Why do people have a hard time with this being DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Why is it amazing to folks that is forum is about pushing the Democratic Party, not third parties?

Why is it amazing to folks that posts advocating third parties are prohibited?

Didn't they read the freaking rules?

Didn't they think the rules applied to them?

I have news to any of you third-party types; The American system has to be reformed FIRST before any third party has even the vestige of a chance. That is a MATHEMATICAL fact, and you had better understand this unless you want 1000 years of GOP rule here.

but then again, I am not here all day.

But when the topic is along the lines of "all democrats suck" or "all Democratic Party leaders suck" or they are posting articles from a website that consistently takes that position (for example one that was still promoting Nader or Cobb in 2004, and spreading lies about Kerry)...well I would say they belong on "3rd Party Underground", not here.

This is the fabulously irrelevant DU forum, after all.

This was in response to an "incident".

:rofl:

:rofl:

Of course everyone on Free Republic is crazy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you read their mandate/rules/whatever, they are a "conservative" site. The rules here say this is a site for promoting the Democratic party.

They are the premiere right-leaning website and this is the premiere left-leaning one. Yet they are not really comparable, since they promote a philosophy, a set of values, while this web site promotes a party. It is part and parcel of the "what does the Democratic party stand for". And if the DP stands for something, saying theoretically the DLC is jettisoned, then why not just be about that?

I know this will not happen, of course. To me, I want a pro-labor candidate in office as bad as anyone here. Some people like the Democrats because they tend to be less racist, homophobic, sexist and all of that, and I think that's good too. Supporting the working people is what's important to me, but I think those other things are good to.

That FR stands for a philosophy and DU is just for supporting a party shows how secure the Freepers feel and their strength. You can scream as loud as you want about how I am secretly an anti-labor, pro-idle class Freeper, or have a tantrum that I sometimes vote Green, but that kind of thing just makes me more and more pro-Green. The original message here looks more in line with a temper tantrum than a rational, logical discussion. Whenever someone who disagrees with me stops having a rational, intelligent discussion and starts throwing a tantrum, I start thinking more and more that I am right.

So talk of a third party is, IMO, more about restoring what the Democratic party once stood for.

"Democratic" is just a name.

A Party is controlled, ultimately, by those with shoeleather on the ground.

If you don't like it, become involved. RUN for a local office. Become a ward committeeman. Work from inside. And don't expect victory overnight.

I'm a believer, and have been very involved. The failed war in Iraq has put the brakes on the rightward shift of DNC leadership over the last decade.

IMO the GOP has more to fear from dissent within its ranks, and the 2008 Democratic campaign will be the most unified since 1992.

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

progressives are going to win, IMHO. I agree that many people are hating the Bush admin but not liking the Dems. But we come at this in primaries, in supporting and grooming candidates on the way up. Instead, we pick from a lineup of the Same Old Crowd. We shouldn't have Hillary, Kerry or Gore in 08, not because they're no good, but because they're retreads and even with their expertise they carry a lot of baggage from the past.

Time for the new face for the party. I really believe that's the ONLY way for a true progressive to win. I hate to remind everybody of this, but both Bill Clinton and W were new faces at the time they emerged on the national scene. And both won.

and as a historian, a trained one, no I did not stay at the Holiday Inn.. the time is very ripe for a third party. Why? You just mentioned the reasons. Most folks do NOT know that the DLC is controlling the DNC, just as they don't know the Neo Cons control the RNC... the only thing they know is that NEITHER is doing what anybody wants them to do, unless you are a corporation that is.

by the way yesterday I watched the movie JFK on the history channel, and though there are some problems with what was presented, the speech at the end by the lawyer was spot on... he was onto something in 1969 (even though that was the movie writers and not him). What that court faced in '69 was the choice of the government of the people, by the people and for the people. The Jury chose NOT to believe that the US Government could ever do what they did (according to the movie) just as they will never believe that the US Government could have let 9.11 happen. There were way too many eerie similarities, like a unit standing down, on ordesr... and units being flown in to take care of riots that November morning. It started then, it has not stopped, it will only stop when we the people rise and realize that it might have to happen in a non regular way. And slowly we are reaching that point.... as people conclude the gov'ment does not work...

Bow insofar as a third party... it is in situations like this that they emerge. And what scares many folks is that the talk is getting louder... well THINK why...

We are indeed, to use a phrase of a friend of mine, living in pre revolutionary times. Once you look at our current reality through that lens, you realize just how much we are well past the point of no return. None of us asked to live in interesting times... the curse is truly a curse... but we do. How we respond to it will determine where the country goes... a democracy or a continued slide to fascism.

Thank you BEnBurch! This needs to be said again and again. Nader started at the top, ignoring the fact that he was just a Republican enabler. He went from being a hero of mine backin the 70s to being an obnoxious, arrogant jerk. It negated every worthwhile thing he had to say.

We've got plenty of good Dems. Surely there's one or two who can satisfy the ultra left in our party (and I mean that respectfully, not sarcastically, since in some things I am pretty ultra left myself). Work your heart out for one of them. Maybe one will come out on top. Who knows?

Get involved!!

16+5=2006

NGU.

Your name indicates you are a class warrior. There are two major classes in the Country today, the corporate elitist and the rest of us. Some Democratic congresspeople are corporate elitist. they clearly represent corporations at the expense of the rest of us. Blindly voting democratic regardless of class hurts the class war. we need to oppose the corp elitists, whoever they are.

Since when does "get involved" = "vote party-line lock-step" or "blindly voting democratic regardless of class??"

:silly:

As a matter of fact, where did I say anything about "voting" at all? I'm talking about party-level activism.

16+5=2006

NGU.

It is not my intention to be antagonistic, honest. But we ARE in a class war, not a war between red / blue or republican and democrats like Karl wants us to believe. How do you see the class breakdown in this Country? Are there powerful Democrats in the elite (or whatever we call them) class? Should we support these traitor Democrats? Which class does Hillary support?

...which Lakoff rightly calls "the best of American values."

