Is it time to start a PROGRESSIVE PARTY??

all the middle of the roaders can have them-selfs

we need for a start....

National health insurence
Nationalized Energy (oil, gas, elect)
Demilitrize America
Right to choose
Right to die
Business out of politics
Public funding of ALL elections... no other money allowed
REAL Separation of church and state.

Don't waste our time with this useless and futile exercise, please.

Last week we saw that 22 Democrats like Bush better than they like their constituents. America is being betrayed. But the traitors include Democrats who prevent us from fighting back. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I'm angry. BTW, the Sushi Bandit is also a good Democrat.

It was fun fighting for Kucinich

don't want to work towards change.
The OP doesn't want Republicans elected.
She/he wants progressives elected.
It would be nice if progressives weren't cut off at the knees IN OUR OWN PARTY.

Parties form alliances in other countries. This may be the only way to force these issues to the head of the table.

The Republican party may break into two parties (Neo-Cons and true Conservatives) in several years. It has happened before and it could happen again.

Oh, and having to sleep in the same bed with the DLC sickens me!!

We either become more progressive or many will leave the republican-lite party.

because they need to get a majority to win. in the United States you don't need a majority.

the other nations such as Germany allow different parties to come together AFTER the election . we don't have that here.

so you need a majority.

That said, the US needs a modern votinug system

Public funding of all elections
Proportional representation.
No Electoral college
Publicly owned electoral systems and teh same across the nation.
Oh and yes national health care
Top notch education
Corporate taxing
Breakup of our modern monopolies and so on

Gore: 48.38%
Bush*: 47.87%
Nader: 2.74%

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

P.S. I cannot believe this, but I can.

Bush: 37.4%
Clinton: 43.0%
Perot: 18.9%

and if you don't believe that the 2000 election was stolen in a well organized coup, there is nothing I can do about you

You DO UNDERSTAND how the EC works RIGHT?

Now you also understand that the Presidential election is the ONLY ONE that does not need a majority in the popular vote but one in the Electoral College... you also understand why this was insisted upon by some of the Founding Fathers, don't you?

Start with the idea of a third-party, and please explain to me how you will get an electoral college victory by forming an alliance between a third party and the Democrats without both parties agreeing to support the same candidate. I don't see your point.

the GOP and 1860

What you get is an external force putting pressure, do me a favor and go read all you can on... the guilded age and the Populist movement, Howard Zinn is a good place to start.

and yes I am convinced that ONLY the cheerleaders, for whom the party is more important than the country, are missing this on purpose

Get a copy of Howard Zinn, read about the Populists and then jump to FDR's new deal and then you tell me that they were not effective.

FDR stole the Socialist Party platform once elected.

The Socialists took it so well they virtually disbanded. As would a Progressive Party. Sometimes when you lose, you win. Alternatively, sometimes when you "win," you lose.

...and make sure it's one that can win in the general, and you will get what you want. Fail to do that, and you will get what they want. And that's all that needs to be said.

But you won't even do that, so I'm not worried about you getting enough initiative to start your feeble third party.

the base, from this and many other posts is not happy.

The party has taken the base for granted, and by the party I mean the powers that be.

By the way... in 1876 when the Populist first ran, they were laughed at... by 1888 nobody was laughing, for it did look as they were poised to replace the Democrats

By 1900, in an exercise of triangulation that would make Clinton blush they were absorbed into the Democratic party... you may know their best known legacy... the New Deal.

So continue having your face in that hidey hole... this talk is happening for a reaon... and it has to do with people who are angry at Democrats who talk the talk, but don't vote that same talk... people have had it... and what you are seeing is the stirring of the base.

There are things that can be done... such as for once listening... that is the first step


Oh and before you ask, I have voted in every election since I have been able to, in a solid democratic slate, and this WILL change in 2006... for I do not intend to vote for DLC Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.



By the way, we may be able to avoid this, if we manage to ge the REAL progressives in the party into leadership possitions... and mostly out there in the public eye.

...and we have the Iraq war and an underfunded FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers which contributed to the New Orleans flood.

I think history's on my side on this one.

Like I said on another thread, get whoever you want elected in the primary who can win in the general, or else you fail. Yourself, and others.

I have contended already that if Nader did not exist, the coup would have gone on anyway.

That said, you have yet to address this problem with the base.

When you take the base for granted, sometimes the base revolts

I think history is on my side on this one as well... it usually takes an external force to shake the power structure, whether it is the GOP in 1852, the Grangers and Populists in the Gilded Age, or to a point Ross Perot.

The Greens have not had the same effect for reasons that have to do with the way they run the party.

Now here are two things for ya that are ALREADY occurring and if blocked by the DLC will lead to a split, you can see this in the posts.

Democracy for America and PDA... they are trying within the strictures of the 50 national parties, but mark my words, the DLC tries to block this evolution, it will get ugly, history is on my side.

