Dem Friend of Mine said today: "Dem Activists are greater threat to Dem Party than Republicans"

[KoKo]

when I discussed with her about the Primary Problems where Howard Dean is being Trashed for what's going on with Florida and other states trying to move their Primaries up by months.

I mentioned how down I was with the FISA Vote where I felt our Democrats didn't listen to us...and she's in her 70's and been a worker for years in our State Party and that's what she said:

Dem Activists are Greater Threat to Dem Party than Republicans.

She further said that the Party has been pleased to have "new energy" but that it doesn't really change things until the "Activists" get people in place on the local level. She said...they look but are answerable only to the "High Roller Lobbyists" who write the bills after they've given much money to the candidate. She said that it doesn't mean they "don't listen to us" but that their job is easier when they have lobbyists writing the language and supporting them on the House Floor when they give their speeches. She said: "They try to do good..but these days it's just too hard on them to keep up with the moving issues from the Think Tanks and Issue Groups." She said that they always hope they can modify the legislation they pass down the road when the "pressure" is off them. She pointed out that not ALL Dems really work to revise the legislation after it's passed with Lobby money and she said we ACTIVISTS need to KEEP WORKING because the few who will work to revise bad legislation need ALL THE HELP THEY CAN GET...because of the others." She had to leave after that...but she held up her hand and said:
COMPROMISE...that's what it's about...and getting RE-ELECTED! BUT there are some really good people there......."

Seemed to me her BEST ADVICE WAS: "KEEP WORKING...and do SOMETHING ABOUT THE THINK TANK/LOBBY Influence"...because that's how you will WIN...

:shrug:

[warrior1]

1. What's worst

is the current democratic party of enablers for george w bush's policies.

[Cha]

3. Yep, that's the

Worst..Traitors and Enablers to Fascism..thanks a lot ya fucking dinos.

[BeFree]

2. Heh

Most of the old dems are a pain in the ass. It's why not so many people vote anymore; they make politics a pain in the ass.

It is the activists that keep the party from dying along with the old dems. The only future the party has is with the young activists.

[pinto]

4. Geez.

I'm an old Dem. Active since the late 60's.

Yeah, the future of the party lies with younger Dems, but to write our accomplishments off so blithely hurts.

Don't throw the geezer out with the bathwater, to warp an old saw.

:hi:

[tom_paine]

9. I think they are referring to the Vichy Dems

Which is about 96% of them, these days, at least those holding national office.

Don't take it personally. Your generation's accomplishments were magnificent

Civil Rights
Environmental Movement
Voting Rights

and more...

The only problem was that you guys quit too early, but I have a hard time getting angry at you about that.

This stuff tires one out, and in some ways corrdoes the soul. Life is to be lived, and all that.

[bemildred]

14. I'm an old Dem, and that's sort of how I feel about it.

We didn't finish the job. We let Jimmy C. down. We let them sell us a bunch of empty suits like Raygun. We had a lot to be proud of, but we didn't stick with it. The war ended and we figured we had won.

[tom_paine]

15. Authoritarians are much more zealous than the rest of us, for the most part

Free, normal People are more likely to lay down the sword, metaphorically speaking, than an Authoritarian-following Zealot.

Zealots by their very nature, are intensely driven. Even now, the places where, by necessity, my personality has grown zealous in defense against zealous religio-authoritarianism, ae deeply disturbing to me. Zealotry is one fucked up way to live, even the relatively small taste I have gotten is a bitter brew indeed.

The point is: Nazis and Bushies are more likely to keep fighting long after Free People believe the fight is over.

Like Nazis, Bushies (as well as the powerful subgroup of Bushies who are Neoconfederates ESPECIALLY, them and their 143 year grudge they carry to today... "The South Will Rise Again", well it's no surpise that Imperial Amerika is giving us a small glimpse into what if the Rebs had WON...yeah, they would have allied with Hitler...hell they almost overthrew FDR and allied with him, anyway) are zealots who's capacity to hold grudges is infinite.

We now see that Nazis and Bushies, you can knock them down but they will always get up, these birds-of-a-feather Right-Wing Authoritarians. But again, your generation could not be blamed for missing that.

Who knew? Americans had just helped to beat Hitler to "make the world safe for democracy"? How could your generation have guessed that the Bushies had wanted to overthrow FDR and help him? The information was not there.

How could anyone have guessed that they were revising and upgrading Hitler's Kampf, to change "Jew" to "Liberal" but basically keep the rhetorical program nearly intact otherwise? How could anyone guess that our own Hitlers were designing the propaganda that would eventually end the old Republic?

Again, no one is to blame for that, back then, IMHO. Who knew?

[EFerrari]

5. Since when did a challenge become a threat?

lol

It's all good. :)

[mmonk]

6. Evidently , not big enough of a threat yet.

It's the catch 22 situation. They become the only choice against republicans, so if they win, they take us for granted and don't seek to keep us happy nor listen.

[jobycom]

7. She's right, from a strictly party position.

Activists don't get compromise, and they are so single-minded that they are easily fooled. Look at all the anti-Hillary threads, or the anti-Kerry threads from 04, or the anti-Gore threads before the 2000 elections (or on DU, after the election). When a candidate tries to form a coalition to win an election, activists turn against them, and we wind up losing, so the other side gets all the power. There are posts around here from people who want to throw the Dems in Congress out, or who accuse them of supporting Bush, or whatever. That is a much bigger threat to Democratic victory than the Republicans are.

