I know thee's a lot of loyal Dems here....but....

It seems to me that there's a lot of folks here who have just about had it with the leadership. I think Harry did a great job this week, but to me it seems a day late, and a few vertabrae short.

Tepid, waterish and pablumic - afraid to engage bullies, and then snickering when the thugs fall off the jungle gym (if you'll forgive the weak metaphor).

Let's put it this way; they're not exactly inspiring me.

Guess what? There's a LOT of Republicans towards the center of the aisle who feel exactly the same way about the failings of their own leadership (failings which are inarguably much, much worse for the direction of this country).

Isn't it about time that we had a Moderate Party? I'm not a marketing dude, so I'm not sure if that's the right name for it...and no, I don't mean playing for the Center. I mean finding the common ground, qualifying the things that bind us ALL. Left, right, and center.

It's probably a very short list, so it shouldn't be that hard to fit on a poster.

I don't know; maybe I'm nuts making a plea for sanity in this toxic environment.

Somebody just posted a poll here that showed 89% of Americans would readily consider 3rd party alternatives to the clusterfuck that passes for American Government now.

I sure would.

CT had them and there were a few more. And there were conservative Dems, too. Sam Nunn was one. Things kinda worked in those days. The lib Repubs helped get rid of Nixon, for instance.

A moderate party? Hmm, I don't know. What do you think a Moderate Party would do with the abortion issue, for instance?

abortion is used by politicians who have no real input on Roe v Wade, from dogcatcher on up. Its vote pandering but its disingenuous misuse of a wedge issue.
I think ONLY those issues directly affected by the seat in question should be used.

just my two cents.

that local issues CAN influence abortion politics in a very decisive way for women. We have codified Roe in CT so that is safe, but there are local laws regarding the use of bullhorns, or how many feet from an abortion faciity a protestor can stand, and the definition of a "threat". These and others constitute the problem faced by women who are seeking abortion.

Try to think of it as voting rights in the south. When black voters went to the polls on voting day way back when, southern whites would sit in front of the door of the voting precinct, with their shotguns on their laps. They didn't have to say they would kill any black person who dared to show up to vote. It was pretty clear.

Now here are the abortion protestors at the site of a clinic. They are flaunting their signs. But they also are taking down license plate numbers of patients and videotaping people coming into the clinic. That is intimidation against these women, a clear violation of their civil rights. Any state where this is happening should revolt!

Just my thoughts...

otherwise, I see what you're getting at there.

That's the deal. Roe is the law of the land, just as Brown v. Board of Education was. Ever since Marbury v. Madison, it has just been accpeted that the Supreme Court decides these issues.

I just hope we are clear on this.

you seem to be talking to someone else?

I'm saying it should not be a platform issue, and you're saying it should be accepted as a done deal....we're arguing the same points from different angles.

a 200 billion dollars. The Dems need to get the focus on all the really important issues. Talk about Alternative energy, a sane foreign policy, improving conservation, environmental concernsand so on. There are so many other issues that people are concerned about, but during election times, get sidetracked by distractions. But that was before they realized that stopping gay marriage would not prevent $3 a gallon gas. The time is right to be loud and clear for progressive and rational leadership!

I wonder what party he belongs to now. I like him. In my high school mock election that year, I campaigned for him.

It was just a waste. I met him a few years later and thought he was a cold, arrogant ass. I am no longer interested in 3rd party candidates.

I think we need a Liberal/leftist party, not a moderate and rightwing one. Most of the democrats almost qualify as moderate, those that I don't count as conservative.

We're so used to GOP fascism, that I'm afraid we actually believe Democrats are leftists. Compared with other advanced nations, our Democrats are moderate/conservative.

As for third parties, until we get the Democrats back in power and force them to change the voting day to SATURDAY, tax the rich, put ALL the social programs back in the way they were before the GOP destroyed them, improve education and stop the teaching of Christian extremism as science in public schools, ensure equality, do away with that unconstitutional faith-based giving of our tax money to churches, and enforce anti-monopoly laws, and start charging huge tariffs to any company who moves abroad to get cheap labor but wants to sell its product here, we won't be able to get a third party... ever.