And then the Iraq war starts and hundreds of people die in a flood...but oh well, the "base" (it has been proven by a Pew Research study that this group of internet activists does not represent the views of the party as a whole anyways) gets the psychic benefits of losing the election and feeling special or whatever through it's futile gesture.

Why would I want people in charge of the party who don't know how to get what they want and will destroy themselves to make a statement?

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=240

be honest, how many recently?

There are several things that you are missing

1.- The electoral system IS compromised

2.- Movements do not start with the status quo crowd, but with those you think are radical... they have to be, quite brutally honest

3.- The base you are right now dismissing, is the active component of that base, and many are disgusted. To the point you see talk of a third party... or quite honestly not playing (aka staying home)

4.- The DLC is not delivering.

5.- Compromise is hurting the country

6.- There is this old saying, if you hear noise by the river, it is carrying water... most people know that at least you check to see how bad the water is rising... for it may be a flood.

2004...let's see, we ran against someone who was a symbol of protection during a terrorist attack...you know, Kerry's margin wasn't that bad.

Hate to tell you this too, but us losing Congress in 1994 had nothing to do with the DLC, and it's been thoroughly examined and debunked. If you care to make a case for it that delves into reasons, do so, but don't just say we're losing elections because of the DLC just because everyone else is.

of 2000

Ok make up your mind

And I know why we lost the house... I know why, but they went to war, while yuo are still sipping tea

While you sip your tea the rest of us are thinking what needs to be done to FIX this party and compromise and the Third Way are NOT it.

Here is another thing you should read, who ran the country in the Gilded Age, and then compare who runs the country today... and you also should ask how many of OUR democrats are compromised by those same forces... and why.

Do the exercise then come back to me or the rest of the base you dismiss who are PISSED OFF and ready for a new message and ... REAL LEADERSHIP

...of how you need 51% of the popular vote. I didn't say we should not have won it. But even if we did, it wouldn't have been by 51% of the popular vote.

that this one is the exception, by the way... it still takes a majority vote to elect the president in the only vote it matters: The Electoral College....

Go read the Constitution and the Federalist, then go dig up some of Adam's papers on why the EC was needed.

and I do URGE you to read Howard Zinn

A group which cannot be relied on to support the Party cannot, by definition, be the Party's base, or even a part of the Party's base. The base of the Party consists in those elements that will support it, regardless, rain or shine. It cannot consist in those who declare they will desert the Party if not catered to in every detail, or who do not recognize that victory over the opposing party is the principal aim.

Further, a group which cannot go a long way towards supplying sufficient votes to the Party to enable it to prevail on the national level, cannot properly be viewed as the base of the Party, for that must also consist in those groups that supply the greatest proportion of its reliable voting strength, though they may need some augmentation from other elements for the Party to prevail. The fact is that the elements who clamor against courting the center of the political spectrum do not provide such a sizeable voting strength. No more than a fifth of voters even identify themselves as Liberal, and the proportion that would identify themselves as Left cannot be in excess of a tenth. This is not a base for national success in an election: it is one group in a coalition, that must compromise and find ways to persuade to gain any sway in coalition policy.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

voters who are part of that loyal base are questioning what is going on

These discussions are actually pointing the reason for it. As is... whether people like it or not, many democrats, some of them well known life time democrats (Mike Malloy) will support INDIVIDUAL democrats, but will not support the party overall (DLC is the reason and the lack of standing up)

Others, (William PItt) have recently admonished the party NOT to take the base for granted.

And the party is.

So we come back to the question, why is this going on? I will contend there are several reasons, and I started a thread on that today (and apparently pointing the herd of elephants in the room is akin to pushing for a third party... which pointing trends is not, and pointing to history is not either)... you may want to look for that article, for it is important but it did not receive the attention it needs here, I do hope though it does receive that attention at the DNC, who got a copy.

What cannot be taken for granted is not the base.

A fracture on the left will simply guarantee victory and office to the worst elements of reaction in the near term, and they will certainly take the opportunity of it to so secure their position as to armor it for a generation against all hope of overthrow. This sort of fracture is endemic to the left, and has throughout history been the surest resource of reactionary success. It must be avoided at all costs in the present time.

the talk here should be worrisone.

now turn to C-SPAN 2 and watch the Dems show some spine... I now am fully convinced they are readying this place.

Hi boys

The D.L.C. line has some useful points, though not all their prescriptions are good ones. The basic point that the Party must expand its appeal to voters in the center is a sound one: that is something that must be achieved if the power of reactionary Republicans is to be broken.

