Is it ok to use DU to advocate withholding support from the DNC?

I have wondered about that. Does anyone know?

(in a progressive, non-RW cloaked manner) and then defend them.

I happen to not like that very much at this crucial time in our history. We will just be giving it back to the Republicans if enough withhold support from the party.

I am just trying to get the rules clarified, that is all. If it is ok to do that here, there will be more and more posts like this. Groups are waiting in line for their day in the sun, and they are willing to use the party to get it.

you're hoping to muzzle those who refuse to send money to the DNC !!! most of those i've seen take this position strongly support the idea of funding ONLY PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS ... would you like that view to be categorically banned by DU or should they have a right to express that opinion??

at least be honest about your purpose ...

if you want an interpretation of the rules, write to the admins ... don't post it here ... when you say "does anyone know", rest assured the admins know ... posting it here is advocacy, not the innocent search for clarity you portray ...

No one is muzzled here. I just want to clarify if this forum can be used to advocate destroying the Democratic Party by withholding support.

You're pissed that he posted a letter that you didn't like, and now you're trying to get him in trouble for doing it.

Nice.

I am trying to determine the rules. To be quite frank, I just hate to see the party attacked when we have someone as chair who is willing to fight to change it. It does not make sense to me that certain progressive groups are using him to further their agenda.

You are attacking him for posting an opinion you don't like.

I was a Deaniac too for his primary bid. I was at the scream. I love Howard. But he is not doing enough to address this issue. He may be willing to fight to change things, but he's not doing enough since he got in. He SAW the problem for himself, but he hasn't addressed the problem at all.

The DNC isn't seeing a dime from us until we can make sure our votes count.

is ok here. I know what is coming. If it within the rules, there will be mass attacks on every issue. There will be no cooperating because the goal of most in the progressive groups is third party.

If Governor Dean is able to lead the party to success, there won't likely be a third party....so they must continue to hurt the party.

I know a lot of this because of things happening locally. We are working and active with our DEC, and a group is trying to hurt in by infiltration and undermining.

I did not personally attack anyone, and I am speaking of people who want to see the party damaged.

God forbid we have a third party. :eyes:

And I am questioning if that is ok at a forum like this.

God forbid, we actually express displeasure at the way things are, and do anything to try to improve the party.

That would be be BAD. And it might make you upset. And we wouldn't want that.

if you're "trying to determine the rules, write to the admins!!!

your "gosh golly, do any of you guys know the rules" is both phony and transparent ...

the DNC has turned his back on the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" ... and you don't like those who responded by sending money only to progressive Dems ... it's sad to see former Dean-supporting progressives toeing the centrist company line now that Dean's in charge ...

I happen to "not like very much at this crucial time in history" that the Republicans are stealing our elections from us, and will continue to do so because no one in the Democratic party is yelling it from the rooftops.

If no one addresses the issue, it will continue to occur, and our money is NOT DOING SQUAT. Do you understand? you are THRWING MONEY AWAY on candidates who will roll over like dogs when they are "defeated" and not do a thing about it, because they are convinced that they lost fair and square. When that is not the case.

Wake up. The poster has every right not to want to support the DNC, and posted a letter that stated very clearly why not. Not everyone here agrees with you. Deal with it.

fsc

Using what is basically a forum for Democrats to cause damage to the Democratic Party.

I think the term for what you have brought up here is "trolling."

I stood alone on this last night, so I guess I do today. I happen to think we are in real trouble in this country, and destroying the movement by Dean to change the party from the ground up will hurt us.

I am gathering from last night and today that I am alone in my stance. If so, then we need God go bless us.

DU is about open discussion, but if what you say delights the other side, maybe our approach to change should be a little different.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

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.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

a more progressive bandwidth, so to speak. Would that bandwidth not still be a more appropriate place than DU for advocating withholding support from the DNC?

Keith’s Barbeque Central

I for one have always supported the DNC & will continue to do so. Others who would activly advocate holding support from the DNC should find another message board of a party they can support. I would think the Admins here would agree with this.

I'm sure that he would be willing to give you a concrete answer to that question.

Some are taking great delight in it.

It was a great meeting in Phoenix, and people are appreciative of the new open atmosphere.