Which is what I originally said.

16+5=2006

NGU.

I am interested in what you consider the class breakdown in the Country.

You'll need to back that up.

Yes, there should be more parties, but jumping ship now would be a disaster. We need to be united now more than ever! Mathematical fact, indeed! There are too many forces working to ruin this country and a new party would never gain strength in time to keep us from going completely under.

It's time to unite, not divide!

I get all sorts of comments on that line of thinking... one obnoxious poster said he was tired of that old line being brought out. Well hell! If you are so stinking tired, why haven't you gotten off your ass and done something before now?

That's what makes it good. Hey Rube!!!!!Grab a shovel. Have faith. :kick:

Now we have Beltway politicos demanding that we accept candidates with "D" after their names having virulent anti-choice, prowar, and anti-LGBT positions. It is folly to support anyone that opposes one's core values!

What we have here is a war between those that believe in traditional Democratic values and those that have adopted situational ethics as their political Gospel.

As Molly Ivins wrote:

Published in the March 2006 issue of The Progressive
Enough of the D.C. Dems
by Molly Ivins

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-20.htm

16+5=2006

NGU.

and that's exactly were we are headed, towards the great intra-party war of 2008.

And we can take the party back without a war.

Just infiltrate the "machine"... It's amazingly easy to do.

16+5=2006

NGU.

No excuse for their votes in support of Bush's policies and nominees.

...a bloodless coup.

16+5=2006

NGU.

He is more GOP, and he is as anti-liberal as Rush Limbaugh.

The intern eventually becomes the staffer, the staffer eventually runs for office, and there ya go!

The volunteer eventually becomes a local candidate, and eventually becomes a state rep, and eventually becomes a legislator in the federal branch, and there ya go!

Like I say: lead, follow, or get out of the way!

not follow me because "I am your Representative"

They don't want to serve, they want to BE served. It's a different mindset entirely....

You say to "take the party back"...and I'm curious to know when you think you had it. Was there a time in our parties history when you were satisfied with its direction and with the candidates it put forward?

I know you and I have ahd disagreements in other posts, so I want you to know I am not trying to get into an argument here...I just hear this term all the time, but am confused as to when this sort of golden period was?

Is the implication of your posting this article that you would like to take the Party to its pre-Clinton days...were you satisfied with McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale as our nominees ?(Walter Mondale is one of my personal political heroes).

and not someone like Maggie Thatcher or Tony Blair, which is what Hillary really is.

The Wal Mart thing is really dishonest...

First, Wal Mart was a different corporation when Sam Walton was in charge...there was nothin nefarious about Hillary's involvement with Wal Mart...and as you can see from the portion of the article you neglected to refer to, she was having a positive impact on the way the company dealt with its minority hiring practices, and with environmental concerns.

eliminates her from my voting for her.

But thanks for your input

that makes her a warmonger.

If your intent is to put forth candidates that best match your political position on the spectrum, that's fine. But understand that they don't win elections. Clinton was elected because he was viewed to be in the center politically. That, i gather, is to the right of where you are and where you want the party to be. That's certainly fine, but you also have to accept that those people will not win.

Not perfect in any way but his economic and social policies are what democrats look for. Foreign policy and personal qualities, ehhh not so much.

Also, the changes in the democratic party don't completely revolve around our nominees and presidents. People like Bobby Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, Birch Bayh and Walter Mondale were once the leaders of our party. They are not anymore.

Here's one example. In the 1970's, Frank Church stood up to J Edgar Hoover and the FBI. He knew that what they had grosely abused their power, violated civil liberties, and harassed Martin Luther King amongst other things. Frank Church was supported by the leadership and was allowed to have hearings on this. Now we have Russ Feingold standing up for the very same things that Frank Church did and he can't even get the time of day from leadership.

There are very few people that I see in the democratic party today who fill the shoes of these people that I have mentioned above.

or otherwise voting against any Democratic candidate in the general election. Her article is about getting helping someone like Feingold to win the primary.

Feingold 2008! :patriot:


edit: spelling

Molly won't support her. She doesn't say what she will do then. Maybe write-in Al Gore, vote green or not vote. All are statements against the corp elitists.

"What we have here is a war between those that believe in traditional Democratic values and those that have adopted situational ethics as their political Gospel."

Great post.

It is a common myth on DU, that the Democratic Party used strongly fight for the ideals of liberalism, before they were ruined by the cooperate interests pushed forth by the DLC. This simply isn't true.

You say that "many of today's Democrats would be considered GOP 20 years ago." Well, 20 years ago it was 1986: Dems controlled Congress, yet, they still voted in favor of Reagan's tax reform bill (albeit, a watered-down version of the original), and most egregiously, they voted in favor of Reagan's plan to send $100 million to the Contras in Nicaragua. In 1986 Tom Daschle won his re-election campaign by vowing that he was "unalterably opposed to abortion" and stating that the abortion debate "is a battle over human life."

If you think Democratic Senators are bad now, you should remember some of the southern Democratic Senators who were around in 1986:

Richard Shelby - so conservative he switched to the GOP in '94

Howell Heflin - pro-lifer, who opposed anti-discrimination laws for gays, voted for the Gulf War and opposed the family and medical leave act

Sam Nunn - while not as bad as the two guys mentioned above - he voted against Clinton 1993 tax hike on the rich which was largely responsible for undoing the deficit created by Reagan, and was vehemently opposed to gays in the military.

David Boren - his most memorable moment is when it was rumored that he was gay he got on television and took an oath on the Bible that he was heterosexual; on fiscal issues Boren was so conservative that Barry Goldwater said he should be President of the United States.

John Breaux - strongly pro-life, and a supporter of tax breaks for the rich.

Bennett Johnston Jr. - supported the Gulf War, Clarence Thomas, championed the anti-flag-burning amendment, and opposed Clinton's tax hike on the rich.