The D.L.C. view of how this is to be achieved is rooted the realization that a great proportion of center voters nowadays react quite viscerally with scorn to what they perceive the Left to be. It does not matter that the "Left" these people reject so scornfully is largely a caricature; the feeling is a very real one, and far too widespread to be ignored. Worse, like any good caricature, there is just enough truth to it that people taken by it have all they need to cling to it. It is child's play for an ill-disposed person to pluck examples of anti-patriotism, ivory-tower elitism, and sundry irrelevancies clung to passionately as if they were as important as a living wage and safe work-places, from the panoply of Left agitation, and convince such people that "Leftists" have not the least concern for them, and indeed, look down on them with scorn. For easily the last thirty years, this has been an albatross about the shoulders of the political forces arrayed against reactionary exploitation of the people, and conversion of our society into something more on the order of a feudal polity than the country we were born and raised in.

The D.L.C. view is that if the Party's political leadership is seen expressing distaste for those caricatured elements, it will allow them to appeal to the center voters without rousing the prejudice the last several decades of political life have instilled in that bloc, and make the Party something that bloc can identify with. This seems to me misguided, on several grounds. First, it does not make sufficient allowance for the action of the enemy. Things like this are not conducted in a vacuum, and the Republicans will be busy reinforcing the identification that has been so beneficial to them. My guess is that they will be able to do this as busily as the attempted distancing can be conducted, and so it will result in no net gain of allegiance. Second, it seems to me to be based on a mis-reading of what will successfully cultivate identification with the Party among the center voters. People do not choose political sides rationally but passionately; they are moved much more powerfully against things than for them; they identify with champions who they see as embodying what they wish they were themselves, who will fight their battles for them. Splitting differences does not work as a strategy for expanding political reach: what has to be done is to move the line along which the people divide in elections in such a way that more of them find themselves on our side of it.

Similarly, the line expressed by purist elements, that centerists must be read out of the Party, and that the middle ground be ceded to the enemy, is wholly futile. It simply plays into the widespread caricature of the Left predominant in the center, and will only succeed in driving center voters more firmly into the enemy's camp, even as it fractures the Party into two diminished camps, and forfeits the future to the foe. It is based on a very poor view of what the relative strengths of the various elements of our polity are, and at bottom is no more than the wishful fallacy that there are great reservoirs of people out there who "really" agree with the purists, but are somehow prevented from expressing that now, but will rally in hordes to the banner once it is raised free of any taint by compromise and calculation. But that will never happen: people who do not now vote do not differ much in their view of things from people who do vote, and the agitation of the purist elements has had sufficient exposure that if it was going to spark a prairie fire, it would already have done so over the last several decades.

It seems to me there are two things that must be done, and neither one is particularly easy.

The first is a disciplined self-effacement. It is always wise to learn from the enemy, and the "stealth" tactics of the religious right are an excellent case in point. These people did not achieve their power by open declaration of their intent, because their intent is unwelcome to the greater portion of the voting population. Rather they hid their nature and their purpose, and concentrated on opposing something the voting populace was disposed already to regard with a leery eye.

The second is to determine, and concentrate, on what people really want, and express that in their own terms. Many of the things most dear to the more radical elements of the left the mass of people do not give two figs for, and do not view as touching their own lives in the slightest. It will do no good to try and convince them these things really are of great importance, for if in fact they really were, people would notice them, and not need the convincing. It is necessary to determine what most people do not like about their lives and their society, and identify the enemy as the source of those things, and make clear you are their champion against that abomination that afflicts them. If these things are not what we do not like, it does not matter one whit. Once the identification is achieved, once the overlap is established, then people can be brought around to share a different view.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

The Republicans would certainly back any third party rival..And this is a sure fired way to keep the fascists' in power.

Appeasement. Get along with the Repugs. Move the Dems to the center.
Lose the House. Lose the Senate. Bush elected twice. All during DLC tenure.

It's just like with all ideologues. Any accusation they fling at others is something they're doing themselves.

Just say, "No" to appeasement. Say no to the DLC.

Just what would you DLC centrists do without progressives? It's simple. You'd continue losing.

Getting your candidates to win the primary who can also win the general will. But that is also, like, work, so we know what'll happen to that.

Something Gore did not do. Something Kerry did not do. For the most part, something the senate Dems did not do. With the exception of the CBC and a couple of others, it's also something that the House Dems did not do.

The people are ready for, waiting for, yearning for, somebody to stand up and lead this country. They are acheing for somebody to take on the corruption, the dishonesty and all the rest. Somebody is going to stand tall and take on these guys. If it is a moderate, I will support him or her. But I do not see anything coming out of the moderate camp other than "get along with the nice Republicans" and "we've gotta be more like the nice Republicans". I think this is a losing strategy. History seems to agree with me. I may be wrong, but I do not think I am.

We'll have to see how things play out.

changed the rules completely in 1994...

They went to war, while we are still engaging in platitudes. What is worst, they have yet to realize this.