If I am the only one, why bother.

There certainly are political parties more radical than the Democrats so sometimes I wonder why some people choose to play inside the Democratic Party if they want nothing to do with 1/4, or 1/3, or 1/2, or 2/3's of it's membership, depending on how pure they want the Party to be. I know why I am here. I want to get some things accomplished.

I fully support what Dean is trying to do with the DNC and I am realistic about how much he can accomplish quickly without tearing much of the Party apart in the process, which would only be self defeating.

But this is an opinionated bulletin board. There is no way that DU members would have sat still for a board rule that said we could not be critical of the DNC when Terry McAuliffe was DNC Chair, so it is hard to figure out how a rule could exist that would outlaw it now because Howard Dean is DNC Chair. I think we just have to make the case for supporting Dean.

I am not questioning being critical....I am questioning sending the DNC thousands ? of letters saying they are donating to the Green candidate...and posting it here.

That is what I am questioning....withholding financial support.

Organizing a DNC funding boycott on DU is much more specific than exercising free speach. I wasn't aware of that effort, and I strongly oppose it personally. Of course actions speak louder than words. Organizing a fund raising drive FOR the DNC may ultimately be the response that counts the most.

He posted a letter that someone else wrote, and explained very well what their reasons were.

We want to IMPROVE the Democratic party, not destroy it. But the only thing some people seem to understand is money.

...and still not give money to the DNC. If the DNC wants my money, it will have to do better.

I think it's an important issue to clarify, and it actually would be a good idea to ask Skinner, despite how you think some people feel about it. In fact, I may do it myself, if you decide not to.

Anyway, you might get a better feel for how DUers in general feel if you ran a poll. People are more likely to respond to those than to threads. I may do that too, if you decide not to.

You can't know if it's only you on the basis of the way a few people behave on some threads, or on the basis of responses to one single thread.

If you decide to do either thing, please note it on this thread which I will check back on. I don't want to end up duplicating something that you've already done.

This went on all last night, and they are just getting started. There are 3 groups within a group who are planning this. I am their nemesis just by trying to stand up last night.

I guess I just wanted to know. This is not about any person, it is about dividing the party when it is trying to grow in a different way.

Meanwhile, do you think you could send me links to the threads in question?

I am not trying to get into a war of words with you, but I want to understand how one can be a Democrat and still be at war with everyone who's anyone in the party.

The DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC - these are the campaign functionaries of the party for as long as I've been around, and they've always been peopled with those who truly want the party to either gain or maintain majority status.

I do not include the DLC in that group, because they are NOT the Democratic party, but one little sliver of it, and they are not official functionaries of the party.

If you don't like the DNC, go to YOUR rep on the DNC, and talk to them first. Or, get active and become the rep on the DNC from your area.

If you don't like what is going on INSIDE the party, then get more active IN the party, I've always preached.

I have said that people on both sides of the aisle get upset with me. I am a strong party advocate.

I think you know that, and I wish you would stop misreading and misinterpreting what I say. You do that a lot.

I have no more patience with those on the right who want it all their way than I do with those on the left who are wanting it all their way. Real life doesn't work that way.

I'm not making you post these threads, so stop acting like I'm being accusatory. I should have known better than ask. You're not exactly rational in processing information.

Forget it. Your "attribute" speaks for itself.

I was very clear in my opposition to it. I think you are insulting when you say I am not rational. I resent that.

I post about things the DSCC and DCCC and DLC do that I don't like, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I never advocate withholding support from the party, because I realize the DNC is trying to grow into a bottom up organization.

TPTB don't want a bottom up organization....top down means more power to them. Dean is willing to give more control to the members, and it outrages some..

We donate a lot to the DNC.

Those who want to beat Republicans
and
Those who want to beat other Democrats.

I'm in the first group, and always have been.

I suggested the appropriate manner a Dem might redress their grievances with any DNC action. When someone says we should withhold money from the DNC, a reasonable question to ask that person is "exactly what have you done to let the DNC know you're not happy about this action?"

Sitting on contributions instead of addressing your concerns to the appropriate DNC personnel is both passive-aggressive and ineffective. What's the point? It's like saying you're going to hold your breath until they change their game plan.