A couple of these guys make Hillary Clinton look like Paul Wellstone. As the southern Democrat has slowly become extinct, their role has been filled by the DLC (minus the history of racism). People on DU always say that "today's Dems don't act like real Dems", well, I don't know where this perception of "real Democrat" comes from. The belief that the Democratic Party used to so liberal appears to be based on a false nostalgia for a time that never really existed. If DU existed in any era people would be complaining about: the lack of leadership from liberal Democrats, the minuscule role allowed to the "grass-roots", the treacherous conservative Democrats, and how Democrats were so much better 20 years before.

Many of today's Democrats would be considered GOP right NOW.

one might suggest that proponents of third parties believe that the two major parties will never reform ... clearly, both major parties are hostile to the interests of third parties ...

third party candidates have been excluded from national political debates and have had a difficult time meeting the requirements (established by the major parties) to obtain federal election funds ...

my intent here is not to advocate for third parties but to suggest that we as Democrats need to do a better job understanding them ...

until corporate money is removed form elections Fascism will flourish

If people feel disenchanted and not able to speak aloud of what really troubles them, then going silent is an option. In politics that is always dangerous because it considers those who give voice and vent to their feelings and thoughts should be the targets of influencing. Those who go silent, go unnoticed until the empirical evidence is examined. That is way too late.

The "Silent Majority" in politics gave a large rise to Nixon. It was anticipated, but the true scope of it was shown in the election returns. The Reagan Democrats were another example. It is politically dangerous to ignore those who aren't speaking up - but will use their votes to send messages. The Nader voters. They had every right to vote as they chose but it would have been smarter to do outreach before the election. It would have also been smarter to acknowledge the differences and show where compromise was possible. Kerry had a large amount of ABB voters. Those voters are the new liberal swing voters and allegiance to the party is not a strong enough pull to keep them. This is going to be interesting to see how it shapes up or will history repeat itself.

:popcorn:

The mathematics of the election system FORCE us to adopt one of the two major parties. In our case, the Democratic Party.

Any other course of action is literally suicide.

I don't mind how many parties there are as long as none of them are Republican :D

We had better have a SINGLE UNIFIED OPPOSITION PARTY.

Mathematically is is impossible to win with a third party.

Period.

All a third party can do (And did in 2000) is steal the election from the major party that is closest to them in philosophy.

I say we build a statue to Ralph Nader, and place it in the sump of an outhouse...

And I agree wholeheartedly. It seems to me any objective reading of the situation would lead to the conclusion that the country would be vastly better off with Democrats in control. So I find it odd there would be any support here for candidates that could threaten that goal.

Is this Democratic Underground or is this democratic Underground?

I have used this forum to promote the idea of substantive democracy. It is the idea that democracy is more than casting a vote in an election. It isn't really democracy if elites are in a position to determine who shall run for public office or, at the very least, which candidates will get their messages out to the voters. Democracy is about universal, equal and inalienable citizenship.

I used this forum a year and a half ago to advocate voting for Kerry rather than third party. It wasn't because I thought Kerry was the answer to all that ails America, but because I viewed Bush as a threat to American democratic institutions in a way that Kerry was not.

When the Democratic Party leadership takes positions that undermine democratic principles, I shall say so.

And to stress one other important point: As long as the Bush regime is in power, this is war. Compromising with fascists is not allowed and will be censured. I am very disappointed that many Democrats voted to renew the abominable Patriot Act and I urge civil disobedience where possible.

That's what I felt. I never even started to distinguish between the two until I saw MY PARTY acting like well, NOT itself. I don't know what half of them are acting like these days. They aren't representing me in their votes-not just one vote-but many important votes that will effect not just a few years-but the rest of my life and my children's life.

Then there is the language-the "framing" that doesn't speak out to the beliefs that I thought WERE the Democratic party.

I have no love of the third parties-but I do like the way people that tend toward third parties think. Because they are the wave of the future. I'm starting to think the Democratic and Republican parties are going to be extinct sometime in the future. They have polarized in the public thought while at the center merging in actuality. In other words-everything is framed "The Democrats said this" "The Republicans said that" Instead of our elected reps having VALID points of being Americans looking out for things like the consititution, the rule of law, the separation of powers-the jobs they were elected to do most fundamently.

Not to be the PARTY. I don't care about THE PARTY. I care about the meaning that is supposed to be behind the party. (and utter devotion to the party is exactly what fascism ends up being when the devotion is the point and not what the party stands for) And if it doesn't exist anymore-the PARTY is empty rhetoric. Lewis Lapham at the impeachment forum made that valid point-it should be all of our leaders representing us and protecting the constitution-not just identified as a party, but as nothing more than the definition SENATOR. It just to be something respected!

ever. And it still had the same effect as Nader in 2000.

place to vent. Some people keep up the fight for their ideals and others just don't know when to quit.

Whatever the cause, we're stuck with two parties and those of us leaning left are stuck with Democrats. Wasn't always that way, though, and the Democratic Party was once the bailiwick of southern segregationists and inner-city crooks. Memories are short, though, and some seem to think that it's not a just politcal party with the simple mission of getting into power.

Politics is messy, dirty, and no one ever gets everything they want in a democracy.

It would be nice to have minor parties on both sides to keep the two big ones honest, but minor parties just can't take hold here, and I'm not sure why. There have been real attempts, for better or worse, but even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get one moving for long.

it is in the winner takes all...

We need several reforms

Public financing of election
Proportional representation

The first will get big money out

The second, will see third parties emerge

Neither of the two large parties believe this is to their benefit. That is why they are putting lipstick on election reform and proportional representation will require a revolution.

the Vice President is required to run on a ticket with the President, it just evolved that way. The framers didn't even take the idea of parties seriously when they set things up.

I'll go with public financing as the crucial reform, and even a limit on the length of the campaign. Some countries say no campaigning until 2 or 3 months before the election. Of course, they don't have primaries...

But, we do, in theory, have proportional represntation. Back when the Constitution was written, Rhode Island, Vermont, and a few others were terrified that Virginia and the other big states could steamroll over them, so we got the Senate to balance the House. It was a good solution, and no one see any reason to change it.

