I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm sure .... but Dobson's 3rd party is just like our far lefties.

[Stinky The Clown]

The Good Doctor Dobson says, in this NYT OpEd, that he and the other far right religious extremists want a die hard anti women's right candidate from the GOP or they'll back someone else's third party candidate or run their own third party candidate.

Op-Ed Contributor
The Values Test
By JAMES C. DOBSON
Published: October 4, 2007

Colorado Springs

REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

>snip<

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

There will be lots of cheering from the left side of the dial over this possibility. It virtually ensures our victory in the 08 cycle.

But the plan's progenitors are absolutely no different than those on the left who have hard line positions on virtually any issue.

This observation is NOT in any way a put down of anyone's positions. I am not going to discuss those. I will also bet that I share many opinions with the 'far left'. What is NARROWLY being discussed here is the effect of party/ideological purity movements. If you're not representing broadly held values, you are simply not in the current mainstream and will not win. It just seems to me far, far better to win **something** and then work from within to effect greater change. And further, to be willing to acknowledge that you either have more work to do to further your views or to simply realize it is a non starter and move on.

But thinking that hissyfitting is your best path to victory seems pretty sad.

Flame away.

[malaise]

1. I trust Dobson as much as I believe in the

rapture and I'm an atheist.

[mainegreen]

2. Our far left, me included, is more rational and logical than their far right

and is more likely to learn from mistakes made than their far right.

Or so I'd like to believe.

:shrug:

[liberalhistorian]

6. No, they're not, actually, they make the very same

mistakes over and over and refuse to learn from them or change. They're no different from far-right extremists. Purists who want EVERYTHING my way or the highway, down to the last detail and issue, and are NEVER satisfied with anything less; at the same time, refusing to recognize that all or nothing purity approaches are just almost never going to work, that sometimes compromise is necessary.

[mainegreen]

18. How is far left defined?

Most people I'm friends with I would describe as far left. Socialists with tree hugging roots the lot of them. I don't know a one who isn't voting dem this time around. So I wonder if far left is being defined as the beliefs one holds, or is the extremist abandonment of logic required to be a member of the 'far' side of either left or right?

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Beauty, like far left, is in the eye of the describer

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

79. "Far left" is as willing to wage violence as the "far right".

Of course, if you pay attention, the 'common understanding' (not saying it is based upon facts or anything like that) of "leftist" is associated much more often with violence than the activities by the far right. The reason is obvious. The far right almost always has/holds the power of money and resources giving it the means of controlling information.

However, the "far left", like the "far right" is still an extreme position that engages in a very shallow and narrow perspective of humanity. Neither is flexible enough to accept the nuances or complexities or possibilities of human existence.

You are, certainly, NOT "far left". I'm sure you've had many who impose that characterization upon you, as they have me, simply because you are aware of realities beyond the brainwashing bullshit most want to believe, even if their own existence proves otherwise.

[whoneedstickets]

133. Anyone who voted for Nader in 2000...

nm

[LittleClarkie]

108. Rather like Kucinich not voting to withdraw the troops because the bill didn't

withdraw the troops NOW, RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY MINUTE (stomp, stomp)

[Mythsaje]

3. Well, what *they* call "far left" is anything but...

Hell, even our candidates are having a problem embracing what polls suggest mainstream and main street America actually support...universal healthcare, ending the war, muscular environmental protection, a living wage, etc...

[Stinky The Clown]

11. You get NO argument from me on that point.

None.

[Mythsaje]

21. Glad to hear it...

:)

It makes you wonder, though, doesn't it? If everything points to the fact that the mainstream is actually a bit "left" of center, why is everything being dragged to the right and why are we left trying to defend perfectly reasonable points of view as being somehow "on the fringes?"

I think the dialogue is broken. The media is controlling the discourse to an unsettling degree and people are starting to realize it to a far greater extent than they were even a couple of years ago. Even corporate America is starting to turn away from the Republicans (doesn't hurt that the current Democratic front-runner is rather pro-corporation, I suppose) because of their catering to the least common denominator.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I have been screaming for years that our single biggest issue is the media

If the media were honest, many of our 'issues' would not be issues ..... they'd be mainstream and they'd be the law.

Yes, I see the media as a bigger issue than the vote theft issue, the war, healthcare ...... everything ..... for the simple reason stated above.

It may not be the most immediate or pressing issue, but it is the most critical.

[Mythsaje]

37. Boy, are we on the same page there...

I've been saying the same thing myself.

Democracy requires reliable sources of information. A free and uncorrupted press is the foundation for everything. Without it, we get what we have now. A universe of spin.

[Hekate]

4. No flames from me, just warm agreement

The only reason I rejoice at Dr. Dobson's tantrum is that I hope he will follow through and help out the Democratic candidates thereby.

However, his threats show that he and the leftish single-issue ideologues have one thing in common: a desire to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Gods, how I long for the return of the ability of all sides to compromise... Was it Tip O'Neal or Sam Rayburn who was called "The Great Compromiser"?

Hekate

[immoderate]

25. Henry Clay was the great compromiser.

--IMM

[Hekate]

109. Thanks -- the ability to Get Things Done without killing the opposition became a lost art after Newt

...Gingrich came to town with his Contract on America.

Hekate

[Stinky The Clown]

110. Man! You got that right!

Newt was not the first to do it but he is by far the worst. He brought us to 'gunfight' politics with that absolutely unnecessary impeachment of the Big Dawg. And THAT has inoculated Dim Son and enfeebled the Dems.

[bullimiami]

5. on a scale where left is communism and right is totalitarianism

OOPS Backwards....(edited)


------------------*us*------||-------------------*dob*-----

Dobson is pretty far right and most of us are not very left at all.

They would be pretty comfortable with a Xtian version of the Saudi or Iranian model. Especially where it concerns theocratic influence in govt and minority and womens rights.
Whereas
I dont think many of us are advocating eliminating capitalism and free enterprise. We would just like to put the fairness and balance back into capitalism.




Its a lack of pragmatism that keeps people from compromising.
I understand it, they are frustrated.

[tridim]

15. You're right.. Far left as defined by the far right is just slightly left of center.

The actual far left is minuscule and IMO irrelevant, whereas the fundies are a major RW voting bloc.

[Lasher]

7. Get him!

[hfojvt]

27. I like the exploding head

but I see it is not part of DU's stable of smilies.

[Lasher]

29. Here, have fun:

http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php?wahl=2&ziel=frech

Right click on an image, properties, copy the address, paste here.