There are more appropriate ways to communicate displeasure with a DNC program than to try to lead a stoppage in funds. That is a defeatist approach.

It shows the party is still looking into things, yet some absolutely made fun of it.

DNC Resolution in Support of Election Reform
The following resolution will be considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on December 1, 2005, in conjunction with the meetings of the Democratic National Committee,
December 1-3, 2005.

Submitted by: Donna L. Brazile, At Large/District of Columbia
Hartina Flournoy, At-Large/District of Columbia
Ben Johnson, At Large/District of Columbia

Resolution in Support of Election Reform

WHEREAS, in June, 2005, the Democratic National Committee completed its exhaustive
review of the presidential campaign in Ohio; and

WHEREAS, the resulting report, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” documents
that more than one quarter of Ohio voters reported problems with their voting experience, and
African Americans were more than two times as likely as white voters to claim they encountered
problems with their voting experience; and

WHEREAS, this report confirms evidence of widespread voter confusion; voter suppression;
negligence and incompetence on the part of election officials; long lines at the polls; improper
requests for voter identification, particularly among young voters and African American voters;
the failure to properly process absentee ballots and the improper use of provisional ballots in
Ohio on Election Day 2004; and

WHEREAS, evaluations of the administrative processes and technology used by election
officials in Ohio revealed that inadequate and insecure voting systems were pervasive
throughout Ohio—unreliable punch card systems and insecure, unverifiable direct record
electronic (DRE) machines; and

WHEREAS, 71 percent of white voters in Ohio were very confident their vote was counted but
only 19 percent of African American voters were confident their votes were counted; and

WHEREAS, the right to vote and to have that vote accurately counted is the bedrock on which
our democracy stands and nothing is more fundamental to our freedom than our confidence in
the integrity of our democratic institutions; and

WHEREAS, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” makes recommendations for
future action by parties, legislators and local election officials to improve future elections;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will
continue to work with Members of Congress, lawmakers in all 50 United States, the District of
Columbia, and all U.S. Territories, local election officials, and community leaders to update and
reform our election laws to ensure that voter confidence in our election system is restored and
maintained;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in
Ohio” recommends several actions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends states, the District of Columbia
and all U. S. Territories codify into law all required election practices, including requirements for
the adequate training of official poll workers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommend lawmakers adopt uniform and clear
published standards for the distribution of voting equipment and the assignment of official poll
workers among precincts, to ensure adequate and nondiscriminatory access, and that these
procedures be based on set ratios of numbers of machines and poll workers per number of voters
expected to turn out, and should be made available for pub lic comment before being adopted;
and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers adopt legislation to
make clear and uniform the rules on voter registration; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and local election
officials adopt clear and uniform rules on the use of, and the counting of, provisional ballots, and
distribute them for public comment well in advance of each Election Day, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not
be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these
systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be
considered the official record; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends remaining punch card systems
should be discontinued; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make it easier for
college students to vote in the jurisdiction in which their school is located; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers develop procedures to
ensure that voting is facilitated, without compromising security or privacy, for all eligible voters
living overseas; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make voter suppression
a criminal offense in all states, the District of Columbia and all U.S. Territories; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and election officials
should improve the training of poll workers.

Is there something I am now aware of?

i think this is a good place to work out what those reforms should be, and how to bring them about. the netroots are now an important part of the party.
i think there is a growing corporate influence in this party, and we CAN counteract it, somewhat anyway. we need to, or we will find ourselves like the cloth coat republicans, scratching our head and wondering where our party went. if that means writing nasty letters too the dnc, and telling them to shape up or take a hike, so be it. if that means getting other people to do the same, so be it.
we are big, we can take it.

Open the door, and let the party be destroyed by the corporate donors on the right and the progressives on the left. Without even giving it a chance.

Gotcha.

I'm gone for a while to think things over.

Along with the DNC and the Governors Association, etc, they are official Democratic Party entities.

http://www.dnc.org/a/party/ourorganization.html

You only concern yourself with the DNC, not the Democratic Party as a whole.

Dem PACS, like DLC and DFA, are not part of the party structure, though you do concern yourself with them very much on DU. I don't say this for your information, MF, but for anyone who may not understand the distinction.

