a place where at least things could be discussed more openly.

Like Cindy's possible candidacy. It wouldn't be a problem in the first place if Pelosi was doing what she ought to be doing, which is at least looking into the idea of impeachment. On GD, just saying this gets us ripped a new one.

The lockstep mentality is too much. I'm sorry but there are rome things that I'm too passionate about to toe the party line.


I dunno. Maybe this idea has already been proposed. I just don't want to see good, independent-minded progressives get banned while DLCs and corpora-dems are allowed to stay.


And the flame wars over these issues seem so counter-productive. You'd think the partisans would favor the idea of ghettoizing the left-of-Kucinich folks...

[doni_georgia]

33. No - shouting anyone down is not unifying and that wasn't what I was doing

My original point was that DU has never allowed posts advocating someone running as an independent against a Democrat. I don't think there is any problem in discussing Pelosi's failure to get the job done. Hell, I'm not pleased with most of our Congresscritters. It's the difference in discussing the issues and advocating for people to contact Pelosi and others to put pressure on them to do what they were elected to do versus openly supporting an independent to replace that person, which would only help the repukes in the end. When I say we need to unify, I certainly don't mean we all have to agree on everything - that would be the republicans.

[Madspirit]

16. Nope...

It says right in the rules...Democrats and OTHER progressives are welcome here as long as no one actively campaigns against a Democrat.

I will give this thread a rec and a kick.
Lee

[Solon]

17. Technically this rule was suspended when talking about Bernie Sanders...

Then again, the DNC supported him, and he won the Democratic primary for Senate last year, so technically he didn't campaign against a Democrat.

[Lars39]

26. Nope. DU also welcomes other progressives.

[yodermon]

37. but the "underground" part frequently gets lost, IMO. n/t

[Solon]

4. As a straight Democratic party voter who votes that way due to lack of choice, I agree with you...

I say take it up with Skinner, I don't know how enamored our Mods would be to the forum, however, in fairness, they do allow us on the board to begin with. If they wanted a "Lockstep" discussion board, they could be like Free Republic and ban ALL independents, but they don't.

[Matsubara]

8. Definitely. I think they have shown a great deal of tolerance.

But other posters are quick to get hostile to what they see as "Naderite" rhetoric. And sometimes with good reason.

Maybe this is a crap idea, I don't know. It just seemed like if there is a place for the 9-11 theorists, why not one for the more die-hard lefties and red-diaper babies?

[dkofos]

6. I like the fights.

[immoderate]

9. Yeah.

--IMM

[quinnox]

10. Ban them all

I would personally ban the whole lot of them, if they don't want to support Democrats then fuck 'em. Now having said that, there are always exceptions such as Joe Lieberman. Fuck him, he needs to go.

But in general, if you can't support Democrats then I would ban them with no reservations.

[Matsubara]

13. Joe Lieberman is not a democrat.

Or had you not heard he switched to independent.


But thanks for the input.

[TahitiNut]

18. God forbid anyone 'bash' Zell Miller or Ben Nelson.

:eyes:

[quinnox]

19. Oh jesus - read my comment again

I said there are exceptions like Lieberman and obviously Zell Miller would also be an exception.

[Matsubara]

41. Actually, you mentioned a former democrat.

Who gets to determine at what point on the left-right spectrum a democrat has to be on before you can oppose them?

Is it dogged support for the Iraq occupation? Opposition to choice? Proposing anti-poor flat taxes? Voting for a bankruptcy bill written by your biggest campaign contributor?

Who gets to draw that line?

I would vote for Hillary, because I believe that for the most part she would do the right thing.

But if Biden got the nomination, there is no way under the sun I would cast a vote for him. I'd probably not vote for the first time in my life.

My desire is not to hurt democrats' campaigns. But I would like to see the most right-leaning, and most corrput dems LOSE, and I would like to see the party realign itself to represent the interest of working people again, not just corporations and rich people.


The repug grassroots were able to realign their party to the ultra far right. Why are we wrong to wan to do the same thing for our party, in the other direction?