Seriously

IMHO.

conservatives (well, until recently anyhow) used to be fiscal responsibility and social apathy.
liberals were social responsibility and fiscal apathy.

moderates supposedly took the best of both: fiscal responsibility and social responsiblity.

necons take the worst of both: fiscal and social apathy.

that in Canada and everywhere else - when the "lefty" party gets into power - they govern economically just like centrists do. It is only social policy where they differ. Economic policies are the same as moderates. All over the world.

Read up on it if you want. It is very easy to throw an economy into recession if you ignore certain truths. So none of the lefty parties do that anymore. They govern fiscally conservative.

As is Paul Krugman of the NY Times. You are absolutely right on that, but you should read Krugman, if you don't already.

I'm interested on your "certain truths." I did take a course in Economics in Grad School, but I was disappointed in the level of discourse in the class. Perhaps you have a correction for me?

Yes the left talks important things. But some stuff gets left out. Like monetary policy? What would that look like under Nader?

That is what I mean.

I did study monetary policy vs. fiscal policy, but my professor was such a dumbwit, and a republican to boot, I and many other students felt it was a complete morass, if not a disaster!

A little more on your beliefs on monetary policy and your view on the fiscal policy in the U.S., please.

Grazie mille.

out how to fight the beast of inflation. You slow the economy down when it is over-heated. That way - the rich participate in the "downtime" of the fight on inflation. The same as everybody else.

The way Greenspan has done it under Bush - well - Bush's fiscal policy made it so - is that the markets roar and the workers fight inflation with lower wages and at the same time get things from China at lesser cost. So they don't loose completely - but they loose and do the hard work of opening small businesses and accepting lower paying jobs. And the market keeps roaring along and never takes a break. And those who are well off - don't have to life a finger. What do they sacrifice.

And fiscal policy & keynsian economics got the US out of a slump in 2001 (as it is meant to do) but again the spending was not at home, but away from home in Iraq. So stockholders get profits. And sure - there are a few jobs in the military (not to mention in the infantry - but let's not go there - not enough jobs were created that way - if you can call them jobs - to compare with what spending all those billions on some kickass science program for highschools in the U.S.A. would have done).

And because these billions were not spent at home.. on jobs at home..to get the economy going that way...it fought rising prices that way... so again the rich avoided doing their part to fight inflation. And indeed there was a housing bubble for those with stocks and bonds. But not the people who rely on wages. And being in Iraq is about stabilizing iraq - well they didn't stabilize it. Again - they didn't start a market in Iraq for all Sunnis and Shiites to go crazy in and be invested in. Outside contracts and a UN bidding process would have given the ex-bathists a stake in not blowing up people or powerlines. Again - it was myopia and favouring the American stocks. Not stabilizing Iraq. And the rich haven't even dug deep to pay for this war. But all Americans will be paying for it.

Monetary glitches mean that the world is prepared to hold more American dollars and bonds that the present debt level would normally allow for. Great! So the US had a chance to borrow more money than other countries can ever do ... and come out even where world backing of the US would normally warrent. And so they go to Iraq and in their minds say "oh we can hold more debt - especially if we get rid of Saddam and his plans.. so the war will pay for itself". But they didn't stabilize Iraq. And they didn't encourage people to drive smaller cars. They went for oil profits instead. Again - the roaring market - and a market that is allowed to roar because so many people who work hard for lower wages fight inflation. So higher gas prices fit in. And profits are made.

It is a big transfer of wealth from the wage earners..to the people in the stock market.

Let's not even go into how taxcuts and one social security reform type plan were successfully or unsuccessfully put in place to fluff the market. Again - because of a glitch where China and the world are expanding and need US dollars for stability - more debt can be sustained. And more money in the pockets of the rich.

For sure, trategically it is not bad that civil goods are less the focus is on tiertiary goods (like nanotechnology) where the US should concentrate. When oil rises to $130 dollars a barrel - you don't want to be buying factory stuff. Better off to be selling pills around the world. So a change in focus is necessary and countries should decide where to specialize in this global world.

But while all this is going on - shouldn't the rich sacrifice just one dam thing? Pay some taxes to allow for kickass science (like Kennedy's plan for US going to the moon) so that all Americans can participate in the new area where the USA wants to specialize?