But the DCCC is every bit as much the Democratic Party as the DNC is the Democratic Party. If you can be so damning of the party, I guess you should not be surprised if there are those on DU who do not wish to support it.

Just like the RNC is for the Republicans. I support financially the DNC, and I give to candidates. I don't have to give to all the groups to be supportive of Democrats.

From the DNC Website: http://www.dnc.org/a/party/ourorganization.html




If you are free to criticize the Democratic Party, then you must not complain when other DUers do the same.

That's my only point :hi:

I am talking about posts that say not to donate, and sending it out to thousands they say. I do not say not to criticize, that is the meme being used to clutter the issue.

They are advocating for 3rd party donations while withholding from the Democrats.

I have often had to post what you just posted for people who think the DLC and DNC are the same group. It seems odd you think you had to post it for me.

I post opinions about the DLC being too corporate and leaving behind unions and minorities. I hope you don't think that is ok.

I post about the leaders of the DSCC and DCCC picking candidates for the primaries, some even from out of district. I have been a little critical of the rush to run military, we are up to 10 or 12 now...it is getting a little obvious.

Never have I advocated not supporting the party, and I am surprised you would post what you did.

Does "support" means supporting reform and strengthening the party from within through the DNC?

Does "support" mean never expressing dissent with the DNC? What does it mean?

When you say "DNC," do you mean the DNC, or Howard Dean, or both?

Should DU be able to discuss dissent with either Dean or the DNC without being labeled "non-supporters?"

Should dissent be valued, or suppressed?

Does "withholding support" mean not donating, not campaigning, not voting, or something else?

For the record, I'm not expressing dissent with the DNC or Dean, and haven't suggested taking, or not, any action with regard to the DNC and/or Dean.

That is what I meant.

not that special.

My own view is that a supporter of Dems, worker for Dems, is welcome to say whatever they like.

But my own view is also that a dump on the DNC without a comment that explains what you want changed and how and when, is unwelcome.

Indeed a dump that simply ends up promoting action or inaction that elects GOP gets on my "what should be banned list".

reprehensor posted a letter from someone else explaining why they weren't donating.

We are not donating #1 because I'm no longer employed, but #2, this issue has not been addressed to our satisfaction to make us want to donate.

Saying we URGED anything is NOT true.

a deliberate withholding of financial support, rather than not donating because there's no money in the coffers to donate with, or because you've spent your donation budget some other worthy place.

<snip>

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

The DNC is not a Democratic candidate, so may not be included here. I guess it might come down to the goal; to pressure the DNC for reform/change from within, or to destroy the party itself? My interpretation of this rule would be that it's ok to work for change, not ok to advocate destruction of the party on the DU.

that one remains unsure of just whom they can count on. I can also appreciate that everyone should have a voice as many are stating, and yet, in times like this, there should be a balance to what one shares to so many that are so easily led along a path they honestly have no idea where it is leading, all they might hear is what might sound good but may not exactly be the best direction one should take.

there is nothing wrong with attempting reform of a party, but when that party is already on shaky ground from within and continualy maligned by so many on the outside, one should be more careful about presenting their alternate ways to ensure changes, withholding money at this point from the Dem party is not only destructive to the inner core, but it also ensures an evenual demise of what could perhaps be the only chance this country has to right itself once again.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I hate to think that, as I actually consider myself open to change and moving forward. I am a progressive, wanting change and better overall conditions. I think now it is the DNC and its very factions who have the only chance to fix things. I don't think a third party is big enough to do anything but give it back to the GOP.

But some have decided now is the time for a third party. And if Dean begins to get success as chair, their efforts will be foiled. It is sad to watch it, it is sad to see what is posted being misinterpreted.

It would not matter who was chair, or who was succeeding, it is a movement to keep the Democrats from winning. I just wonder how much will carry over to here. I meant it in a financial sense mostly, but it goes much deeper.


pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar A progressive verb form.

As in "Look, there's a whole bunch of wankers advocating that I withhold support from the Democratic National Committee?"

Or "I gave my support to Democratic Undergorund, so I have no money to give to the Democratic National Committee?"

Or "I'm not a Democrat but I took advantage of the rules to come to DU and piss all over real Democrats?"