That's national politics, though, and most activity is local. Even there, few minor parties have been able to get a foothold. Wingnuts have managed to spend years infiltrating local Republican parties with some success, but few liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever have been able to control local Democrats. I suspect that has more to do with demographics than the message, though.

And it has a lot to do with th how the job is done. Republicans have managed to toss out Democrats in NYC simply because the Democrats didn't seem too good at running the city. La Guardia, Lindsey, Giuliani, and Bloomberg got in that way. OTOH, in Nassau County, NY, Demnocrats tossed the Republicans because the Republican Margiotta machine screwed up the county so bad they just had to go. Political philosphy comes in a poor second to whether or not the potholes get filled or increases in property taxes.

that political parties exist to make them feel "empowered" and strike against the people monopolizing power.

They join the major opposition parties for a while, but they're junkies in search of the next high. After a while of not getting a high they get agitated, and then they get nasty, and then they leave.

In this most recent case, the person kept on saying that Democrats don't have principles and there was something terribly wrong with them for not becoming hierarchical, lining up behind an elite (well, will-driven people like himself, really), and attacking Republicans head on.

Of course, what he missed and refused to accept is that Democrats have the set role in these political times of championing equality of citizenship and positive service to society. Republicans are the party of inequality, i.e. elites and serfs and Bolshevist behavior, and destroying stuff that impedes us. In these particular roles Democrats can't rule as a minority, and Republicans can't maintain (and don't like being) majority.

Personally, I think the two party system is painful. But going third party or dropping out of politics is generally about going AWOL on the issues of the day and the effort to achieve justice and progress. It's walking off to the sidelines and refusing to go back in the game. I excuse burnout, I don't excuse mere petulance in going Third Party.

...who thought the Maginot Line was a good idea.

The poster is not advocating voting Green. The poster is advocating that the Democratic Party adopt some Green positions.

Do you see something wrong with that? Like Earthside, I am for public financing of elections, universal health insurance, IRV and against colonial wars like the one in Iraq. I wish more Demorats reflected those views.

:hi:

:hi:

He was the Green Party candidate in Colorado's seventh district in 2002, where he got over 2,000 votes. The Republican candidate, Bob Beauprez, who is currently running for governor, won that race by 121 votes. Colorado's seventh didstrict is considered by many pundits to be the most competitve race in the entire country. Mr. Chandler has announced his intention of running again this November.

He has advocated for voting Green in the past, and gotten his posts deleted for his efforts.

If so, that's interesting.

Thanks.

he has a website, also.

Earthside's post, while going right up to the line, didn't cross it.

I'm judging that post only, not any that might have been deleted.

And, regardless of rules, if Bernie Sanders (independent) were running in an election against Joe Lieberman (Democrat), most DUers would vote for Sanders, all other things being equal.

with ulterior motives, and "earthside" clearly (and provably) has one.

going "up to the line" on one particular post doesn't change that.

For that matter, let's do what Republicans want us all to do, use our real identities whenever we post anything critical of anyone on web boards. Let's see who is who, and let's find out who gets sent to Guantanamo, and who is on the payroll of some DINO politician.

Earthside's tagline links directly to his website, where his identity is clearly revealed. So, I guess Mr. Chandler isn't too concerned, you think?

So... need any help getting that foot out of your mouth?

when you've got Paulk?

Outing anyone he disagrees with.

:puke:

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

However, we are talking about the particular post linked in number 25, which was presented here as an "ad for the Green Party". I don't think it is quite that.

You say that the poster in question, Earthside, is in fact a Green and has posted more explicit support for the Greens against the Democrats on these forums. I have no reason to doubt you in that, since anything more explicit than the post to which we refer would probably be deleted by the mods. That being the case, I won't challenge you to find a better example.

As I read the post, in and of itself, I don't see an "ad for the Green Party" so much as a suggestion that the Democrats ought to adopt some of those issues as their own. I've done as much in the past.

know anything about Earthside. But the post I referred to as an "ad" for the Greens was posted in a context where it certainly appeared to be promoting the Green party candidate, Dixon.

How many people must die before the party hierachy gets the balls to say what John Murtha said, get out of Iraq now?

This is what the rules do say: "Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. "

Show me where it says posts advocating third parties are prohibited. Only posts advocating Republicans are prohibited.

This is not to say that I necessarily agree with third parties, either. As a reformed Green and now a Democrat, I can see both sides of the argument, but only by having the dialogue can the Democrats bring third party members back to the fold. And brow-beating Greens and other progressives is not exactly an effective tool.

And don't forget, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, either and even the Democratic Party officially supports him.

100% of Independents on board! Woo hoo!

Because he is the DNC endorsed candidate.

surprised if that is what Rove hoped for in his 30 year rule.

and that is to discourage people from actively participating in Demcoratic party politics. They themselves have mostly chosen a pth of inactivity and relative impotencey. They are miserable and misery loves company.

Julie

We must make it cristal clear to the party leaders that we will not support corp elitist candidates even if they make it thru the primary. We don't have enough money to fight them but we certainly don't have to support them. If they want to win the general elections they need to listen to us.
Joe Lieberman isn't a Democrat. He should not be supported by Democrats. Cantwell calls herself a democrat but votes with the republicans. Corp elitist are the problem whether democrats or republicans. Molly Ivins has it right, supporting corp elitist democrats won't fix our problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2157453&mesg_id=2159453



Progressive Punch says her record puts her in the top 20 progressives in the Senate.

...who endlessly bash Maria Cantwell, but insist that Senator Clinton would be an "acceptable" national standard-bearer.

I'm probably closer to Patty Murray than to Maria Cantwell, but Cantwell would absolutely have my vote and support if I were a Washingtonian.

out-of-staters, when so many Democratic Senators are more conservative than she is. It seems that some DU'ers like to criticize her more than their own conservative Senators, at least on these boards.

I do understand that she isn't liberal enough to suit the most liberal Washingtonians, but she has to represent the whole state in order to get elected.