[NanceGreggs]

8. No flames comin' your way from this angle ...

... well said!

[Froward69]

9. no flame here either

Dobson will not compromise at all. Hardliner. his followers are just that, blind followers. the Abortion issue, is the centerpiece of their mindset. no compromise. Even with a World famine, resulting in an ultra high mortality rate, Starving babies and all... These people will continue to vote to ban Abortion.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

10. Yup.

I agree with ya'!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Oh NO!! I'm not part of the mainstream!!

Oh, well, I'm used to it.

[liberalhistorian]

13. No flames here, in total agreement.

Third parties have never done what their supporters hope they will do; in fact, as we've seen first-hand, they usually divide votes and make things worse for their supporters.

Now, I agree that there need to be more than two viable national parties and that said two parties shouldn't have a lock on things all the time. Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, that's the way it's going to be.

I remember during a political science class in college, we did a unit on third parties and why they never seem to really work in this country, under our political system, the way their founders and supports intend and want them to work. One of the many reasons was that the most popular platforms of the third party tends to get absorbed by one of the major parties, as that party recognizes that they are losing support because of it and that it would be to its advantage to adopt the platforms. Another is that third parties are historically seen by Americans as fringe, with no real chance, so that, even if they may believe in some of the party's doctrine, they know there's no real point in voting for them. They then tend to stick with or gravitate to the major party that has adopted some of the platforms.

I'm not saying that I'm all that thrilled with the two-party stranglehold on our politics, but we need to be realistic and recognize that that's just the way it's going to be and try to work for what we want and believe in within our major party of membership; in our case, Democrats.

[Warpy]

14. Stinky, yer all wet

Dobson is at the exact center of the GOP, more like the DLC than the leftists who have been the red haired stepchildren of the party since Roosevelt went out of office.

The GOP has spent enormous time, money, and political capital pandering to Dobson and his cohort of loony televangelists, Rapture addled cretins, and antiabortion freaks.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have assiduously been trying to shove the left completely out of the party since Johnson left office, leaving themselves open to some very valid criticism that their economic policies represent the moderate GOP and not the Democratic base.

Please think these things through a little more carefully. There is absolutely no parallel between the coddled religious right and the despised left.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. Thank you, Warpy

You said it much better than I could have.

Dobson is threatening to splinter because the repubs might ignore one of their pet issues this cycle, though they've really been running the party for years now. The left wing threatens to splinter because it's been ignored for years now. Quite different animals, if you ask me.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. I disagree ......

They're more or less the same ...... albeit at different stages of 'evolution' (for lack of a better term).

[Warpy]

38. No, your position is based on "they're both nuts."

Unfortunately, the left has been right about everything lately. Dobson's group has been less reliable, to say the least.

Your parallel doesn't hold up at all, no matter how you examine it.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. Let's try looking at it this way .......

The 'far right' has their set of beliefs. Grounded or not, sound or not, provable or not, they have a belief set.

The 'far left, has their set of beliefs. Grounded or not, sound or not, provable or not, they have a belief set.

Those are both facts. It is in no way a commentary on the quality of the two belief sets ... just the fact that the two belief sets exist.

Now, here's where I see the differences ....... the right wing religious extremists have held sway in their chosen party for a number of years. They may be right or wrong (you and I think they're wrong), but they had a very powerful seat at the GOP table. The last time the 'far left' had any sway at all in the Democratic Party was in the Viet Nam war era. And even then, the 'far left' was the target of some degree of scorn by the party 'mainstream'. The definition of our far left is ever changing.

It is the parallels outlined in the first two sentences that are the focus of the OP. To try to make a larger parallel is silly. There are surely other similarities, but only the two stated above matter for the sake of the OP.

[Warpy]

74. "They both have belief sets" is a little thin for comparing the two

Remember, the left has been shut out. The religious right has been coddled and catered to and is still threatening to stomp off in disgust.

Your parallel is bogus.

[Marrah_G]

16. Yup

:applause:

[Totally Committed]

17. I just can't come to DU and not get my feelings hurt these days.

I'll TRY not to take this personally, Stinky. :(

TC

[Stinky The Clown]

30. It wasn't intended to be personal

You know me better than that ... for me, if its personal, its obvious.

Also, it was an observation. I'm hardly qualified to do more than opine. (<---- the one word I ever heard Rumsfeld blow through his lying piehole that I liked)

[Totally Committed]

36. It's okay... my hard-left turn at this late stage of the game has even my head spinning.

Who knew?

But, no matter -- :hug:

TC

[radfringe]

19. no flame here... kool-aid comes in many flavors...

[Luminous Animal]

23. I think you need to define "far left"

because, from my experience, what most people define as the far left hold positions that the vast majority of democrats agree with. And in some cases, the majority of U.S. citizens. What the beltway defines as far left, most other democracies consider slightly left of center.

Whereas, in the case of fundies, their base consists of about 20%.

So, before you make any comparisons between the "far left" and the fundie right, you first must illustrate on what issues define the far left and which of those issues are central to induce the far left to abandon compromise.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. No, that level of precision is not necessary and detracts from the larger issue

Far left vs left vs moderate vs left-of-center is entirely up to the observer to define.

No slam against you intended here (honest/no snark), but going for definition while avoiding the larger philosophical issue is how the Right does crap like they did to Dan Rather. Avoid the BIG issue and look for some detail to attack instead.

[Luminous Animal]

43. If you refuse to define what is "far left"

and what issues you perceive them to be intractable on, then it makes it impossible to have a discussion.

For instance, if being far left means, support for universal health care, the end of the war in Iraq, no wars of aggression, no torture, support for unions, greater oversight on corporations, more support for government poverty programs, more transparency and greater oversight in government, leadership and action on environmental issues, access to abortions, more equitable distribution of wealth, more investment in schools and infrastructure... well, that would mean that the "far left" is pretty a New Deal Democrat and pretty much in step with the majority of Americans. That would also mean that you are out of step with the much of the Democratic Leadership who have have payed lip-service or outright abandoned the majority of not only Democrats, but Independents, as well.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. No, the discussion is far more simple .....

.... it is about intractability vs willingness to compromise.

That's the BIG issue.

Your proposed definition of 'far left' is hardly far left. Its all mainstream stuff. I don't know anyone who doesn't want all that and more.

I would actually add that instead of simply more corporate oversight, I want their personhood removed and their political rights clipped to essentially nothing. But that's just me, and off topic to this thread..