The Republicans vote as a monolithic block. Well, that's wrong because it means that they are ruled on ideological basis instead of bending to their constituency or on principle. But the DLC is trying to fight the Repugs by turning the Dems into an ideologically pure moderate party, which would be just like Ralph Nader said, "no different from the Republicans".

Only by having liberals in the party can we hold the whole bunch accountable. It's hard work, though (as GWB would say it). Especially when the DLC tends to play directly into the Repug's hand.

This makes the DLC strategy a losing strategy. I don't know how anybody could think that it could possibly win.

main tool...

Ours well yes, herding cats is at times easier, but our people were admired (some still are, Conyers anyone), for standing on principle

Also if you ask joe six pack in the street, they can tell you what Pugs stand for... ask them about Dems, who have yet to figure out how to work the radios (they are getting better) and how to talk to the people in more than just long sentences. The two word culture war, they need to figure that out

The problem is that everytime anybody points these elephants in teh room some of the apologists for the DLC come in and try hard to defend their possition. On the plus side the elephants have become quite obvious and people are talking about them far more often, which is placing them in qutie the defensive position, as you can see in this thread. They are also the friends of yet another elephant, this one is common in political systems. It has several names, the don't rock the boat, et al, my favorite name for it is... status quo.

People ought to know by now. Appeasing fascists does not work.

and they apeacse, we agree...

The Repugs have been rocking it plenty for the better part of a decade (or more). Since Chimpy's been in the WH, they've really rocked things. The DLCers need to understand that they are being played as patsies, successfully I might add. It's almost criminal what they let those criminals get away with.

As I said, the Rs went to war, and changed the nature of the game (rocked the boat) we are still sipping our tea under the Jacaranda tree, acting like ladies and gentlemen and fearing the rocking of that boat, for it may go against the status quo...

for 30 years- starting with the cold war years when Russia was their target. When the Berlin wall fell and we became the monopolar superpower the neocons and the think tanks and anti-taxation forces and religious groups united and had their agenda ready to go... then they couched their complex plans in simple terms:

gays, guns, God and patriotism.

We need depth of thinking with simplicity of phraseology.

we do

But don't complain to me or anyone else if you can't deliver the primary, and don't get a Republican elected in the general to spite, kill, and drown people for not voting for your candidate back then either.

I'm talking about mounting opposition to Repugs who are in office. I'm talking about making Iraq an issue. I'm talking about making corruption an issue. I'm talking about making the Constitution an issue. It can be done. The Repugs are very vulnerable right now and will probably remain so through next year. It's our one best chance to beat the pants off of them.

A DLC-like campaign will not work against an incumbent Repug. When there is little difference between you and an incumbent opponent, the incumbent nearly always wins because you have not given the voting public a sufficient reason to switch their votes. I tend to agree with this maxim. The voters are going to be looking for a difference next year. The extent to which the Dems offer no difference is the extent to which we will lose. That's a fact of life from which there is no escape.

I am open to reading the positions of all members, as long as they are well-presented and civil.

If you can't be civil, please refrain from posting.

Under their "strategy," the Dems went from being the longtime majority party to absolutely irrelevant in 8 short years....

The DLCers need to be the ones to start their own party, not us!

Lately, I've learned that certain people call themselves progressive if they are progressive on one issue and right-wing on others. I like the idea of a liberal party. I think the name deters single issue people.

DU administrators have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they have no tolerance for that shit on their website.

fight for Democracy. Does the name Democratic Underground mean that
this site is for the exclusive use of pro-Democratic Party ideas or does it mean that all who want to preserve Democracy in America are welcome?

Most of the probable Democratic candidates for President in 2008 have already voted with Bush to attack any country he chooses to attack. I find that highly disturbing and discouraging. Kerry would have been President had he not voted with Bush or at least said that in light of Bush's obvious lies, he would have voted differently.
Clinton not only voted with Bush but currently advocates sending in 40,000 more troops. We should support that kind of thinking?

Where does DU say people can't voice there opinion? I like what the OP has to say. Are you saying we should not hear it?

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate."


Of course, there's no guarantee the rules will be enforced....

This is a forum for us to discuss the real issues. If our party doesn't pay attention to us progressives, They risk loosing us!

...to people seeking attention through futile threats.

.

Neo-Dems or something like that.

We are a superset of Democrats. We will be real Democrats.

We keep our official 'Democrat' party affiliation - but we are true blue patriotic Democrats.

They used 'neocon' - we use neodem.

.02

we need to define ourselves within the Democratic party --we need to have our own power within the party as a visible subset, as our number are actually much larger than we are ever given credit for. I think we are the majority. But we are being being jerked around by the Corporate Democrats--we have to stop taking this.

I don't like "Neo-Dems" since it is too close to neo-con with those negative connotations.

Maybe Progressive Democrats or Liberal Democrats?

We need a name and a separate identity.