Or do you buy into Rush's fallacy that "most Americans are conservative"?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Being required to vote a "straight Democratic ticket" is like a straight jacket.

I've been a Democrat since 1965. Sometimes my nose refuses to accept the punishment required to vote a "straight Democratic ticket".

[dmallind]

21. Strange

The Blue Dogs and moderate Dems take far more heat than the uber-progressives. However we're not the ones actively trying to support candidates who would take votes away from Democrats.

If Kucinich gets the nomination I'll vote for him without a second thought. Not because he has a D after his name but because he will be the best option with a chance to win.

I'd love it if the far left wanted to stop the neocon agenda enough to say the same about Hillary or Richardson.

And if you can't tell the difference between them and Republicans, you're not paying attention.

[Totally Committed]

25. Hillary and Richardson are DLC, and I see that entity as part of the NeoCon Agenda.

Sorry, but that's the truth.

TC

[dmallind]

31. Then, I repeat, you aren't paying attention

In fact same bet I've offered before. If I can't give you 5 times the issues on which the "DLC candidate" of your choice differs from Bushists than you can give me where they agree, I'll send you $500. If I can you send me $100.

So I have to give 5 times the evidence and risk five times the money.

And I can predict quite confidently you won't even take that deal - and yet you will still have the chutzpah to say they are the same.

It would be GREAT if at least one wacko anti-Democratic lefty tried to back up that screed for a change.

[Zodiak]

45. I'm too poor to bet

but I do know that when I scored Senate scores last year, Ben Nelson scored lower than many GOP members. In fact, on major issues, I had him cast votes with the Democrats once....only once.

He is DLC.

But I score votes, not special intrest group ratings, sentiments given in speeches, and amendments that have not a snowball's chance in hell.

Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862

Ben Nelson scored worse than Snowe, McCain, Collins, and more than a few others.

[Zodiak]

62. Well, you've had 24 hours.

and no response.

Kind of a sputter for such a loud money-backed challenge.

[Matsubara]

29. Why does it automatically mean that for you?

I personally WOULD VOTE for Hillary even if Kucinich ran against her as an independent in the general election.

But there are cases in which I might not support the democrat.

It would keep the left-of-Kucinich posts off of GD, but you could still go into the "left field" forum and push for Hillary or whoever.

The fact that Hillary and Richardson are incrementally different from Repugs is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that the kind of thinking you're describing has allowed the democratic party to slide further and further and further right for 30 years.


How is your lockstep view going to EVER realign the party back to a more progressive direction? As unions continue to be more decimated, corporate influence on the dems will only grow.

How do you propose we counteract that, if not by voting against too-far-right democrats?

[dmallind]

39. I'm far from lockstep

And I WANT centrist Democrats rather than "a more progressive direction", at least if I am making the correct assumption that by that you mean those who would return to protectionist/isolationist trade policies, runaway budget deficits (yes Republicans do it too - I don't defend them either - remember the only guy who didn't in the last 40 odd years was a dreaded DLC moderate) and an unwillingness to address entitlement spending and wasteful special interest subsidies.

[Matsubara]

44. And I disagree with you on all those things.

But you're certainly welcome to advocate for those positions, and I will advocate for mine. I believe that right-wing (not centrist) dems have destryed the party and watered-down it's message to the point that many young people have no ide what the democratic party stands for beyond the hippie/commie stereotypes pushed by the corporate media.

What you're talking about is nothingmore than preserving the status quo. Things are NOT GOOD for most working people right now. The last thing we need is more status quo.

[Virginia Dare]

52. You bring up an interesting point Matsubara...

and this is slightly OT, but many Dems got to where they are because unions and other progressive causes have poured a lot of money into their campaigns.

Unions especially have spent exorbitant amounts of money on Democrats, and still their legislative influence continues to wane. These are the types of groups that are going to have to step up to fundamentally change the Democratic party and bring it back to it's populist roots, they're in a much better position to do so than one person such as Cindy Sheehan IMO.