Why did you find this last line necessary: "That would also mean that you are out of step with the much of the Democratic Leadership who have have payed lip-service or outright abandoned the majority of not only Democrats, but Independents, as well"? Was it just to incite? If it was, it failed.

It seems to me you just felt compelled to post just because you saw the term 'far left' in the OP as a slam.

[Luminous Animal]

70. I didn't mean "you" personally...

I meant the collective "you", that being the majority of Americans who are apparently out of step with the Democratic leadership.

What specific issues is this undefinable "far left" unwilling to compromise on?

[Stinky The Clown]

78. Look around at any absolute statement and you'll see what I mean

I will never vote for candidate X, even if they win the primaries.

I will never support anyone who is opposed to (or in favor of) Y, even if they win the primaries.

We need to throw Z out of the party because they refuse to A, even if they win the primaries.

Etc.

[Luminous Animal]

83. Ah, so you are talking about anonymous posters

on a discussion board. Thaaaat far left.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. Actually, I see and hear them on the news, too.

You and I probably know the same ones. They have names. Some of their names are well known even in the mainstream. Others not so much.

So no ..... not 'anonymous posters on a discussion board'.

And if you were really as derisive toward 'anonymous posters on a discussion board' as you would like to be seen, why do you post? Are you a real person? I can assure yu that I am.

[Luminous Animal]

94. This is getting ridiculous

You make a broad statement. Refuse to define your terms or offer specifics. Then use some vague unnamed examples to support your argument.

Welcome to modern American political discourse.

[Stinky The Clown]

96. No ..... its about the broad principle, not the minutia.

[Luminous Animal]

102. Okey doke

Fact:
Fundies speculate that over one single issue (abortion)that they may be ready to split from the Rebublican party and take 27% of Republican voters with them.

Fact:
There is no equivalent "far left" organizations that has threatened to leave or campaign against the Democratic Party over one single issue.

[Stinky The Clown]

103. That's true ..... instead what we have is a bunch (undefined number) of people who .....

..... are perfectly happy to say they will either not vote or vote third party, consequences be damned.

[Luminous Animal]

104. Thus, the OP hasn't a leg to stand on.

You've not make your case that a single issue fundie movement is comparable to a multiple issue "far left" movement.

The best you can drag up are an undefined number of malcontents (hell, I've even handicap you several thousand) who are, apparently, not politically astute.

[Stinky The Clown]

111. Okay, back to the bigger issue ..... the POINT of the OP

How is not supporting the party nominee helpful?

You're being willfully obtuse and arguing minutia .........

The question above captures the essence of the OP.

Anything else is about the use of the term 'far left' which you choose to see as personally derisive.

[Breeze54]

115. "You been goofin' with the bees?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067595/">"The Point" is the story of Oblio, the only pointless person in the Land of Point.

The Point! is a fable by American songwriter and musician Harry Nilsson about a boy named Oblio,
the only round-headed person in the Land of Point, where by law everyone and everything had to
have a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Point!



"Until Oblio discovers he doesn't have a point at all."

'The Point'

http://www.the-monkees.net/shows/ThePoint/remember.html

Oblio's mother has just had a child, as has the Count's wife, and they appear holding their babies.
Both are boys, but there is a difference between them. While the Count's baby has a pointed head
- as has everyone else in the town (indicated by everyone wearing a pointed hat) - the other baby
has a round head. He is POINTLESS. This situation is the basis for the whole story.

[Stinky The Clown]

117. Okay, you win. You have NO intention of discussing anything.

You just want to fling feces.

Have your little hissyfit. Take the last word. I give up. I won't reply and you can get to feel all tough and grown up.

The only point around here might be the top of the hat you appear to be wearing.

[Luminous Animal]

120. Jeesh! I am not Breeze54! (n/t)

[Breeze54]

123. Huh?

Maybe the OP replied in the wrong place? :shrug:

[Breeze54]

125. You can do better than that.

;)

C'mon. Think about it.

If "the far left" ( Cheney & * and the MSM term) are mainstream, (and they are);

then are they really 'far left' or are they just Americans that disagree with the Iraq War policy?

That's what the MSM used to say about protesters during the Vietnam protests.

[Breeze54]

128. I wasn't 'flinging' anything but

instead trying to give you food for thought.

I guess, if anyone disagrees with your POV, they're 'flinging' shit?

Go figure.... :eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

118. You could have asked the question

without dragging in terms that you were unwilling to define.

I 100% agree with you that single issue voters are not helpful. To withhold ones vote from a candidate over one issue is a knee-jerk reaction. But, also, I think that often times that one issue can be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I don't find "far left" personally derisive. I find it a muddied and divisive. Hell, Hannity, et al., thinks that the entire Democratic Party is "far left". When Democratic operatives, the media, the Republicans, and rank and file Democrats label ideas held by the majority of Americans as "far left", than we become citizens without a party or representation. If we are to learn from history, we'd realize that citizens without representation are apt to throw "hissyfits".

The Republican operatives understand this very will. Witness their concerted effort to demonize and vilify MoveOn, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Media Matters, the ACLU, Code Pink, and labor unions. As long as they can convince Americans that these are fringe elements rather than representatives of the mainstream (which they are), they can keep people from throwing "hissyfits" en masse.

[stimbox]

24. Maybe the right of center DLCers will rejoin the Moderate Repuke party then?

You know all those people who drove our party to the right.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. It could happen

And if it happened at the right time, I'd welcome it. Hell, I'd encourage them to go.

[The Stranger]

32. What utter bullshit. "Our far lefties" appear ISSUE-BY-ISSUE to be in line with the U.S. electorate,

but the lying corporate media has you believing otherwise.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. You clearly chose not to read the thread before proffering your opinion.

[RedEarth]

33. I agree with you

[Romulox]

39. DLC Democrats are stunningly similar to George H.W. Bush Republicans...

Back when there was such a thing as "liberal Republican", people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman would have fit in to the Republican party just fine...

[Virginia Dare]

54. Lest we forget, there were lots of so-called "Reagan Democrats"...n/t

[Romulox]

58. Some of those "Regan Democrats" are the modern day DLCers. nt

[Virginia Dare]

62. If they want to come back and vote Democratic again..

that's okay with me.

[Romulox]

66. Nothing in life is free, and he who pays the piper calls the tune...

Rightwingers aren't just "voting Democratic again," they are demanding massive concessions in the Party's core principles in return.