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

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

Siphoning off progressives from the Democratic party to a new party would ensure even more Republicans get elected. That would be true for several election cycles at minimum.

But, staying with the Democratic party as presently lead won't do much to install a true progressive agenda--not even close. I am really disgusted with the party's lack of fight and disarray and creeping corporatism.

Still, bottom line, I'd rather have some of what I believe in become policy than see everything I believe in trashed for a decade. Therefore, I'll still support the Democrats and will not even consider a third party. Something is better than nothing.

to pretend that they are during elections...and make them fight for the elections that get stolen. I am a life long Democrat, but I am pissed as hell at many of the "leaders" in my party who are not standing up for the people who elected them, who have sold out to the puppet masters or who just want to "play it safe" while America goes down the tubes.
What happened to the Loyal opposition? Is it all just a charade? Do we get thrown a few bones of hope occasionally...maybe next election...maybe the next scandal will really change things...When are we going to wake up? There are some powerful forces that even Eisenhower warned about that are in control, that have an increasingly tight control and they are not about to back down. They have proven their ability to lie, cheat and kill to get what they want.
I wish that I had some confidence that the Democrats will take over and live up to their promices...but they have walked away from two stolen presidential elections.They could have gotten together and filibustered Roberts....Georges old lawyer pal....The people are not supporting George anymore, BUT they are not crazy about the Dems either because the Dems are not leading and the dems are not standing up for America and the Dems are not fighting for what the people want.
People are talking about a third party because something is very wrong with the way our Democratic leaders are acting that needs to be addressed. Are they beholden to the same puppet masters. Is this all just a divide and conquer charade where left and right leaning folks in the middle and lower income groups get played against each other while the ruling elite destroys everything we have.
If I thought that a third party would do any good, I would join in a heartbeat. In this last month I have seen an unelected (TWICE) resident of the White House use a national tragedy, for which he deserves the lion's share of the blame run his right wing agenda through Congress as if the had a huge mandate! How can this be happening?
I want to scream: Roberts, slashing of wage protections, no-bid pork barrel giveaways, use of mercenaries in our own cities,proposing expanded nuclear first strike opportunities,gutting the UN Millennium goals, the list goes on and on and on. And they even dare to hire Brownie as a consultant?
Never in the history of our country has there ever been such a corrupt bunch of leaders. ANY ONE of their scandals would have sunk the Democrats. Why are they still standing.
I keep hoping that "maybe the next scandal will sink them or maybe the next indictment, or maybe the next..."
Or is it just a big charade? Is the fix in?
Meanwhile, we are destroying the only planet we have.

Check out this thread, still on page one of GD/Pol as I make this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2137252

There's an enormous amount of common ground in that thread. I dare say that, as a group, there is virtual unanimity. If you check out the other body of personal posts from any of those who posted in that thread, you'll find they're all over the DU spectrum.

We don't need a new party. We need to get this one back on its feet.

Let me know how far you get on your "demilitarize America" platform. Are you going to disband the military altogether? Do tell.

Sorry, I'm definitely not a "DLCer," but total demilitarization of America? No thank you (the other stuff looks fine though).

how about the dismantling of the National Security State and curtailing our spending to go more in line to what everybody else is doing. We are spending as much as the next 20 countries

Last year we spent 401 B in defense, Russia, which is a tad larger than us, spent 51B... by the way, given the deficit, again reaching for US History, once the Feds are bankrupt, expect that spending to crash down, spectacularly so... ask the Ruskies... no money at times for even target practice. Oh and the same happend when Andrew Johnson managed to bankrupt the US, his goal prevent the formation of the national bank, he succeeded, spectacularly so... but the army didn't have bullets

I would prefer the US military only being used for the defense of the United States of America. Exceptions could be made on a case by case basis regarding involvement in a NATO or UN coalition peacekeeping sort of thing. But no more imperialist/corporatist bullshit. And that's exactly what it's ALL been after WWII.

I have been proud bumper-sticker DU member for over 2 years with over 2200 posts. I have never been anti-DU!

Probably meant "anti-DLC"

and turn it into a modern day Progressive Populist Party . . .

one thing we seem to forget is that the largest pool of new Democratic votes is all the people who don't vote! . . . if we were a party that truly represented them (and us!), and if we did some serious voter education and registration, we'd win everything . . .

And I hope the powers that be are readying some of this.

PDA is one organization that is trying this and I will support PDA...

But the first step in ahem fixing the problems, and there are many... is that we first identify the herd of elephants and we deal with it.

Voter outreach and education is one of those elephants. I pointed out in another thread, if you ask joe six pack what the GOP stands for, they will ... no problem, give you a panoply of one liners. If you ask Joe what the Dems stand for.. I have gotten glazed eyes.... and then I go to work.