Certainly business leaders in the US can count on schools in China or India doing the teaching and then hiring science grads to make America great and a success.

So what happens to the worker? If you read some neocon books - they have plans for Americans to be moving around the world to other places. For economic reasons. Because there still will be no jobs for them or any security unless they are lucky enough to be in the stock market.

Add to this dream they have of American citizen labour traveling away from the US while capital flows in... the boomers will be retired in 10 years and there will be labour shortages. But the American worker still has to fight inflation for the rich (cause oil will not be going down in price). So they have plans for guest workers. To compete with American workers and keep wages low. Again - no inflation to stop that stock market. I don't know if Africa will have a kick at the world market at that point - and food and civil goods and wages or American wage earners will be so low. If they get a chance to trade in realtime that will help them. And stop the rush of people from trying to get to american shores. Where if you do labour you are a guest worker and if you have a PHD in biogenetics you get to be an American.

That is why the left should be looking at monetary policy and fiscal policy. Because then they would see that if the neocons have their way - the left and the poor and the wage earner will be completely decimated by lack of health care and lack of anything. And the public good is gone and replaced by corporations who train doctors to make money instead of ministering to sick people.

It doesn't have to be that way. Getting rid of the bottom half of the country. I mean - some of the middle class will end up well off - great! But like a country club can save money (did you know that - other than initiation fees & social fees - the food is cheaper than at any restaurant - so really it is like a coop). So there will be hospitals for the well off and schools and gated communities. And guns will chace Americas less well off to live in other countries.

These policies of not sharing sacrifice - make America - the true Americans who participate - it makes it a more exclusive group.

Nader should be less concerned with corporations (is Nader going to get the Chinese, the Russians or the Japanese corporations to disappear too?) and more concerned with fairness and everyone in American participating in the global change. And that some of the windfall of U.S. being able to handle more debt - should be spread around.

But Nader fights issues like trade and we cannot go back to the economy we had in the 20th century where the USA had virtually no competators and dominated the world and made huge wealth that way, and then social policies could spread it around because there was enough for everyone. That is gone. The only way to make a profit today is to sell around the world. Just as housing prices went up as women started to enter the workplace and the market changed and boom - house prices were higher, so too will the market change so that profits will be less and you have to sell around the world. So we need corporations & coops for that. You just do.

Nader needs to pay attention to how the world is being reworked not arguing whether or not it should be changing. The focus should be on regulations and the norms that come out of the global world. And that where some wealth exists in the monetary/fiscal mix, lefties are not so blind about economics that they do not see the $$$ and let the wealty take it for themselves.

party you wish you had.

I'm satisfied so far.

he gave us a quote that has a thousand different variations. Amazing how many different ways you can make that quote fit the situation, eh?

Well said. :toast:

:freak:

It's the left/Green/something Party that isn't advocating an agenda that is distinct from the Moderates. Instead, they get mad because Democrats aren't left. What the hell good is a Green Party if you want it to become the Democratic Party? They need to legitimize themselves by focusing on clear policy instead of beating the hell out of Democrats. And the Democrats need to help them by identifying left policy as Green instead of loony.

If you like the policies of Lieberman, Biden, Lindsay Graham and Chuck Grassley.

The ER will be swamped removing fenceposts from out of asses.

You have to start by making the two strong parties the Greens and the Democrats. And turning the Republicans into the radical fringe right. It's the only logical way.

That defined itself clearly and distinctly from Democrats, and if we forced the liberal Republicans to choose between sanity & fundiwackoville, we'd have a moderate party, Democrats. And move the country to the left at the same time.

Been saying this for a year now. *sigh*

Bill Clinton had both and was eminently successful.

But in these times, instead of watching the republicans be hoisted on their own petard and rejoicing about it, we need to create and propagate our own wedge issues that would split the republicans.

I know many of you won't agree but the so-called christian right can be turned into a forceful tool helping us.

I was watching Jimmy Carter's recent interviews and he put the onus directly on the devout christians by saying that immoral wars are not true "christian" etc.

I think equality, fairness, compassion, reaching out, nonviolence are all christian values -- I don't see anyone from the leadership out there thumping a bible and calling the religious right's hand.