[Virginia Dare]

69. So you win on compromise or you lose on principle..

that is the ultimate political conundrum.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. Well said

Nobody likes to believe that, but it seems pretty true to me.

[Romulox]

76. Compromise and *Capitulation* are not the same thing

I'm not going to "compromise" by swallowing what the DLC dems are shoving down my throat. All I can do is vote for a candidate who represents my values and beliefs. If the Democratic candidate is Hillary Clinton, it is not a "compromise" for me to vote her--it is a capitulation.

[frylock]

106. well stated

[Virginia Dare]

139. Well, I look at it this way..

if I go to the ballot box and I'm faced with Hillary Clinton, and whatever freeper right wing hack the repubes serve up, then I'm going to have go with Hillary. That's not capitulation, that's choosing the candidate that I feel will best represent the country out of the choices that I have.

Capitulation was in 2000 when George W. Bush usurped the Presidency and we all stood around with our mouths hanging open. THAT was capitulation.

[Virginia Dare]

60. ...n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

64. That's maybe quite true

Certainly it is true for Lieberman. I'm not sure its as true of Clinton (either one of them).

But the fact is, they're Democrats (or used to be). We have very conservative Democrats and we have very liberal Democrats. We have **far** fewer 'far left' Democrats. It is just that, like the far right, they make more noise.

But if I get what your point is (I'm not sure I do, by the way), we need to gain and hold overall, party-labelled power and then work to move the party and the country in the direction we favor.

**MY** point in the OP is that throwing a candidate tantrum does not accomplish that.

(By the way, I am **not** a supporter of, or even all that enthusiastic about, **any** of our current candidates.)

[leftofthedial]

40. yeah, those hard-left, hard-line positions

like ending the occupation of Iraq, not attacking Iran, fixing health care, trying to protect and restore America's middle class--goddamned extremists lefties are ruingin the Democratic Party.

[burythehatchet]

42. logic... circuits... malfunctioning... n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

46. You're failing at dragging your cross around ......

Those issues are pretty mainstream, it seems to me.

Just the rhetoric employed to further them makes for any meaningful distinction.

[leftofthedial]

105. when some of us advocate those positions

and criticize one or more of the congressional "democrats" for voting repeatedly or advocating AGAINST those positions. we are labeled "far left," not only in the mainstream media and by those "democrats," but here at DU. que no?

[burythehatchet]

41. I think you should apply for a spot on Jon Stewart's Speculatum panel nt

[Stinky The Clown]

47. I have no idea what that means.

But thanks.

[TheDoorbellRang]

44. Sorry. Don't buy the "far lefty" meme anymore.

BTW, did you see TahitiNut's Political Compass test the other day?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1962056

According to that, those of us who took it (430+), are comprised of about 94% of "far lefties." I considered myself a moderate 25 years ago; my views are about the same now as they were then; now I would label myself as a "far lefty." I think WE are the new silent majority.

[Totally Committed]

48. And, yet... did you see where on the Political Compass most of our candidates are?

We ARE NOT represented by those we are expected to elect. We never will be.

TC

[TheDoorbellRang]

51. Yes, I saw that. It was quite disheartening. eom

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Yes

I saw that and participated. It isn't a new 'test' ..... it just comes up again and again every few months.

I'm pretty far left by that standard, too.

Given your self description as a person once considered a 'moderate' but now seen as a far lefty, we're pretty close on that score, too.

So what's your point? :shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

61. The point is...

When the party abandons their constituents (on a multitude of issues) what are they going to do and where are they going to go?

It is ridiculous to expect folks to keep voting against their own self-interest.

Look at it this way, if tomorrow we wake up with a parliamentary system where third parties get a seat at the table, might you suppose that the majority of Americans would ally themselves with the party that fundamentally addresses the issues of poverty, unemployment, worker and product safety, environment, healthcare, etc., rather than the parties that have aligned themselves with corporations.

It is on this point that your analogy falls apart. If both the Green Party and a newly formed fundie party were suddenly relevant in regards to electoral politics, the Green Party, given the fact that their platform is, for the most part, more inline with the average American's vision for the U.S., would have vastly more support than the fundie party.

[Virginia Dare]

65. But you have to see what's going to happen here..

lots of far right wing groups who have an interest in keeping the Republicans in will pour money into the Green Party/left Independant campaign, and conversely lots of far left groups will pour money into the Dobson campaign in an effort to sway more voters away from the main parties. It really doesn't end up serving anybody very well. That's why Independant parties have never caught on in this country, they always end up merging with the bigger parties.

[Luminous Animal]

75. A more realistic view

would be a European experience. In which the mainstream parties platforms and governing are much more inline with the concerns of the majority of citizens and the smaller parties exert pressure but not power.

[Stinky The Clown]

80. Parliamentary vis a vis Representative

We have one type. Europe has the other type.

[Luminous Animal]

97. Parliamentary democracy is also representative democracy.

In Europe, it is referred to as proportional representation.

[Stinky The Clown]

100. You're being willfully obtuse

I know the tactic well because I employ it.

[TheDoorbellRang]

67. My point is that I wonder if the current "far lefty" is the old fashioned "moderate"

Thus, I'm questioning your original premise that "far lefty" = fringe voters; i.e., as you said: "If you're not representing broadly held values, you are simply not in the current mainstream and will not win."

I think it would be fascinating to have a scientific sampling done of people thruout the USA and see where most folks fall on the political spectrum. For example, my husband, a diehard "conservative," took one of the political compass tests back in 2004 to see which candidate his views most closely aligned to, and he was closest to -- are you ready? -- John Kerry. I think we've been fed a line of crap about just how far left we are. The RW has been quite successful in it's "image" packaging.

So my point, when all is said and done, is that I reject the RW's definition of myself as far left, aka fringe, and don't feel that I should compromise to meet them in their supposed middle ground, which lately seems to consist of the game "heads I win, tails you lose."

[Stinky The Clown]

112. It doesn't matter

The essential question of the OP is: How is it helpful to **not** support the party nominee?

[TheDoorbellRang]

116. Ah. Well, dagnabbit, whyn't ya just say so?

Of course I'll support the party nominee...

[Stinky The Clown]

119. See. Its simple. That really was the point.

The term 'far left', to far too many, is like waving a red cape in front of a crazed bull.

[Luminous Animal]

124. Not cool.

You needn't insult folks who are honestly trying to understand what the hell you are talking about.

As you can see by the posts on this thread, there were quite a few people here who had trouble grasping your point. If you had clarified it hours ago, you could have avoided the crazed bulls.