The largest elephant right now, what I like to call the Clue elephant is, the pugs are loosing in the polls bad, they are almost on free fall. It should stand to logic that the Dems should be gaining traction. Either it is going to happen, but it is on slow motion, or there is a problem... and thanks for identifying one of the elephants, voter education and GOTV

Now the herd is baying, they need to be fed.

;-)

I think it is selfish. In my opinion, EVERYONE on the left has the right to call him or herself a Democrat, no matter if they're moderate or a "fringe lefty." Any center-left Dem who wants to draw all other Dems into the middle with them, is in my opinion a selfish person. And the same goes for those on the far left who want to "take back" the Democratic party and make it ultra liberal. You know, the Democratic party belongs to the DEMOCRATS of America. It doesn't belong just to the moderates or just to the lefties or anyone in between. It belongs to everyone on the left. Whatever the majority of American Democrats want, is the direction that the Democratic party should go, even if you or I personally are not 100% comfortable with that direction. So, I respectfully disagree with anyone who wants to "take back" the party (on any extreme), if a majority of Democrats do not agree with that direction.

On the other hand, if you're not happy and really unwilling to compromise (again, that goes for EVERYBODY, from DLC to far left), then of course, it is your right to leave and make a new party. Of course, the left will be forever divided and thus dead as the Republicans perpetually rule, but it is of course, your right.

if you mean some DUers -- I'm sure there are some.

But, please name one, just one significant Democratic Party politician or figure who is by any wild stretch of the imagination far left, extreme, fringe left or whatever.

And more importantly please tell just what positions do these alleged "far leftist" hold that are by any wild stretch of the imagination "far left".

I would suggest that these term are nothing more than RNC talking points. Unfortunately, the RNC gets a lot help promoting these talking points with the K-Street Democrats going on the mainstream media and spreading this Republican propaganda for them.

and I don't even have to define it. Just look at this thread. The starter separates him/herself from other Dems by calling for the formation of a "progressive party," presumably because the Democratic party isn't as liberal as s/he would like. Isn't that evidence enough that there are people who classify themselves on the far left?

Now, to your point about labels. Of course there is no physical political scale of where people stand. They may be right wing labels, they may not. But my point remains valid, regardless of how we call it, IMO.

Is the mythology of the "fringe left" "far left" ultra-liberal or whatever within the Democratic Party.

Let's take Dennis Kucinich for example- I believe he can be fairly called left. But the K-street Democrats would say he is "far" left or even "fringe" left. Why? What positions does Mr. Kucinich advocated that are not well within the mainstream of public opinion, especially mainstream Democrat opinion. Some of his opinions such as support for single-payer universal health care are supported by the vast majority of Americans-just as his opposition to much of what is called in its Orwellian term "free trade". Mr. Kucinich's opinion is-on these issues clearly with the vast overwhelming majority of Americans. But the K-street Democrats would call it "fringe" or "far" left --with no basis in reality whatsoever.

I have even heard Gov. Dean referred to "far left". This does not even pass the laugh text. What positions does Gov. Dean hold that are not moderate/centrist?

then why hasn't he been elected president of the united states? Not all "mainstream Democrats" have identical positions on every issue. For example, some think homosexual marriage ought to be a right, while others think only civil unions ought to be a right and that the fed gov't shouldn't be involved (Clark, Kerry come to mind).

Or are you saying that our elected politicians are all moderate but the Democrats who actually elect them are not?

As I said in my original post, if a majority of American Democrats vote for candidates further to the left, then that should be the direction of the party, and if they want more moderate candidates, then that should be the direction of the party.

candidate? Don't you?

During the campaign mention (outside the debates) how many times you saw Kucinich on national media? Oh yes, I remember seeing him ONCE.

that is part of the problem.

Not that many democrats are willing or able to understand the system is rigged.

I will say it again, the party today would not run FDR... because he is a radical lefty.

He would be a great pres!

and repeat RNC talking points hurts ALL Democrats across the spectrum.

Their endless name-calling makes electing any Democrats all the harder. They are not just doing on Democratic blogs. They are doing it throughout the entire media.

The RNC spends millions upon millions to get their message that Democrats are "far" left or "fringe". It's a huge boost of support for them when they get so much help from some corporate-lobbyist oriented Democrats.

If they have a problem with Gov. Dean's or Mr. Kucinich's positions-- let them talk rationally about their objections to their positions--instead of their endless and baseless name-calling.

the issue is the very small group that controls everything versus the people . . . the right-left stuff is what they push on us to keep us from focusing on the REAL dichotomy . . .

The last time a successful, national and lasting new party was launched it was the GOP in the 1850's when the country was on the verge of civil war. We are not at that state yet. And the possibility of changing the constitution to a parliamentary system with proportional representation is about as likely as George W. Bush nominating Noam Chomsky to replace John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

I had some experience with third party efforts many years ago. Trust me it can't swim and it won't fly--at least on the national level and in the long term.