Alito by voting for cloture, in spite of the hundreds of emails she got. She supported CAFTA and NAFTA. How is any of that progressive.

Wyden's. But for some reason you only want to pick on the woman. Why not concentrate on defeating Smith's next campaign instead of fighting the incumbant democrat?

Murray and Jay Inslee. We don't need that kind of Democrat.

For the most part I will not abandon the Democratic Party because of them. If either were to run for President or Vice President I would not vote for them.

Wherever you are, find your candidate: band together with likeminded people in the primary to get him orher on the ballot.
We won't retire the two Joe's until the people in their states take some action to show them our outrage at their record.

You don't have to worry about Lieberman. He's cooked with the Dems and never really liked by the pugs. And Biden strikes me as being a little too weird to run for President. I have the feeling that his aneurism affected the way his brain works. Have you heard him motormouth lately?

Will you be attending Lamont's announcement in Hartford?

They said at the organizing meeting last Saturday in New Haven that they wanted lots of people. I have the name of someone who is organizing carpools, but it may be during my work hours. I'll have to check. I want to go.

Are you going? Were you at the New Haven meeting last Saturday?

on Monday. There is a schedule conflict that I'll have to check out but there is a good chance I'll be there.

It'll be on Monday (March 13), 4:00 PM at the Old State House.:bounce:

I would work against Lieberman if I lived in CT. Biden is a liar of the first order.


We had a character in Missouri late 60's Warren Hearnes a Democrat. Harry Truman was quoted as saying there were two people exclusively he despised one was Richard Nixon the other Warren Hearnes then Democratic Governor of Missouri.

Later Hearnes took the place of Gerry Litton who won the Senate Democratic Primary. Litton and his entire family was killed in a plane crash the night of his primary victory for the Senate (he ran against Hearnes). Many in Missouri are convinced that Gerry Litton would have become President. There was a trial that implicated Hearnes, nothing was proven. Hearnes lost the Senatorial election that was taken from Gerry Litton. Oh by the way Warren Hearnes the Democrat supported Spiro Agnew with legal assistance before he resigned.

Lieberman is a traitor to the Democratic Party to the degree of Warren Hearnes. For me he elicits the same response I have for Warren Hearnes.

If you want everyone who is anti-Bush to assimilate and fall in lockstep with whatever the Democratic Party establishment orders us to do, you have another thing coming.

People tell us to work from within the party to change things...well, that's what we're trying to do - - by supporting authentic candidates who happen to have a capital-D after their names, whom we believe can make a difference within the existing two-party system.

However, we should not be excluded from having a voice just because not all of us "peon citizens" place a capital-D behind our (non-officeholding) names.

Of course, it doesn't help that we are essentially told to "shut up and conform" by so-called *mainstream* Democrats...and then we're accused of "rocking the boat" when we don't obey.

doing exactly what you said. At this point, I don't think anybody is serious about starting a 3rd party, at least from what I've read. Mostly, I read posts by very liberal Dems who say they won't vote for Joe, Hillary, Kerry, etc if one of them is the candidate in 08. The question I have is "So then what do you do?" If you haven't worked for the progressive Dem you wanted, it's not going to do any good not to vote at all. I say, make your vote really count by doing what you can to change the party. Just threats not to vote don't accomplish anything.

I'll be living in a very blue state in a very blue area.

If I can't stomach the Dem presidential nominee, I won't personally be giving my vote to him/her...but I won't go out and actively campaign against that person either. Instead, I will focus all of my energy on getting out the vote for progressive local candidates and progressive statewide ballot initiatives.

and at least you'd be doing something for the progressive cause with other candidates for office. But what if you were in a state that could tip one way or the other in the presidential? It's kind of an existentialist situation...

In 2000, I voted for Reform / Natural Law coalition presidential candidate John Hagelin, despite living in Wisconsin where Bush and Gore were running neck-and-neck.

I also gave my U.S. Senate vote to Democratic incumbent Herb Kohl, as well as voting for more progressive candidates near the bottom of the ticket.

In 2004, I voted straight-ticket Democratic for the first time in my life, because all of the candidates (Kerry especially) impressed me or at least satisfied me.

but was it as close as it was in 04? What was your issue with Gore? Of all the centrist Dems I think he is the best on lots of issues. I'm a prochoice voter. I knew what would happen if Bush got in. And what I predicted has come to pass. There is no way I could nit pick the guy and take a chance that we'd lose choice if the other guy won. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. I've got 2 daughters and 3 granddaughters. It's personal with me.

I didn't view Gore as an honest candidate, due to the way he did and said the most ridiculous/slanderous things in order to secure his primary "battle" against Bradley (when most of the Dem establishment already favored Gore). It was gratuitous, and gave me great concern regarding how pre-9/11 Gore would have governed if elected president back then.

I have a hard time trusting anyone who goes to great pains making exposition out of their "born-again" affiliation and droning about "religious morality"...while simultaneously trying to corral the "lefty/progressive" base and their issues into the flock. I don't care if you're a Warner or a Clark or a Hillary....you simply can't appeal to everyone under the sun, and when you transparently attempt to do exactly that, it's going to come back and bite you in the butt.

Basically, it was a severe case of distrust. I was very soured and embittered by how the party establishments' two Golden Boys had been annointed by such an undemocratic process. A McCain vs. Bradley matchup would have been much healthier for the country (although I still would have been concerned about McCain's media-constructed superior "popularity," in that case).

If I remember correctly, I think the overall voter turnout for both Bush and Kerry was higher in WI in 2004 (although Kerry narrowly won our state), but I don't know offhand what the comparative percentages were in WI between '00 and '04. I do know that Feingold won over Michels (in '04) by a healthier margin than he did over Neumann in '98.

I'm not asking for anybody to follow lockstep behind anybody.

I'm just wondering why people think that this forum ought to be for their third-party efforts?

Third parties are POISON to the party most closely allied with their point of view. History is quite plain on this matter.

So, no, do whatever you like, but if you do it with a third party, do it elsewhere!

Mostly I figure, they're posted out of frustration.