[Stinky The Clown]

127. Actually, the discourse displayed an interesting phenomenon

The effect of the term 'far left'. THAT is what got everyone going. if you remove that term from the OP, the point becomes even clearer. People read what they want to read and fail, all too often, to grasp the nuance.

I think the OP was very clear. Far left and far right are BOTH unhelpful to their respective causes.

And why are you castigating me for a reply to another person? :shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

130. Presumably, I am one of those crazed bulls.

And I am confident that I can jump in on any thread at any time.

The reason (for the umpteenth time) why the term "far left" receives a blow back is there is no such thing as the far left AS DEFINED by the Republican Party and Democratic Party leadership. The main causes that are important to this fictional far left are, in fact, mainstream. When one admits that, then one comes to a realization that it is not the "far left" that is abandoning the party, but the party that has abandoned America.

I have no problem with an honest characterization of the far left. I have no problem with people truthfully labeling organizations that are indeed far left. I do have a problem with folks who label those whose views are firmly in line with the majority of Americans being labeled far left. I have a problem with those who try to make the argument that the Democratic leadership has any intention of advancing the causes of mainstream America.

[Stinky The Clown]

131. Now you see, I labeled NO view as far left in the OP

You simply assumed I did because of the term 'far left'

In fact, the OP said this: "This observation is NOT in any way a put down of anyone's positions. I am not going to discuss those. I will also bet that I share many opinions with the 'far left'. What is NARROWLY being discussed here is the effect of party/ideological purity movements."

That's quite different from your implication that I was slamming your (or the mainstream's or the 'far left's) views.

[Luminous Animal]

134. Actually...

You characterize those on this board who are solidly within the mainstream and who have expressed a desire to abandoned the Democratic Party because of its refusal to address mainstream concerns as "far left". On the contrary, it is not those who are frustrated with the party who are working against "the cause" but the party leadership who have allied themselves with the corporate radical right. What you are asking is that the majority of folks subsume themselves and join the corporate right in order to change it from within. I see that strategy as nothing but a recipe for disaster.

[Stinky The Clown]

135. Please show me the quote where I characterized mainstreamers as far left

[jpgray]

49. No flames here. Insisting on perfection and purity leads to inaction in politics

Because no politicians really hold up under that standard. I love Dennis, but if I were hard-line "my way or the highway," his flag amendment vote would remove him from consideration.

[L. Coyote]

52. Don't expect this parallel: Creepy Freeper funding Greens

[Virginia Dare]

57. Blackwater already has...

or was that your point?

[L. Coyote]

68. Erik Prince is one of the Creepy Freeper Family members. There are other

Freepers who ponied up bucks to help the Greens.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. You think so?

I was thinking they were like moderate dems.

- they don't give a shit about ending the war.

- they don't want gay marriage.

- they're upset about those dirty, dirty immigrants.

and so on.

[rucky]

56. Who would you rather have as a neighbor? n/t

[Virginia Dare]

59. I like this quote by Bruce Springsteen..

I'm paraphrasing but he basically said, I've lived in the poorest neighborhoods and I've lived in the richest, and there's assholes in both.

[me b zola]

63. In addition to agreeing with bullimiami's post #5

I would like to add that there is another major difference between the Left and the rw. The "religious right" is a voting block that was literally created by the republican party. It began over 20 years ago when collage republicans began forming those faux religious groups ie focus on the family and inserting political influence into churches. The republican party used this voting block as a machine to launder their money, buy votes, and divide the US as they pushed the acceptable political environment always further to the right. The republican party never disrespects this group publicly (even though they do it behind closed doors).

The democratic left, otoh, is comprised of people--real people--who think for themselves and are not homogeneous in thought as even you have indicated by acknowledging that everyone defines the Left differently. We don't have any leaders who our elected public officials will drop everything to have a meeting with, or leave their vacations to fly to DC in the middle of the night to create legislation for. This, of course, does not mean that the Democratic "leadership" isn't drooling at the thought of creating their own zombie "base".

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[alfredo]

73. Wrong. Dobson is an authoritarian. The left is not. If anything we

lean more toward the anarchist.

[devilgrrl]

77. No prob... the DLC/centrist Democrats here are no different than Republicans period!

In mind or spirit. Brothers in arms.

:*

[Stinky The Clown]

81. How is that germaine?

[Romulox]

82. It's germaine in that the corporate masters of the Republicans are the same

as the corporate masters of some of the Democrats.

The business people on both side of the aisles hate their respective bases. Or to put it another way, the corporate/political class of the US loath the American voter, no matter if they wear a (D) or an (R).

[Stinky The Clown]

88. The our job ought to be revoking corporate personhood and taking the money out of campaigns

Not pot shotting at each other, dontcha think?

[devilgrrl]

91. Pot-shotting??? Like comparing "Far-lefties" with James Dobson? You mean that kind?

:hi:

:popcorn:

[Stinky The Clown]

93. That wasn't a pot shot. It was a targeted hit.

Sorry.

On edit ...... now can we get to discussion? With what in the OP do you take issue?

Or were you simply knee-jerk reacting to the use of the term 'far left'?

Before you answer, read the whole thread, and particularly my responses to at least arm yourself with a sample of my opinions. You may gain some insight into the thrust of the OP.

[devilgrrl]

89. Yep.

Say, how do like those apples Mr. flame-retardant suit wearer? :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

90. I like it fine. See my post, right above yours

Post #88

[devilgrrl]

92. You're not going to like my response

Post #91

:hi:

:popcorn:

[KharmaTrain]

85. Fascinating Reading...

Especially all the responses here. You're SPOT ON in making this comparison and the responses you got just validate it.

Several common responses are "our extremes aren't as extreme as their extreme" or somehow this turns into a DLC bashfest...while I never saw the name DLC in your post.

You're holding up a mirror and those who see their reflections are trying to blame you for their own reflection. Quite telling in its own right. Some claim to be tolerant and "progressive", yet flame any attempt to engage in a constructive discussion and resort to projection and name calling when their arguments can't be won with ideas and actions.

Maybe its some are too comfy in the DU fishbowl...just like the corporate media is cozy in theirs and the Freepers are content in theirs. Many want the same lock-step, one note (and generally one issue) attitude and if you challenge, you're a "sell-out" or "DLC'er" or "just don't get it". Methinks they need to get out and meet the real voters, not the small fraction that post on internet sites.