Interestingly, back around 1976 many right-wing conservatives talked of starting a new conservative party because they were unhappy with moderate and even "liberal" Republicans. Instead they ran Reagan in the 1976 primary against Gerald Ford and narrowly lost the nomination. Four years later they won and began their "Reagan revolution".

Yes it is possible to change the Democratic Party into a genuinely progressive party. For one thing under LBJ it was in many ways. Unfortunately, the monstrously misguided polices of the cold war led LBJ and our country into disaster in Viet Nam -- destroying his base of support and inflecting permanent damage on the Democratic Party.

In 1973 DNC Chair Robert Strauss basically threw away the Small donor list and grassroots activist list of the Democratic Party and turned the party away from progressive policies and toward corporate lobbyist dependency.

Now, I think the winds of change are blowing strong.

Its just the media and repukes have made dems sound like we don't get it. The same people that say dems aren't progressive are the same ones that bought into the Reagan lies. Ronnire said so and its true, end of story, they are looking for another Reagan because Ronnie was able to convince them that only he could save america. Yet they refuse to see that Reagan sold america to the highest bidder.

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

That way you can split the Republican ticket and not the Democratic one.
Having a liberal third party candidate helped Bush win in 2000. Having a Republican-ish third party helped Democrats win in 1912.

Seriously, form the Jesus Party or something.

I am a mostly middle of the roadie and I don't think I'll miss you.

And hey, good luck with that 'demilitarize America' thing.

Hey why don't you liberals create a third party?

No doubt there are lots of conservatives who wish they could.

when they mention a talking point they are reflecting.

These discusions though are bringing out problems that need work... by the way... read Zinn's take on the populist and granger parties during the Gilded Age... it might sound like deja vu

And I'm not for demilitrizing America.

...are being told to 'start their own party' or that they're being 'traitors' to the party.

What the hell is going on? Since when is fighting for the RIGHT THING considered radical or harmful to 'our' party?

Is it any wonder why George has attained more illegal power than any other president in US history?

n/t

Sorry, but I went to one of the Communist "teach ins". That shit burned me up. Its bad enough that people think that socialism and a more communitarian society is a bad thing. Its even worth when the so called avatars are bunch of raving madmen.

- Cappa

the left-most of the two major parties, then how can it be expected to win the ear of the entire nation?

What makes more sense, progressives forming a seperate party and fighting two powerful and well-funded organizations (Dems and GOP)

or

progressives gaining control of one of these organizations and having only one other to fight?

People, and turn to the Populist Movement of the 1880s and then to FDR... the answer you seek may be in there.

Moreover, teh DLC keeps tellign anybody who actually is a progresive to pack a bag and leave... and if they succeed, they will get their wish... and the party will splinter.

History at this point is your guide

Lets make this Democratic Party... truly Progressive

we need for a start....

National health insurence
Nationalized Energy (oil, gas, elect)
Demilitrize America
Right to choose
Right to die
Business out of politics
Public funding of ALL elections... no other money allowed
REAL Separation of church and state.

They all seem to forget that WINNING THE OFFICE is kinda important. Therefore, YES, you've gotta sell your soul to Satan to win, deal from the bottom of the deck, pimp your firstborn, WHATEVER it takes.

That's politics. I mean, it's NICE that you confidently use "when" instead of "if" in your speech before a crowd of approx. 31 people and that it shows up at 2:30 PM on Saturday on C-Span but that's so not enough.

You've gotta kiss ass, eat nauseating "regional" fare, wear that silly bolo tie for a hoedown, throw baseballs, sit through boring church services, and MORE.

Show me an elected official and I'll show you a person who secretly cringes at the mere mention of the word "chili."

There is a verse in the New Testament:

“Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?” (Luke 16:10-11).


The problem is that most Third Way Candidates couldn't win a two way race against their own reflection or run a hotdog stand. And since alot of the left's greatest thinkers (and most of caricatures) are usually Ivy League intellectuals who aren't interested in realpolitik, we're going keep getting our butt whooped.

Why? Because Clinton and Bush understand one thing, to really win and change politics in a democracy it requires hard work, compromise and the -- gasp--- ability to shut the hell up and let the people who liberals claim to fight for speak for themselves-- even when we think their ideas are poorly formed or downright irrational.

I've worked in the Nader campaign and most the organizers are College educated yuppies who spend way too much time listening to folk music and bitching about Starbucks. And from interviews with Nader and his supporters, they're quite happy to keep it that way. You can't claim to fight for the working class when the working class have no place in your movement.


To put it bluntly, if your party can't organize the PTA or win a good portion of a city council, forget about getting into Capitol Hill. And if your trying to build a movement on college campuses to rally the poor and working class, you're starting off base to begin with.