Sad fact is that the Dems have alienated a sizable portion of their base- and discouraged many more, including those who aren't always inclined to vote. Under the circumstances, people will of course be driven to thoughts of third parties. Some will even join and vote with them. Pretty natural (and forseeable) development.

as pure a liberal as has graced the U.S. Senate. I, and all my college student friends, loved him and worked for him. Alas, we were sickened when he failed to carry 49 states. And the Vietnam war dragged on. I, for one, don't want to see that kind of electoral disaster again.

might I ask that you consider one of the many activist groups dedicated to JUST THAT?

There's Demoocracy for America
There's Progressive Democrats of America
There's Grassroots Democrats

and a whole host of statewide progressive groups dedicated to furthering progessive ideals.

Get on board.

The party is not acting like an opposition party. I suspect I know which thread you are talking about. . . .

But this great two-party system that was set up will stay the same unless it gets fixed. On the local level I have no guilt voting for a Independent / Green if that person speaks to me. The same holds true with a Dem. However, on the federal level I'll vote only for Dems.

If we want the change the direction of the party, we have to organize!

and references to third party ideas and possibilities? Or are you referring to a widespread, systematic attempt to push a specific third party or third party candidate? I would think that the first would be permissible and the second prohibited per DU rules.

I'm guessing that if all of DU threads had to look like some of the "campaign" threads in this forum, DU would lose a good chunk of its board overnight.

:shrug:

we had Instant Runoff Voting then all this division would be unnecessary because it would instantly make a 3rd party viable. Too bad we're not that civilized. I guess when i started coming here i never felt that being a pagan, Independent voter made a difference in any of the posts i replied to or started. I'm a concerned and educated voter, which means i'll likely vote Democrat in any contest where there are realistically only 2 parties to choose from. I admit though that i have been surprised (not amazed) at the vitriol coming from some people when even a whiff of a 3rd party candidate is mentioned. I read the rules after i read this post and am wondering how many others did too... it's like reading the instruction book on your new TV, you do it when you need to, not before.

Honestly though, you might not want to ask my opinion on things because i'm liable to say we need not one but 3 Presidents... 6 year staggered terms/a publicly funded election every two years, equal airtime for all candidates and a box of Fair-Trade chocolate for everyone who votes!

Oh, and i have my doubts as to whether we'll all live through *'s term if he don't get IMPeached... and soon! hell in a handbasket...

peace and goodwill

sigh

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

1. I quoted the section of the rules already.

2. Show me an analysis of the Electoral College system where all but three states are winner-take-all where a strong third party does not destroy the chances of the party closest to them in ideology? I would like you to cite me just one such peer reviewed study.

3. What historical counterexample did you have in mind? The rise of the GOP? If so, I will remind you that that was in a power vacuum following the dissolution of the Whig party, and that there were several other parties in that election, most of which only served to siphon votes away from the Democratic Party.

I once did many, many years ago when I was young and innocent) I say to myself, "fine, but what will be the result?" Ronald Reagan cured me of that way of thinking.

I wish we did have an electable clearly progressive alternative. But, I also wish we could abolish the system of nation-state capitalism, disband all militaries world-wide and have a global system of worker/community democratic collectives.

But one thing at a time.

Let's concentrate on electing progressive Democrats and moving the situation forward.

Solidifying the power of the right is not progressive.

Being progressive is about making progress.

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

And many people wish I were, I assure you of that. :evilgrin:

why don't they create their own site and talk up whoever their candidates is and the issues.

but most seem focused on just bashing the Democratic Party and how they aren't getting what they want. i doubt any of these are involved in even really helping any Dems they may agree with.

they just come across as those who love to be bitter and complain.

And I see no reason why that ought to be allowed here.

Simple enough to start your own blog or web forum, after all, where the rules can be whatever you say they are; "Spit on the mat, and call the cat a bastard."

Washington voters how terrible Maria Cantwell is.

I'd like to hear more about their Senators instead.

as in times past were such creatures as abolitionists, suffragists, and those who fought for labor rights among others. Eventually, the major parties adopted the prinicples and platforms of these fringe groups, becuase they would have lost their own viability if they had chosen to do otherwise. The Democratic party needs to decide what it stands for.

...and I agree with some of them. The system has to be reformed, but that's not going to happen overnight. It may take years, decades.

Meanwhile, we have an important....vital election coming up. Will all of us like all the Dem candidates? Of course not. Will we agree with everything even the ones we like say? Nope.

Work for them anyway! Only when we do, will we have the credibility to tell them "look, you can't do x"

Face it, even the worst Democrat is better than what we have now. And I include Holy Joe in that, even though I'm hardly a fan of his. (Hope Ned gets some steam).

We must.....must take control of one or both branches of Congress before we can even seriously discuss reform. No third party is gonna do that.

I absolutely support the right of anyone to join another party, or form one. But right now, we've got to think about winning, with what we have. Our country cannot take much more of these people running all three branches.

We can all argue until this country really goes fascist about how "pure" (i.e. does he or she agree with everything I believe in?) a Dem candidate should be, or the party for that matter. Meanwhile, Rove & Co. are cackling and rubbing their hands.

Btw, I haven't forgotten about making you a new banner. Actually, it has been a hard endeavor since I am so concerned about doing a good job. I have spent nights downloading photos of Sophie, collecting quotes, reading every possible link on whiterosesociety.org... I just don't feel any of my ideas thus far are worthy of Sophie or the others.

... is soon enough for it to be done! :)

Not so much lately, but in the past, it would seem as if I'd signed onto a freeper site. All the bashing of our democratic candidates was almost unbearable to me. Sure, we're entitled to our opinion, but, if we are going to be progressive, in a sense, we have to unite our party. IMHO, any of our candidates are far and above any candidate the republicans can offer. Please don't flame me, for I'm just speaking my mind in the best way I know how. :thumbsup: :dem: :loveya:

and the spirit giveth life.

"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

That should be the last word, right?

What "rules" are you raving about?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

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.