DU has 100,000 members...and we're not certain how many are active or have several accounts...and considering there will be at least 50 million people voting Democratic a year from now, it adds to the distortion. As I've pointed out in the past, I've been a DU member since the early days and I have yet to meet another DU'er...or if I did it was in passing. If anything many of my local Democratic party friends have a less than flattering description of this place. It's all perspective.

Well ya got them squealing...means you hit a nerve. Yep, the truth hurts.

Cheers...

:applause:

:toast:

[DemGa]

86. One major difference is social conservatives are seriously repressed

(unconsciously speaking). That's why there's an endless line of "Foley's" in their midst. They are extremely sick people with very poor insight.

[sufrommich]

87. Agree totally. No flames from me.

[mudesi]

95. There is NO SUCH THING as the FAR LEFT in America

Why is it so hard for you to see just how far to the right the political spectrum has shifted?

The "far left", as you call them, are simply "The left" everywhere else on Earth.

[Stinky The Clown]

99. Why is so hard for you to discuss the issue?

I know. its far easier to throw out an accusation with little basis in fact rather than discuss the issue.

How do you know what I 'see'?

How do you know that I am unaware of how far to the right the American political spectrum has moved?

The fact is, however, that the US is demonstrably more conservative than, let's say, Europe. You point that out and you're right about that fact. No need to be snarky.

Or does the term 'far left' squick you and cause you to lash out?

But the larger issue is, as it relates to your post ...... it completely misses the POINT of the OP and instead attacks the terms or definitions or the intentional lack thereof. And **that** is a right wing tactic (witness Dan Rather).

[Disturbed]

101. The "Far Left".

COMMUNIST PARTY USA - The CPUSA, once the slavish propaganda tool and spy network for the Soviet Central Committee, has experienced a forced transformation in recent years. Highly classified Soviet Politburo records, made public after the fall of Soviet communism in the 1990s, revealed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) illegally funneled millions of dollars to the CPUSA to finance its activities from the 1920s to the 1980s. The flow of Soviet dollars to the CPUSA came to an abrupt halt when the Soviet communists were ousted from power in 1991 -- ultimately causing a retooling of CPUSA activities. Founded in 1924, the CPUSA reached its peak vote total in 1932 with nominee William Z. Foster (102,000 votes - 4th place). The last national CPUSA ticket -- headed by Gus Hall and Angela Davis -- was fielded in 1984 (36,000 votes - 8th place). While the party has not directly run any candidates since the late 1980s, the CPUSA sometimes backs some candidates in various local elections (often in Northeastern industrial communities) and engages in grassroots political and labor union organizing. In the 1998 elections, longtime CPUSA leader Hall actually urged party members to vote for all of the Democratic candidates for Congress -- arguing that voting for any progressive third party candidates would undermine the efforts to oust the "reactionary" Republicans from control of Congress. As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, "massive" public works programs, the outlawing of "scabs and union busting," abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to "beat the power of the capitalist class ... anti-imperialist freedom struggles around the world." The CPUSA's underlying communist ideology hasn't changed much over the years, but the party's tactics have undergone a major shift (somewhat reminiscent of those used by the CPUSA in the late 1930s). After the death of Stalinist CPUSA leader Hall in 2000, Gorbachev-style "democratic reform communist" activist Sam Webb assumed leadership of the CPUSA. Related CPUSA websites include the People's Weekly World party newspaper, Political Affairs monthly party magazine, and the Young Communists League youth organization.

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA - The DSA is the official US full member party of the Socialist International (which includes UK's Labour Party, the French Parti Socialiste and nearly 140 other political parties around the globe). Unlike most other members of the Socialist International, the DSA never fielded candidates for office until 2006 when a candidate for Pennsylvania State House qualified for the ballot under the banner of the Social Democrats of Pennsylvania (the DSA's state affiliate). The DSA explains their mission as follows: "building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics." Thus, the DSA is less like a traditional US political party and much more like a political education and grassroots activism organization. The other US full member of the Socialist International is the Social Democrats USA (linked below). Both DSA and SD-USA each claim to be the one true heir to the ideological legacy of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas -- and neither one ever fields any candidates. The DSA -- then named the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) -- split from the SDUSA in 1972 in a rift over the Vietnam War (SDUSA supported the war and opposed McGovern for President; DSOC supported McGovern and opposed the war).

FREEDOM SOCIALIST PARTY / RADICAL WOMEN - The FSP was formed in 1966 by a splinter group of dissident feminist Trotskyites who broke away from the Socialist Workers Party to create a new party in the "tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky." That's the reason they also refer to their entity as "Radical Women." The FSP describe themselves as a "revolutionary, socialist feminist organization, dedicated to the replacement of capitalist rule by a genuine workers' democracy that will guarantee full economic, social, political, and legal equality to women, people of color, gays, and all who are exploited, oppressed, and repelled by the profit system and its offshoot -- imperialism." The FSP has party organizations in the US, Canada and Australia. The FSP occasionally fields a handful of local candidates in Washington, California and New York (often in non-partisan elections) -- but has never fielded a Presidential candidate. Related FSP links include the Freedom Socialist newspaper and Red Letter Press (book publishers).

PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY - Founded in the 1960s as a left-wing party opposed to the Vietnam War, the party reached its peak of support in 1968 when it nominated Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver for President. Although a convicted felon and odious personality, Cleaver carried nearly 37,000 votes (ironically, Cleaver ultimately became a Reagan Republican in the early 1980s, and was later a crack cocaine addict in the late 1980s, before emerging as an environmental activist in the late 1990s). Famed "baby doctor" Benjamin Spock -- a leftist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam War -- was the PFP Presidential nominee in 1972. Since then, the small party has largely been dominated by battling factions of Marxist-Leninists (aligned with the Workers World Party), Trotskyists and socialist democrats. The PFP today is small, with activities largely centered only in California. In 1996, the PFP successfully blocked an attempt by the WWP to capture the PFP's Presidential nomination (and a California ballot spot) for their party's nominee. In a sign of the party's serious decline in support, the PFP's poor showing in the 1998 statewide elections caused the party to lose its California ballot status. The PFP finally regained California ballot status in 2003 -- and immediately fielded a sizable slate of candidates. Native American activist Leonard Peltier -- an imprisoned cop killer (or innocent political prisoner, depending on your views) -- was the PFP nominee for President in 2004 (ballot status in one state - 27,500 votes).