[Totally Committed]

23. Why isn't it okay to just state our own personal beliefs?

Those who see nothing wrong with voting for the (D) after the name... the lesser of two evils, so to speak... are allowed to do that but those of us who feel the two Parties have moved dangersously too close for comfort cannot?

We should be "banned". We are called names. We are bullied. We're not "real" Democrats. All that is okay to say about us, but we need to be put off into our own forum because we believe something different than the noisemakers? Sounds like a pretty RW agenda to me.

You know, Skinner runs this place on donations, my friends, and if or when enough of us decide we've had it with the lousy treatment and just leave altogether, it'll be him and this place that will suffer, not all the bullies who are being allowed to ride rough-shod over us at the moment.

Ditto with the Democratic Party. When enough of us have had it and move on to Independent, and don't vote for just ANY "Democrat" (read: DINO) they feel they can shove down our throats, they'll feel the results of this marginalization in a big way.

I'm getting pretty fed up with this attitude, and the marginalization that it often means here.

Enough. I need to end this here.

TC

[Sparkly]

24. No.

I think the rules here are fine.

Anyone who wants to "support certain third-party/independent challenges against democrats from the left" should start another website -- no doubt Republicans would be thrilled to sponsor it.

[Totally Committed]

27. .

Okie dokie.

Wow.

TC

[Perky]

28. I am not going to subsidize subversives.

they can build or buy their own site.

[Matsubara]

30. "subversives"?

Wow. Just wow.

[Totally Committed]

35. Unbelieveable.

"Wow. Just wow," is right.

I never thought I'd see the day.

TC

[Tesha]

47. Don't worry, when they're not busy telling us to hit the road...

Don't worry, when they're not busy telling us
progressives to hit the road and that our votes
don't matter anyway, they'll (curiously) be
demanding that we hold our noses and "vote for
the D, for their annointed candidate because
this is like, the *MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN,
LIKE, EVAH*", or at least since the last election
that they deemed was the *MIEI,L,E*.

And I say this as a Democratic party loyalist who
participates in my state's primary election,
routinely attends my state party convention, and
has had quite a lot to do with some exciting
and very progressive resolutions that we've been
passing lately.

Tesha

[Totally Committed]

58. By these standards, Bobby Kennedy, Jr. would be a "subversive" here!

From a current Home Page/Greatest Page OP:

"as you've heard today a lot of people say there are many little things that you all can do to avert climate change on your own. but i will tell you this: it is more important than buying compact fluorescent light bulbs or than buying a fuel efficient automobile; the most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in washington d.c. who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like exxon and southern company--these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of american interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. this is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9q3PR_Tps
beginning at 3:50 time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1275981

TC

[Mist]

57. Sad, isn't it? And the "far left" mentioned up-thread. "Wow" indeed. nt

[Perky]

36. by subversives I mean those who would undercut

the democratic part by supporting non-democratic party candidates. I do not think it is appropriate to give them there own space on DU... Not when I have expectations in return for my financial support.

[Totally Committed]

42. As far as I know, I see no "Non-Democratic Party Candidate" to support.

Nader is a Republican Party tool. Bloomberg (if he runs as an Independent) will do it without my vote.

I'd just like to be able to speak my mind about what I see wrong with this Party without -- you know what? --- Whatever.

Time to go out and do some gardening.

TC

[Perky]

50. absolutely you entittled

God know we have problems. but adcvocay if thired part and independent candidates particualrly against an incumben democrat is a problem on DU. I had no problem with Ned Lamont taking on Lieberman in the Dem priamry... I woulodhave no problem with Sheehan taking on Pelosi in the primary. but I dod have a problem with those who want to avoid a primary battle through an indie campaign,

I certainly wouldhave problems with DU supporting such a forum.


enjoy your gardening.

[Solon]

32. "subsversives" HUAC called, they want their paranoia back! n/t

[Perky]

38. subversives are trying to rob us of our precious bodily fluids

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

63. Subversives?

Oy vey :eyes:

[hfojvt]

34. you can already discuss progressive issues on the issue subforums

Or you can discuss them in the big forums.