People tend to quote the part from "About Democratic Underground" out of context of that part when trying to defend using DU to promote third-parties.

Them's the rules.

I think when people act like this is not Democratic Underground, they fully know what they're doing and just disregard it. They're basically here to spam their target market, or maybe cause a scene that they think will make the Democratic Party and leadership react. When people think that complaining on a message board is all the activism they need to get things done, that is the kind of thing they do.

surely see why people think a third party would be an answer!

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

... the strains of the oh-so familiar "Yer either with us or yer agin' us" lowest common denominator grunting and finger pointing at 'those people' is a sure-fire way to get folks onboard with your belief system. :eyes:

You are either with the Democratic Party, or you are working AGAINST the democratic party. There is no middle ground, and there is no alternative but 1000 years of GOP rule.

"Which Side Are You On?"

Come all you good workers,
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old union
Has come in here to dwell.

CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

My dady was a miner,
And I'm a miner's son,
And I'll stick with the union
'Til every battle's won.

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.

Oh workers can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can?
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize.

:eyes:

if someone votes third party where the Democrat supports NAFTA/CAFTA and attendant losses in labor rights, would you still call them a "scab"?

If so, would you mind giving me your definition of "irony"?

Because the GOP will then win, and the GOP is worse.

I'm NOT saying to accept the Democratic Party as she is! I am advocating a complete revolution. But that revolution needs to be carried out WITHIN the party or we doom ourselves to rule by Nazis.

If you are NOT involved in a revolution within the Democratic Party, you are wasting your time and helping the Nazis. It is that simple.

Oh yes, and Irony is where a supporter of a third party thinks they did something noble by electing a Nazi.

with a 5-month-old and a teaching job that keeps me busy about 60 hours/week.

I'm not going to call other progressives "scabs", though, or tell them how they have to vote. That's stupid, and counterproductive.

I have no trouble telling people the consequences of their actions.

I am not telling you that you MUST vote Democratic, but I am telling you that not doing so elects only Republicans.

If a person is more comfortable voting for pure ideology, I'd never, ever stand in that way!

But I'll be damned if I am not going to tell that person that they are destroying any chance of opposing the American Nazi Party (formerly the GOP) and any chance that the Labor Movement will survive.

And I'll be damned if I am not going to advocate that THIS forum be entirely for people who are committed to effectively opposing the Nazis.

ensures the survival of the labor movement? Voting for someone who supports a GOP objective of any kind effectively opposes the GOP?

Neat tricks!

And I'll be damned if I am not going to advocate that THIS forum be entirely for people who are committed to effectively opposing the Nazis.

I join you in that advocacy.

...we can THEN do something about NAFTA/CAFTA (and I'll raise you two; WTO/GATT).

Clearly this will never, ever happen while the Nazi Party controls things.

Clearly also, this will never happen while the DLC Democrats control things. But we have it within our power to replace the DLC Democrats from the grassroots, and that is what I am proposing that we do.

but I would suggest one possibility to you - that the renewed interest in the grassroots we see now from some leading Dems, particularly Dean, had at least a little to do with the heads up they got in 2000 and seeing a significant number of Dems vote third party.

I'm not *sure* that that's true, but I suspect that it is.

But all-in-all, not electing George W Bush in 2000 would have been a better result.

he was appointed. I have the feeling that when historians look at this in 20 years they will call it by its propper name... COUP.

Where could Al Gore have gone if he had the support of Nader and the votes and money and enthusiasm of the Greens? Florida might not have mattered, and there might have been no opportunity for them to steal the election. I assure you it would have made more than an arithmetic addition to the votes Gore would have received in almost every district in the nation.

an excuse and a convenient one by the way....

When historians look back at this they will also have a chuckle at how badly the Dems were blinded by obvious propaganda lifted out straight of the German election of 1933.

There is yet another parallel to that period of history. You let yourself be distracted by that... those of us who have looked at the data blame the proper agents: Delay's muscle on the ground the United States Supreme Court that got involved in the affairs of a state that the State Supreme Court had already decided, COUNT THE VOTES.

It's a Wobbly song, IWW.

I'm a member of IWW (and a singer) and can tell you that to quote this song that was written for the working class in their struggle against the kind of capitalists that the leadership of the Dems represent is an insult to those who gave their lives against those same capitalist pigs, singing these songs. (www.iww.org)

In addition, your statement "You are either with the Democratic Party, or you are working AGAINST the democratic party." sounds a whole lot like "You're with us or you're with the terrorists".

What the HELL is this Democratic party you're babbling about?

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

We support ANY Democrat that wins the Primaries.

Our chance to control WHO gets elected comes DURING the primaries.

We influence that by encouraging real Progressives to run for office, and WORKING on the ground in their districts. SHOELEATHER is what wins primaries.

However, if we fail in a particular race, and a DLC Democrat gets the nomination, we work JUST as hard to get that person elected.

Don't expect to take over the party overnight, but it is the people who volunteer at the grass roots, and go door-to-door for candidates who actually control the Democratic Party, and those people need to stay involved and join their local Democratic Party organizations, run for local office, and TAKE OVER.

This is how it is done.

Simple, no?

EDIT: typo

That is insane and the antithesis of the ideal of America :patriot:. That path has only one destination and that is where we are, a country where the majority of citizens have no voice and vote for none of the above with their silence.

"if a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."

Welcome to amerika.

There is no third option.

I'm not saying this because I like everything about the Democratic Party!

I do not!

But I know with mathematical certainty how the system works.

And we do need to seize power, What the fuck else do you think an electoral system is for?

Right now the power is in the hands of actual NAZIs. Do you choose to perpetuate that, or not?

...and if that really is the only option, we will get the government we deserve.
I can't understand this mindset at all, this is not some stupid game between 'our' team and 'their' team, and the idea that you want to play like it is disturbs me greatly.

I won't join the true majority in this country and just not vote, but I will never submit to this debasement of the true America.