If we follow the model of the Troskyites or the Green Party (educated Ivory Tower elites arguing against real class based injusticed while treating the underclass and uneducated as well meaning children) we'll only the DLC vs the RNC -- rich vs rich, bitch. Atleast you know what you're getting with those two.

We can't afford to risk any more Rethug domination of the White House, Congress, etc.

Let the split come down between the insane Bible thumpers (DeLay's crowd) vs. the socially moderate fiscal conservatives (Snowe, Hutchinson, etc.). Once we retake the White House and Congress, if the platform you espouse is not acted upon, I think a progressive party/wing (a la the Greens) is a good idea.

Until the Repubs splinter, however, if we vote for a progressive 3rd party, it's Ralph Nader and Democratic disaster all over again. (And there's no point in getting self-righteous about the DLC and the "sellouts"--politics is sometimes about compromise, and right now that's just what we've got to deal with.)

We have a serious situation, the next generation of the Activists who helped end the Viet-Nam war are waiting for the DNC and the rank and file Democratic Party Members to join us, and we are actually derided by our own party members.

We are pushing for the same type of social justice that our party was famous for demanding in the 1960's and 1970's. We are calling for common sense social action to end the generations long inequality that exists in our nation today. The Rich get richer, the poor get taken advantage of, and the Government wipes their feet on the lower classes daily.

In another thread I posted the names of all the Democratic Senators and Representatives who voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act. This act revamped the Bankruptcy laws for citizens, but didn't change the standards for Corporations one little bit. American Airlines defaults on their contractual obligation to fund the retirement of the workers, and we are told the biggest problem is Bank One is suffering because of individual bankruptcy? Sixty Eight Representatives who are Democratic Party Members voted for that act. 18 Democratic Senators voted for the Act. We get fund raising e-mails almost daily from the DNC, telling us we have to help out in the fight. How much help did you need to put the voting card in the NAY slot? I have a spare set of glasses if that is the problem, and would be happy to donate them to one of our reps if they need it. How much help did you need to see that this was a horrible piece of legislation that puts even more burden on the backs of the Poor?

We ask our elected leaders, our Party Leaders, and the fellow members what the hell happened, and how long are we going to support Democrats who stab us in the back? We get chastised and told that we are either A)Freepers in disguse, B) Republicans, or C)Determined to destroy the party. I had one response that suggested that the Democrats were trying to fight a "smart" battle to regain control of the Senate. Smart for who? Not smart for the People.

We donate our time, money, and even our cars. I donated my mini-van for use driving people to the polls on the last election day. I work nights, and spent half the day driving around the county, my gas, my efforts. I was happy to do it, and willing to do it. I was really happy when the Democrat tossed the corrupt Repugnik out of office.

When are we going to get a return on our investment? When will those we elect finally remember those who got them there. We turn out for the Primaries, We turn out for the rallys. We turn out for the GOTV and walk the districts. We pass out flyers, and endure the insults from the Repugniks. They can't even vote NAY on a horrible Bill like the Bankruptcy Reform Act. We are being betrayed, daily by the "lesser of two evils" and it's so frustrating and frankly makes us all look like Asses instead of Donkeys.

We tell our friends, neighbors, community members, how we really care and how we need their support on election day. We tell them how this candidate is different, or how the Party is different now because of whatever change has happened. We tell them that we really are going to push for the things needed to help the people. We get their support, and we deliver that support. We then fall exausted into our beds, satisfied on a job well done. We then spend the next several years enduring complaints from our neighbors and friends about how a representative betrayed the people. How do I justify sacraficing again my time, money, and efforts to help elect people who would vote with the corrupt Repugniks? Why should I? I could do nothing and get a Repugnik that would vote that way.

I could take that volenteering time, and take a weekend journey to the Atlanta Zoo and spend some time photographing some beautiful animals with a camera I could easily buy with funds I have instead of donating it to the DNC? I could go on a whale watching trip, or do any number of things.

If the Democrats don't start voting for the People in Congress, I am very likely to do any number of things, except support them.

If the Democrats feel like we aren't supporting them, I can assure you, the feeling is mutual. We all feel like they are not supporting US. A sound bite blasting DeLay is neat, and satisfies our primal urge. Your vote is what really counts, and you are abusing that too often in far too many of our opinions.

Is it time for a Progressive Party? I honestly don't know. I can tell you how tired I am of all the dissapointment from the Elected Democrats.

They gave us 8 years of bush, the war in Iraq, the castration of environmental laws, tax cuts for the rich and 2 conservative Supreme Court Justices. Let's do that again!!

The dust hadn't even settled from the January infrauduration when I stepped up to join Progressive Democrats of America. A few weeks after that, I committed to making a regular, automated, monthly contribution which qualified me as a founding sustainer. It's a badge I wear with great pride and invite everyone to consider. The best page on their site to begin is

http://www.pdamerica.org/video.php

n/t