Should there be a separate forum to bash the Democratic party or to advocate for left wing 3rd parties?

Seems to me that enough of the first gets done, and I do not see any value to the 2nd even though I admittedly voted 3rd party because I did not think Clinton was progressive enough in either election. I don't see anything viable coming out of 3rd parties and prefer the Michael Harrington/PDA approach.

[Matsubara]

43. If I was out to bash the party as a whole I would not be here.

There are specific politicians I have a problem with. The forum I'm imagining would be as much about brainstorming how to move the party left as anything else.

Everyone seems to think it would be some den of people conspiring against dem candidates - that's not what I'm talking about at all.

Such posts would not be banned there, but I don't think they would be the norm, either.

[hfojvt]

51. There is currently no DU restriction on

'brainstorming how to move the party left'.

The restriction is on declarations of surrender, like 'the party is never gonna move left, or far enough left, so I might as well leave it (or I am glad I was never part of it, etc.) and I will vote for Nader or McReynolds, or just not vote etc.'

[Matsubara]

53. There's no restriction, just the inevitable dogpiling on anyone who criticizes the wrong dem...

...at the wrong time.

And it takes a lot less than a threat to leave the party to provoke the dogpiling (wintess the Sheehan threads of late)

:shrug:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

40. K&R

sometimes independents uphold democratic principles better than democrats

[emulatorloo]

46. I WILL NEVER VOTE THIRD PARTY if it risks in anyway a REPUBLICAN VICTORY -- BS to 'corpora-dem'

"help prevent it from going full-on "corpora-dem"

I am pretty left, but I will never vote third party if it risks in any way a Republican Victory. This has nothing to do with supporting "corporas"

Personally I find that phrase of yours repugnant. There are times when we have to think strategically and vote for a Dem we may not like so we can get a larger Dem majority -- so that Dems like Conyers and Leahy are able to step up and do the work that needs to be done.

[Matsubara]

48. See, I respect your right to say that.

But sometimes if I want to say what I want to say in GD, I will get shouted down.


The whole atmosphere is of just smacking down anyone who doesn't toe the line lately.


BTW, Corpora-dem refers to "democrats" who are so beholden to the corporations that paid their way into office that they no longer give a damn about the people - exhibit A: MBNA Joe Biden and his bought-off son.

[emulatorloo]

56. I respect your right to say things too -- but I am pretty sure the rules forbid campaigning against

Democrats/actively working for the defeat of Democrats.

[BlooInBloo]

49. There's already one:

www.makeyourownfuckingwebsite.com

[Canuckistanian]

54. We can call it "Infidels & Traitors"

Or just the I/T forum.

:D

[sandnsea]

55. There is a socialist progressive forum

But there are issues that will create stark differences, no matter how many separate forums there are. Roll with it.

[Matsubara]

59. Really? Where is it? I can't find it.

NT

[sandnsea]

60. It's a group

You need to donate. Even just $5 will get you a star and access. If you can't, I have some extra money and can do it for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=395

[starroute]

61. I was raised to believe the party was the people, not the politicians

And that when the Democratic Party gets out of line, it's the job of its rank and file to remind it whose interests it serves.

My parents and grandparents practically worshiped the party of Roosevelt, but as good New York City Democrats they also knew that keeping the party loyal to the ideals of Roosevelt meant not letting the party leaders get too big for their britches. That could mean fighting the corruption of Tammany Hall. Or it could mean voting for the occasional Republican, or Liberal, or Socialist, or whatever else was out there, in the name of letting the party know it couldn't take their votes for granted.

I don't see things as being any different here and now. The Democratic Party has served us up for decades with a string of candidates you had to hold your nose to vote for, or candidates who were decent until their consultants convinced them to deny everything they believed in, or candidates whose best intentions were frustrated by the unwillingness of their own party to back them up.

As I see it, the only way to take back our country is to take back our party first, and continuing to enable the dysfunctional behaviors that got us into this pickle in the first place is not going to accomplish that.

So can we have a Kick the Democratic Party's Ass Until They Know Who's Master Forum? Please?