The con or the choice - what does the Democratic Party believe in?

We always knew that Republicans weren't keen on the idea of free choice, but now it's clear that many in the Democratic Party aren't willing to trust "we the people" with an unrigged game either.

It's not that Dean or Kucinich or Sharpton aren't doing better in the polls or in the delegate count. And it isn't that the corporate media is giving the scarlet letter treatment to Dean and practically ignoring everything Kucinich and Sharpton have to say - I fully expected them to do this and more. What is degrading to America in the eyes of everyone who doesn't have a political investment in ignoring it is the many people in the so-called opposition party who are desperately trying to end the game after the second inning. Dems offending their own and everyone else's intelligence by claiming absurdities like the runner-up is automatically out of the race because he was supposedly ahead of the field before the race started and somehow fell behind that imaginary mark. Or that the few debates that have happened have been anything but circular firing squads and the opportunity to pose.

More than anything, this - and not the negatives or positives of the candidates involved - is threatening to turn ABB to a cozy ride to a second term for Bush. It means we are not going to send a solid, vetted candidate to the general election. And because of this, the general election will not be about real qualifications, but smears, allusions, and innuendos.

Dean has gotten the most scrutiny so far, so he's the most solid candidate (judging by the crucible criteria), but even he's not been given the thoughtful analysis that the Dems would insist on if they really had any regard for democracy beyond lip service. It's becoming a matter of what endorsements and scandals a candidate can be linked to, not what the candidate is about. Dean, DK, and Sharpton have been pointing this out, but coming from the candidates it's made to seem like sour grapes or opportunism. The candidate's supporters should be the ones making that case.

Kerry being the front-runner without any serious scrutiny is the same as Bush being president - both are illegitimate because the established process was and is being circumvented. Both happened for one reason - Americans are being conned into believing a manufactured sense of inevitability. I'd like to give Dems credit for having learned from the Election 2000 psyop, but I see that they're too busy trying to adopt the same tactics for this round.

So is the con or the choice in the driver's seat in this primary? Is Dean right about who really has the power? Many Dems realize that we're deciding that right now, and although we should be well on the way to defusing the con by now, the outcome is a still long way from inevitable.

Clearly a large segment of corporate America finally sees the Bush administration for what they always have been - hubris-ridden frat boys that are killing the golden goose out of their megalomania. Animal House still has the Republican Party locked up, so the Democratic Party is the only possibility for change. But as always, corporate Democrats have way too much invested in the problem to look for real, lasting solutions, or to trust the people with their own mind. So we're seeing ordinary, rank-and-file Dems negotiating with the Dark Side and aligning with the media to push the bandwagon button in their fellow citizens. The particulars about the candidate will sort themselves out later, they think. We'll deal with that hurdle when we get to it.

Well, they're dead wrong. Every candidate that drops out of the race now compromises the debate, and we have precious little time in this primary season to debate before we have to choose the nominee. So it shouldn't be surprising to see the Gennifer Flowers tactic surface yet again. Even if Dems see through that tactic, the fact is that unless we have Dem candidates committed to talking about issues (the signal) and generating debate and media fire about it, the corporate media will have the opening to fill that bandwidth with every kind of distraction they can think up. And the distractions don't have to be believed, they only need to fill up time while the electoral clock runs out. By the same token, Bush's inevitable lies during the general election won't have to be believed, they will only need to be tolerated while the Dems grouse and eventually adapt to the lower standard.

If the Democratic Party has any regard for democracy left, it will stop tolerating the fascist principle in both itself and in the Republicans, and start openly promoting free choice instead of the bandwagon.

nicely put

when Dean was whining to Mc Auliffe that he was being sniped at by the other candidates and not being protected as front runner, even though at that time he had not won a single delegate by primary/ caucus route ?

but I have yet to see a substantial link. Please let us see for ourselves what was said so we can decide if your characterization of it as "whining" is correct.

Link!!!

And I recall Dean was saying this after the circular firing squad Dem so-called debates.

He was telling McAuliffe to call off his dogs so that the Democrats could actually have a debate. Only a blind person couldn't see that he was the only one not being afforded the protection of a civil debate in that situation, so his comment was a analysis, not a whine.

And all of this ends up being more noise to drown out the signal. But, for the record, I'd defend Dean's right to a fair hearing whether or not he was "my candidate". Some principles transcend membership.

last year the same as Dean when he pulled ahead. And in case you haven't noticed, Kerry is getting it again, big time. I don't see how you can say that Dean was picked on.

As for the debates, I think Kerry was the only one who complained about the futility of the format. He wanted to draw names and do one on one series of debates. I don't recall that Dean joined him in that at the time. Of course he was the front runner at that time.

I could stomach Kerry if there were real debate on the issues and he called for change that is at least obvious. That would be requiring a paper trail and busting up the media. To me it means turning the Perpetual War on Drugs into a harm reduction program under a health care solution.

The Independents could well slap the Democratic Party for sending out a status quo Democrat in the first place. Kerry has no accomplished record in leading anything and a year ago, I did not even know what he looked like. The Independents might say, neither candidate earns my vote and if the Democratic Party cannot do better than that, then let them suffer and figure it out next time.

I know what the number one problem in America is. It is the complete corruption of the entire political system. Now does anyone want to issue on that or do you want to talk about electability for a guy a say is not worthy of my vote? Now, he might be if he would actually change something beside the monograms on the towels in the White House.

I'd stay out of politics entirely.

I mean I have enough to eat, a reasonably nice apartment and enough money left over to buy the occasional CD or go to the occasional movie. I'm guessing most of us do (although i'm sure not all).

If there is no hope for the system (and if the system were completely corrupt I don't see how there could be), then why strain oneself?

So I guess it's for the best that I don't believe the system is completely corrupt.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The two-party system. Don't ya just love it?

What the party membership wants and what the party executives want are two different things. The party membership wants their message out in a free and open debate and they don't want to see dems eating their own.

The party executives have decided their whole reason for being is to be a money clearing house - taking it in, giving it to candidates of their choosing. Because the majority of that money has come, at least in the recent past, from corporations, they now cater to corporations and give their cash/support to "corporate" candidates. Their not dumb. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Plain and simple, nearly every problem with our current political system boils down to campaign financing issues. We need to keep voting for candidates who are willing to fix the system until it eventually happens.

Just a thought.

There are two ways to take back the party, in my view.

1. support and vote for candidates that don't do "quid pro quo."

2. become a member of your state party. You can work towards getting a populist message out in front of your neighbors while calling on the DNC to change. We can work to change the party from within, but it will take a little longer than electing an "outsider". Just imagine what an infiltration of Dean and Kucinich supporters can do to the Democratic party. As a member, I have to say we need you.