Socialist Party USA - The SPUSA are true democratic socialists -- advocating left-wing electoral change versus militant revolutionary change. Many of the SP members could easily be members of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party. Unlike most of the other political parties on this page with "Socialist" in their names, the SP has always been staunchly anti-communist. Founded by labor union leader, ex-Democratic elected official and pacifist Eugene V. Debs in 1900, the SP was once a mighty national third party. Debs himself was the SP nominee for president five times between 1900 and 1920. Debs received over 900,000 votes (6%) in 1912 -- the SP's best showing ever. Former minister and journalist Norman Thomas was the SP Presidential nominee 6 times between 1928 and 1948 -- his best showing being 883,000 votes (2.2%) in 1932. The SP also elected congressmen, mayors and other officials throughout the 20th Century (largely during the 1910s through 1950s). The withered and splintered so much that, by the last 1972, it barely existed. The Democratic Socialists of American and the Social Democrats USA --both linked below -- are the other splinter groups from the original Debs/Thomas SP. Activist from the old SP reconstituted the party in 1976 and began to again field SP national tickets for the first time in over two decades. Peace activist and former SP-USA National Chairman David McReynolds was the party's 2000 Presidential nominee, earning ballot status in seven states (7,746 votes - 8th place - 0.01% ...plus a bunch more write-in votes in New York and other states where election officials refused to tabulate individual write-in votes). The 2000 showing was a far cry from the SP glory days, but a major improvement over the party's 1996 showing. For 2004, former Democratic State Senator Walt Brown of Oregon is the SPUSA Presidential nominee. The party's youth wing -- the Young People's Socialist League -- has been in existence since the 1910s. Another official -- and very useful -- SP-USA resource is the Socialist Party USA Campaign Clearinghouse. The SP-USA's Socialist Net is a resource site covering the international democratic socialist movement and the American Socialist Foundation and an SP-USA affiliated educational group.
Socialist Action - Socialist Action is a Trotskyist political party originally founded by expelled members of the Socialist Workers Party. While the SA shares the SWP's pro-Castro views, the SA still tries to retain its Trotskyist ideological roots (versus the SWP, which has drifted away from Trotskyism towards a more Soviet communist ideology). The SA states that they "oppose the Democrats and Republicans, all capitalist political parties, and all capitalist governments and their representatives everywhere ... Stalinist and neo-Stalinist regimes from the ex-Soviet Union to China." To date, this group of communists have fielded some local political candidates in San Francisco and a few other communities. Youth for Socialist Action is the youth wing of the party.
Socialist Equality Party - The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) was originally named the Workers League (WL). The WL was founded in 1966 as a Trotskyist communist group closely associated with the electoral campaigns of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The goal of these Trotskyist groups was a build a working-class labor party in the US affiliated with the International Committee of the Fourth International (the global Trotskyist umbrella network). They believe that "the egalitarian and internationalist legacy of the Russian Revolution" could have succeeded, but was "betrayed by Stalinism" and its progeny. When the SWP drifted away from Trotskyism in the early 1980s, the WL broke with the SWP and began fielding its own candidates. The WL fielded its first Presidential ticket in 1984. The WL later renamed itself as the Socialist Equality Party in 1994. The Michigan-based SEP regularly fielded Congressional and local candidates in several states in the late 1980s and 1990s. 1996 SEP Presidential nominee Jerry White was on the ballot in only three states and captured just 2,400 votes. After 1996, the SEP failed to field any candidates for any office until an SEP member competed in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election (6,700 votes - 14th place out of 135). The SEP subsequently announced that it would field a 2004 Presidential ticket and as many Congressional candidates as possible. The SEP is very realistic about its chances for success in the election, acknowledging that they will "win only a limited number of votes." To the SEP, the campaign is an opportunity to "present a socialist alternative to the demagogy and lies of the establishment parties and the mass media." The SEP plans to use the 2004 race as a platform to "lay down the programmatic foundations for the building of a mass movement for a revolutionary transformation of American society." Part of that platform invovles replacing captialism with a Marxist system. The SEP also vows to remove all US soldiers from the Middle East, denounces imperialism, promises to "dismantle the Pentagon war machine" and eliminate weapons of mass destruction held by the US, and adopt "a socialist foreign policy based on international working class solidarity." If the SEP ticket gets on any ballots in 2004, they are unlikely to draw many votes. The SEP's news site -- the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) -- is updated daily with articles, analysis, history, etc., written with a hardcore internationalist, Trotskyist perspective.
Socialist Labor Party - Founded in 1877, the SLP is a militant democratic socialist party. More moderate members of the SLP bolted to create the Socialist Party USA in 1901. The SLP ran Presidential tickets in every election between 1892 and 1976 (the SLP's final presidential candidate won 9,600 votes in the 1976 race). The high cost of fielding a Presidential ticket and restrictive ballot access laws caused the SLP to abandon future Presidential races in favor of nominating candidates for lower offices. The SLP -- which bills itself as the party of "Marxism-DeLeonism" -- still fields a few local candidates (mainly in New Jersey). The site features party history, info on Daniel DeLeon, a Marx-Engels archive, links and more. The SLP newspaper The People, first printed in 1891, also publishes regularly updated online editions.
Socialist Workers Party - Originally a pro-Trotsky faction within the Communist Party USA, the SWP was formed in 1938 after the CPUSA -- acting on orders from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin -- expelled the American Trotskyites. The SWP was for many years the leading voice of Trotskyism in the USA. Since the 1980s, the SWP has drifted away from Trotskyism and moved towards the brand of authoritarian politics espoused by Cuban leader Fidel Castro's style of Marxism (the SWP sites calls Castro's Cuba "a shining example for all workers"). The SWP has run candidates for President in every election since 1948 -- plus federal and local candidates in various states. Marxist political organizer James Harris was the SWP Presidential nominee in 1996 (ballot status in 11 states - 8,500 votes - 0.01%) and 2000 (ballot status in 14 states - 7,378 votes - 9th place - 0.01%). You can also read the SWP's newspapers The Militant (English) and Perspectiva Mundial (Spanish) online. Marxist political organizer and journalist Róger Calero was the SWP Presidential nominee in 2004 -- ballot status in 14 states - 10,791 votes - 9th place - 0.01% -- even though he was constitutionally ineligible as a foreign citizen living in the US as a Permanent Resident Alien. Calero's ineligibility forced to party to field James Harris as a surrogate nominee in several of those states.

