Should liberals in the Democratic party form a New Party?

Like some sort of reincarnation of the Roosevelt-era party? In recognition of the fact that the most crucial issues before us today are restoring civil liberties, protecting Social Security from the GOP looters, and reinvesting in our country's infrastructure, as well as trade policies that actually help protect US jobs?

Is it time to reclaim the mantle of FDR?

Is it the name? Just curious. I do think harkening back to FDR would be a truly great thing to do, since even the GOP like to praise him.

and I pray that these people can pull it off. Please check out the site.

http://blog.progressivevote.org/index.php?cat=8

the Republicans complete control of everything for a lot of time to come. Contact Rove. I am sure he would be willing to discuss this with you.

I'm not saying any of these ideas is better than the other, or that something else entirely doesn't need to happen, but I see us getting NOWHERE if we keep things just as they are. As Carville said, the party needs to be re-born, in one fashion or another.

Just asking. :shrug:

How do we get them to count the votes again? The Bushies are happy as clams with the way things are working for them.

I'm simply thinking short-term, to come up with some way to prevent the GOP and RW democrats from looting this country into ruin.

If something doesn't change fundamentally, the US will be Argentina in a decade, and there will be violence in the streets nationwide. The wealthy will abandon their walled compounds and head for greener pastures, and leave the rest of us to try and rebuild this country from a ruined banana republic into a civilized society again.

I don't want my kids to have to go through that, if possible.

That was the true beginning of the liberalization of the Democratic Party. At the beginning of the 20th Century the Dems were in many ways the Republicans of the time. It wasn't till FDR that they began to really care about what Dems and most people consider what the party is supposed to be all about. FDR got a boost on social issues when the Socialist Party had a schism. The moderates left the party and joined the Dems because more or less FDR was fighting for many of the things they had talked about all along. While the rest embraced a more Marxist philosophy. Which is kinda ironic because in the 20s and early 30s on a local level in some parts of the country the Socialists were gaining a lot of ground so much so that the Republicans and Democrats joined forces and ran fusion candidates to rout them out of office.

this election should have been a slam dunk.

Bush should be in jail right now, not buying flowers for his inaugural.

The Dem party has utterly failed.

are moderate Democrats.

nt

Moderate Democrat that their party will run. If their party chooses not to run then they will have to decide between a progressive populist Democrat or a Republican, which may be moderate in the future. I think some of them would choose the moderate Republican, unfortunately. I think a lot of people just want moderation, and the fact that our current admin. hasn't been moderate about anything brought a lot of moderate dems and some repubs to vote for "the most liberal Sen" (I know this wasn't actually true, but most people don't know that) I really don't know how Kerry lost. From my seat, he got the votes of moderate Repubs, moderate Dems and liberal dems! Although I would join the liberal party, I think we would lose a lot of good Democrats.

Why is America to the far right of all other industrialized democracies?

This is just what I have witnessed based on the people I know that voted for Kerry. I think America is far right because we have a VERY far right Admin right now. I think more people did vote for Kerry but Bush stole it.

When we get nationwide paper trails we'll be able to find out for sure.

But it's entirely within the realm of possibility that Bush actually DID win by a big margin.

And America being a right-wing imperialist nation isn't something that came about with Bush's inauguration. As a nation, we've only had brief periods when we were not expansionist or at war with faraway lands for dubious reasons. Only new element is that Bush and his corporate masters are also systematically ripping our social fabric to shreds.

And I'm not picking a fight with you either.

...caveat. I'm am only willing to give them to the 2006 mid-terms, in order to see if they get their shit straight, such as needing verified voting, etc. However, on any local elections, I will vote and work for the most progressive candidate, be they Greens or whatever. I would love to see some Greens on some local school boards and in city council seats.

If the Dems. flop and remain in denial after 2006, and royally screw up as they did in the 2002 mid-terms, then all bets are off.

No need to reinvent the wheel. If those fundies can organize and take over the GOP from the local offices all the way to the top, surely us educated, sophisticated liberals can take over the Dems?

and Ralph Nader? If progressives (including, I hate to admit, myself) would have voted for Gore over Bush in 2000, W would never have been in the White House. I say reform the Democrats from within. They have to change. The current strategy isn't working. Let's influence the direction that change takes.

But now, the conventional wisdom in the mainstream media and many democrats is that "values" won it for Bush. My fear is that there will be a consensus in the party to try to incorporate Judeo-Christian "values" into the party's positions, thus alienating HUGE numbers of progressives, sending the party into an irreversible spiral. I seriously fear for the future of the party. I agree with what you say about reform, but I'm afraid that the type of reform most likely to happen will be yet another, even sharper turn to the right than what happened under the DLC and Clinton. I don't think the democrats can move any further right and still be viable.

The same could be said of our country...

if it means respect for life rather than war in Iraq. If it means caring for the poor and needy--which was Christ's primary message (he said nothing about homosexuality. Values can be part of a progressive message.
I don't think it is at all a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will move right. What makes you think that's going to be the outcome? I personally think it's not about left and right, but about building a party that represents the people. That requires a more populist message than Dem's have articulated in recent years, particularly when it comes to the economy.

But if democrats were to start to promote Christ's teachings as you describe, I doubt that most evangelicals would recognize them. That's not what is being taught in fundie churches today.

including Catholics

Did you see Meet the Press or This Week with George Steph...
Both had discussion on this very subject.
Meet the Press replays on MSNBC tonight if you're interested.
Sharpton was on.

I think it needs new blood,the leaders are now in thier teens.The world has changed.First off we need think tanks to get a vision that can be presented strongly enough to hold up to the repuke's dirty tricks of putting down government to creat a ruling class.The republicans appeal to people who want a simple life as we come off disjointed and complex.They have a simple plan based on the past put in place by old farts that don't care if there is a world in ten years.They are even banking on the world ending.
Hard work for us,but we can do it if we get all of it put into a form that can be understood.

I voted "The democratic party should be officially 'reborn' with a new populist direction, and maybe even a new name" because it keeps both options open and removes it as a divisive issue now.

Build populism. Gain strength. Then take over the party or run as a third party, depending on the circumstances. That is what the Dominionists did with the Republican party. They had an organization separate from the Republican party so that they couldn't be co-opted or misled, then as they gained strength they infiltrated and took over the party.

The Populist Coalition.

Independent. Strong. Belonging to nobody. No need to compromise or "settle for" the crumbs that fall off the table.

But I just can't bring myself to vote for the G.

We need to get more progressive, a more liberal counterpart to the DLC sounds like a good idea.

Exactly what issues?

When you referenced Roosevelt, that's what first came to mind.

Only one united party can resist the Republicans now. Kerry, more clearly than anyone in history, was trying to reclaim the mantle for FDR.

By the way, what was FDR's position on abortion? gay marriage? prayer in schools?

Another party would be an absolute disaster.