But there's a question that has to be balanced against that issue. What does the Democratic Party exist for? Is it there just to win elections, or should it try to do something once it wins? Activists are the ones who push it in the right direction, who give the Democratic Party a soul.

There is a constant struggle to achieve balance between the two forces--the party need to win, and the activist need to stand for something. One without the other is useless, or worse, empowering to the forces of evil (Republicans).

There's no easy solution, other than to be informed, and to understand the strategy being used by politicians like Clinton (both), Gore, and Kerry. Too often we cut our own throats because we don't understand the difference between what needs to be done and what can be done. JFK would never have won if DU existed.

Politicians err on the other side--compromising too much when a firm stand would be better.

All in all, there's not much we can do, except keep working, and hope some leader emerges with enough skill to strike a good balance. Like Clinton. Like Carter in 76. Like JFK. They are few and far between in our party.

[KoKo]

8. Party without a soul.....waiting for the next election...

just picking some points out of your post that hit hard in the gut..

[jobycom]

10. Still, tell me you wouldn't rather have a lost Democratic Party than the Republicans in power.

One is shiftless and weak, the other pure evil. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, even if Nader was right about him (and he wasn't).

There is something to be said for winning power, then working from within to change it. It's not the best strategy, but it beats letting the other side ruin the world.

[KoKo]

12. The choice is pretty grim...either way you cut it, though....

:-(

[jobycom]

13. Grim, but it is frequently the only choice we have. nt

[BootinUp]

11. Nice post. eom.

[fed-up]

16. a candidate is either a WAR WHORE or Not-I will NOT compromise here nt

[jobycom]

17. So who is the war whore?

Clinton, who tried to step a war by voting for the IWR? Edwards, who went on talk shows promoting the war? Obama, who has said both that he would not have voted for the IWR and that he might have voted for the IWR? Clark, who said he would vote for the IWR but was opposed to the war? Gore, who opposed this war from the beginning but voted for the last war against Iraq? Kucinich, who voted against timetables for withdrawal because he opposed the war so strongly?

The only war whores were the Republicans, Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and up until early 2004, John Edwards. Edwards has changed. Does he get brownie points for his change?

More importantly, and this is the only question that matters, would you vote for a candidate who could win and stop the war even if they had questionable records beforehand, or would you vote for a candidate with no chance, thus putting a candidate who wanted to start a way in power? Go back to 2000. You had a president everyone knew wanted to start a war (Bush), a candidate who had voted for the last war (Gore), and a candidate who said he was against war (Nader). Which would you choose. If you would vote for the anti-war candidate, you would vote for war. Is that compromise?

There are no absolutes in politics. That's why activists are worse for the Democratic Party than for the Republicans are. Politicians compromise, activists destroy their own cause.

[Disturbed]

18. "Politicians compromise, activists destroy their own cause."

The Dems have compromised to the extent that they now have the perception of being weak & enablers of the Busholini Regime.

The Dems were really stupid to cave in on the funding.
They could have sent another Bill upping the ante, knowing that it would be vetoed. Then that veto would not have been over ridden, as they knew it would not, but it would have made them appear strong. All the while they could still be secretly supporting the US Occupation, which most of them do support.

[jobycom]

19. It just doesn't work that way.

Bush wouldn't have backed down on the budget. He would have vetoed that bill until every government service, from medicaid to welfare to social security shut down. He'd have let Americans suffer and he'd have left our troops in Iraq, and he would have blamed us. Maybe he'd look like the bad guy. Maybe the Dems would. Certainly the Dems wouldn't have looked "strong." Our faction would have cheered them, but the majority of voters just want things to run smoothly, and they would have opposed both sides. Eventually, Bush would have gotten his budget, and we'd have caused a lot of harm in the process. That doesn't mean I didn't want them to do it (I did), it just explains why they didn't.

But step back and look at the bigger picture. This battle was lost back in 2000, not in 2007. That was the time to defeat the war (You did understand back then that Bush was going to start a war, I hope). Once Bush got veto power, once Bush got control of Congress, it was a done deal. And it will be a done deal until we get veto power or a veto-proof majority, and no amount of calling the Democrats weak will change that. In fact, it will only strengthen the real enemy.

[Wiley50]

20. The Reason We Didn't Win 2000, 2002,2004 or Gain a Veto-Proof Majority in 2006

is because our elections have been rigged the whole time

Yes, We gained control in 2006, but only because enough people, of both parties, are sick of war

and we had too big of a turnout for them to steal. Anyone who has paid attention knows that by now.

The leadership even knows that. They must. Or they are blind and need to retire.

But they won't fight back. They won't even try to fix the problem.

Explain that one if you can?

[Disturbed]

21. jobycom you have made me think even deeper than before.

Damn! Thinking is hard work.

Yeah, I quit the Dem Party after the RWing Coup of 2000. Yup, with Busholini it became real obvious that War was on the agenda. Imperial Hubris is a book that explains why America was attacked. You may be correct that the Dems would have been blamed for not providing the funds for the Great Fiasco. Btw I read that book Fiasco. After reading that I almost cried in frustration at the major screw-ups of the Busholini Regime. They are evil and incompetent. The Dems will most likely win more seats in the Senate & the Presidency, not because they are so loved but because by the time the Election rolls around the Rethugs will be the party for the Wealthy & the Pervs. The American people will vote for Dems out of default.