Another factor that you've apparently overlooked is that each and every time the Democrats have put up a "so what are you going to do, vote re:puke:?" candidate, we lose, simple as that. So it appears that your strategy will yield the same results as the 3rd party scenario.

If so, how are you going to change anything with your approach? I want a concrete answer.

Nothing works other than taking over the Democratic Party from the grass roots, and CONTROLLING who achieves the nomination by putting real progressive candidates forward and working for them tirelessly.

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

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

Or proposed and passed the Patriot act? Or Bankruptcy reform?

The legislature, unfortunately, let themselves be led by the President (although many of those votes would have passed without any democratic help. In fact, that's the aim of the Bush administration -- not to have to rely on Dem votes for anything.)

and the UPPA was in the books... the question woudl be how would Kerry deal with the civil war and the renewal of that monster?

that is the correct questions.

policies belonged to the Bush administration. I strongly feel that Gore (or Kerry) wouldn't have led us down the same road.

by its proper name, a Coup... what happened in 2004 was a charade, and proved to me that there is some level of collision at very high levels. I once believed Kerry would have fought for every vote... alas 24 hours into the fight he threw the towel.

As I said in another post, my feelings are becoming the norm... and prove that we are indeed in pre revolutionary times, as more and more people loose faith in the levers of power

to happen. When I hear people bitching about Nader voters, my small-d democratic principles are insulted. You're right, though. This is not the place to discuss that kind of reform, the kind that will actually transform our country into a representative small-d democracy. Shame, really. Guess I'll go see if antiwar.com can start up a discussion forum like DU.

You support the Republican Party.

Period.

Once we take control away from them is sufficiently soon to discuss other matters.

However, I will not continue this discussion - I will not get myself kicked out of DU.

Can you point to a SINGLE instance where a third party did not sap the support of the party most philosophically compatible with it? Even ONE?

1870s. They actually caucused with the Dems... and you can thank them from bringing the Dems back from their lock in step with the Repukes back then. Oh and you can thank them for the New Deal as well, as the ground work that became the New Deal was laid back then. Incidentally in 1932 the Communist Party polled extremely well... which was the other impetus for the new deal... or we would have had a revolution, no doubt in my mind.

My teachers once told me that history does not repeat itself... I'd like to amend that to... only when people are willing to learn the lesson from it.

Both major parties have refused to learn that lesson... may I also remand you one party actually replaced a major party that refused to see what they were doing was wrong, you knew them as the Whig party... which was replaced by the GOP.

As I said above Ben this country is past ready for some dramatic changes,. In fact, in the view of many of us we are way past the point of no return and we are in pre-revolutionary or civil war times... what form that revolution will take is unknown to us right now... but we are well past the point of no return. The problem is when one uses the R word, people think of violence and civil war. This revolution may take the form of an up down reform of the political system and the emergence and replacement of one if not two major political parties. Would you agree that would in itself be revolutionary?

Oh and as they say, the Revolution shall not be televised...

some semblance of sanity. When I hear stuff like what's being pushed in this thread I wonder if there is any hope at all.
Thank you.

now are very disturbing... and I mean the macro trends. This country is truly in pre revolutionary times... and only those who are willing to see at the trends realize it.

Now as a historian I don't like that future either, but we are way past the point of no return.... by the way you mentioned Hackett, it took the 1968 Democratic Convention to drive the machine out of the smoke filled rooms, which is exactly where they are going back to

living as a historian, but alas I'll have to remain an amateur. I have watched the headlong decent into this mess since 1981 and I see nothing good ahead. We do seem to have only three paths now; Re:puke: police state, Democrat police state, or revolution, and I think very few people realize how hard the authoritarians will fight back. It looks to me like the "party faithful" on both sides view this as some kind of game, with no real consequences.
We are in some deep shit.

shameless plug... these days I make my living (sort off) by running my game company. Now the material I am putting out is fairly political and full of history. I draw a lot of inspiration from the grand ol' days preceding the American War of Independence, otherwise known as the American Revolution.

It helps me to know that there are others who feel the same way as I do about the party in power. It also provides me with helpful information about local Democrats I can support, running for office in low profile elections like this, and it allows me to read the opinions of other Democratic voters who neither hold office or have publicity.

One idea I have promoted is that liberals and progressives start bringing their ideas into the majority party. This is something I would support, regardless of which party holds office. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=296&topic_id=2665

But the danger with supporting a third party is similar to the danger of being a Democrat. The more isolated liberals become, the more influence neocons will have on our political system. The Roosevelts, Rockfellers, and probably even the King family were Republicans at one point. What made them move into the Democratic Party..dissatifaction with the Republicans or the goal of influencing the party then in power (ie. Democrats)?

Democrats are now running the only candidates I can tolerate voting for, but is this a good or bad thing?

According to the same rules you mention, in fact.

I'm not a Dem. I'm welcome here, just as a Dem is. This site is NOT affiliated with the Democratic party.

When the mods say it is, then I'll take off. Until then, we're welcome here. If you don't like that, tough.

First, the site is certainly open to progressives and leftists of any stripe. But the rules do forbid agitation against a Democratic Party candidate in a general election, and require that criticism of Democratic Party figures, and of the Party itself, be of a constructive nature.

Second, we try to foster as open and broad a dialog as possible within the rules of the place. Those persons who are main-line Democrats have as much a right to state and press their views here as do those who feel the Party has committed any number of sins.

But a presidential nominee for the General Election has not been decided yet.

Until that point, people should expect ANY mainstream Democratic political figure to be fair game for constructive scrutiny.

But those who criticize a candidate, or potential candidate, should expect that figure's supporters to quarrel with the criticisms they express, as well.

There is certainly no official position here on who the candidate should be.

Are those rebuttals merely emotional, rhetoric-based sweeping generalizations designed to encourage groupthink...???

Or do they actually have substance to them?

Why does the About section clearly state that this is a website for progressive politics, and people are expected to support progressive policies, yet I see people literally badmouth progressivism and liberalism?

Why are those people allowed on the board at all? They're breaking the rules as much as anyone who "agitates" against the Dem party.