Workers World Party - The WWP was formed in 1959 by a pro-Chinese communist faction that split from the Socialist Workers Party. Although the WWP theoretically supports worker revolutions, the WWP supported the Soviet actions that crushed worker uprisings in Hungary in the 1950s, Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and Poland in the early 1980s. The WWP was largely an issue-oriented revolutionary party until they fielded their first candidate for president in 1980. WWP Presidential nominee Monica Moorehead was on the ballot in 12 states in 1996 (29,100 votes - 0.03%) -- and was again the WWP's Presidential nominee in 2000 (ballot status in 4 states - 4,795 votes - 10th place - 0.004%). The militant WWP believes that "capitalist democracy produces nothing but hot air" and that "the power of the workers and the oppressed is in the streets, not in Washington." FBI Director Louis Freeh attacked the WWP in his May 2001 remarks before a US Senate committee: "Anarchists and extremist socialist groups -- many of which, such as the Workers World Party -- have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States" of rioting and street violence. The well-designed site features regularly updated news stories from a pro-Cuba/pro-China communist perspective, so expect lots of dogmatic stories denouncing the US government, sexism, racism, the police and capitalists. The WWP also sponsors or directs numerous popular front groups including International ANSWER, International Action Center, Stop War on Iran, US Troops Out Now, No Draft No Way, People Judge Bush, Nicaragua Network, Alliance for Global Justice, Pastors for Peace, and many others.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

136. Uh, the DSA and SPUSA don't look like "far left" at all. -nt

[PATRICK]

98. Why it is not the same

The biggest reason is that this is a power group of "esteemed" big shots threatening to take their ball and go home as a ploy.

This equivalency between far right and "far left" is dangerously used over and over and over again. One of my high union officials dragged out this chestnut trying for the disastrous labor rationale of finding the "middle ground". Pal, the middle ground is halfway to hell in the pocket of your deadliest, most powerful enemies. The left has no far out spokesmen, very little power. Someone tell me if our left csars have committed grand abuses with oppressive plans to give unions extreme advantages and protections or maybe abolish Unions like any tyranny would.

The sole equivalency is anger and lobbying and fighting rival interests, which in the case of the "far left" is the horrors of what is happening now, not the wonderful world it would be if Bush and the Dems just learned to "get along" and shaft anything the people really wanted or needed.

By the way when the RW zealots eventually sell out they get money. We just get corporate Dems selling us down the river. Who has the better motivation to just shut up?

[Ilsa]

107. "but Dobson's 3rd party is just like our far lefties" ... without the brains. nt

[Breeze54]

113. Now I know you're nuts.

"There will be lots of cheering from the left side of the dial over this possibility."

Are you just looking for a beating? I do not get why you don't get it that the whole Dem party has shifted right??

:wtf:

If being "far left" (the majority of DU) means I'm against pre-emptivve strikes then count me in!!!

Get a clue and stop drinking the F**king Koolaid!!

[Stinky The Clown]

114. There's an awful lot of invective against me there. Where's the substantiation?

You sure do project.

How do you know what I think/know/feel/believe based on the OP?

Actually, I know. You don't like the term 'far left' and think it applies to you, and your spew emanated from that belief. Well it does apply to you, but ONLY if you have said there is a Democratic candidate you will not support in the general election, no how, no way. Then the OP **might** apply to you.

You see, your post was pretty meaningless. It was just vomited invective with only an imagined target.

[mark414]

121. you are absolutely right

how many posts per day do you see on here that say "Politician/Person X is dead to me! They support/oppose/slightly disagree/agree with something I oppose/support/slightly agree/disagree with!!!!"

[JerseygirlCT]

122. No flames here. There are certainly times when

you have to take a (3rd party) stand. But I think all too often we sacrifice the good for the perfect.

And I just have to say: how screwed up is it that "pro-family" now essentially means "anti-woman". I mean, just who is the one to give birth to these children?

[Stinky The Clown]

126. Pro family vs Anti Woman

You're so right. I love my family. I would do anything for any of them. I would also understand if one of them found it necessary to be part of an abortion. I wouod not e happy, but I would understand. I woujdl never condemn.

But in their eyes, that makes me an evil anti-family person.

And the flip is true.

[JerseygirlCT]

129. Well, I suppose a great deal depends on your definition of

"family".

To these guys, it only exists in a framework where the man is the "head" and the rest subordinate to him in every way. It's completely a control thing.

[Hoof Hearted]

132. Very stylish. I like your suit, and I agree with you. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

137. I think the real issue there is not being "far-" something, but rather the splitting

which, coupled with how the electoral system in the USA is, makes it always a losing proposition.

The same is not true in other democracies with different systems, which allow third and fourth and fifth and twenty-seventh parties to exist without sabotaging the electoral prospects of the bigger parties with which they're most aligned.

[Raffi Ella]

138. Could not agree more!Very well said!

I've been making this comparison in my head for the last week!The condemnation and the my way or the highway mentality of lefties here at D.U. totally reminds me of Dobson's group.

We live in a Democracy and it goes both ways,left & right.Give and take is the name of the game.


Especially considering we are living in BushCos divided 'murika;Yes people want change but Kucinich completely ignores any concerns the right might have and acts as though 9/11 never happened and makes me,an innate Democrat,think if we were attacked again the most he would do is walk out into the Rose garden and start singing Kumbayah!

I love our lefties and I agree on a lot of the issues they feel so passionately about and I 100% support their right to try and get Kucinich on the ticket if that's who they want but not voting for the Democratic Nominee if it's not who they specifically wanted is taking things too far.

The Democratic Party is made up of Kucinich's AND Clinton's.If we win the Presidency ALL the different Democratic beliefs will be listened to and if not acted on in the way you'd like at least they'll not be laughed at and worked against.The door will be open to ALL of us if a Democrat - Any Democrat- wins the Presidency.

What the right and left third part-iers are dismissing is the broad powers their leaders will have if elected.Maybe once we get the country back and we have sympathetic elected officials in office these "mainstream"(far left at the moment)ideas can be brought to fruition but until then I am not about to throw my vote to the wind when I have a chance to get my Party,as a whole,back in the place where the decisions are made.

[MadHound]

140. You mean those broadly held values like

Ending the war in Iraq and restoring our Constitution, working towards a healthy environment, reducing the power of Corporate America and providing more financial security for Americans? Yes, those are the broadly held values that the left is promoting. And a vast majority of Americans agree with those positions. The trouble is that our top tier, centerist candidates don't seem to hold these positions, yet these are the candidates being rammed down our throat.

Gee, it really makes you wonder what the definition of fringe really is.