Who needs to be defeated most in '08? The GOP or the Democrats?

Both suck, but if you can't get excited about Democrats getting a larger majority, can we at least get excited about finally smacking the GOP down to an infinitesimal minority? One crucial moment for me was the habeas corpus vote. Here you had one party unified to restore it, and another party similarly unified in trying to stamp it out. When you have a party making fundamental attempts to crush a core 800 year old pillar of basic justice, that party needs to lose. Often. All the time. As much as possible.

Don't the Democrats deserve to be punished for mounting lousy opposition in many cases? Yeah, they do. But we need a short term plan, and a long term plan. And we need to be realistic about what tools we have and what is possible for each. The long term plan is obvious--restore sanity to our politics so that center-right =/= left in the media, and so that ancient foundations of basic law don't get thrown aside with hardly a murmur from the public. That definitely includes either reclaiming the Democratic party, or muscling them out of existence with a new party that truly represents progressive views.

First, however, the GOP must be defeated. If we don't marginalize the GOP, any long-term attempt to hold Democrats to account at the ballot box will simply divide the progressive vote and enable the GOP, which we hate to see from Democrats and shouldn't tolerate in ourselves. When the GOP wins, the Democrats emulate them and the media toady up to them for influence. Both of these are disastrous to any long-term progressive goals. We -can- defeat the GOP in the short term via the '08 election, but in this election we are unfortunately offered a lousy choice: we can punish the GOP and reward the Democrats, or we can punish the Democrats and reward the GOP. Which would you choose?

We can't let fantasy get in the way of reality here--we don't have instant runoff voting, a viable third party, or media that accurately and responsibly report on the issues. We can build these in the long term, but we don't have time to do so before '08, not by any historical standard. So what does that leave us capable of in '08? Handing the GOP a solid defeat. A complete and total defeat. And all you need is your vote. The two party system sucks, but if you agree the GOP needs to be buried along with its insane political ideology, we do have the capability to effect that at least next year.

But to do that, you have to vote for the Democratic nominee, and for Democratic congressional candidates (unless you have a viable third party candidate in your state). To my mind, Kucinich is the only presidential candidate truly representative both in speeches and in office of progressive ideals. Fortunately, by all reasonable standards, any candidate in the Democratic field is vastly superior to the best of the GOP field. Since only one of these can win in '08, isn't it worth a little nose-holding to hand the GOP this major defeat? If you stay home or avoid voting for the nominee, in my view you are enabling the GOP. And to me the primary goal of every progressive in 2008 should be to soundly defeat the Republicans. Killing off a party that is hostile to all our values is worth enabling a party that doesn't stand up for our values enough.

It's offensive, right? Being told how you should use your vote? Fair enough. To me the only conscience vote in this upcoming election is one used to defeat any and all GOP candidates. That party needs to die.

:shrug:

just like they are demonstrating today.

If they don't have the courage when they're in the majority, then they will likely demonstrate EVEN LESS courage when they are in a super-majority? In other words, only the lobbyists and political elites will matter to them. :shrug:

Our party needs to come back to the values and needs of the Average American WAGE slave, not corporate welfare and perpetual warmongering.

If the Republicans lose 20% of their representation, suddenly the collaborators aren't a problem.

they know how to get down in the trenches and "fight like hell" for what they believe is right. Sure, what's right to republicans is being whores for the Military Industrial Complex. BUT DAMN, they know how to fight for what they believe in. :shrug:

We need more democrats like Dennis Kucinich in Congress. :-)

The GOP really needs to go. It's tragic the Democrats are the only short-term vehicle to do that, but since they are a good bit better than the GOP as a party, the nose-holding will be totally worth it even if Hillary is the nominee.

That seems reasonable.

Sad to say, but their positions DO represent a lot of Americans' ugly little inner lives. There would be more balance in a four party system, though the two middle parties would be even harder to tell apart than the Dems and GOP today.

sent to prison.

We need to defeat those who don't support democratic (lowercase d) ideals. As the evidence clearly shows, they can be in either party.

Which one is the best to defeat in our imperfect two-party system? In the long term, yeah, we need to hold enabling Democrats to account, but in the short term, when having a purity test can split the progressive vote and thereby enable the GOP, why not just hold your nose to kill the GOP as much as possible?

But if we keep talking like it's all about our team's victory and not about principles the already-awful situation will continue to deteriorate.

Party Loyalty Oaths are not the answer.

Stop pushing the false dichotomy of D v. R and focus on democratic v. undemocratic.

This isn't fantasyland. This isn't a fairy-tale world of what politics -should- be. A Democrat will be in office, or a Republican will. The GOP are the worst political party in memory for this country. Defeating them will undermine their media influence and diminish if not destroy the ability of the enabling Democrats to dictate policy. Those are important factors for building any true progressive majority, no?

You can't really be having as hard a time understanding my point as you seem to be.

Your point is that emulating the GOP is bad. BEING the GOP is worse. That's my point. When the GOP win and the Democrats lose, as we've seen, the Democrats emulate the GOP. Politicians chase success. It's why tedious imitations of JFK's speaking style still exist today. The media suck up to the party in power that will do the most for them. If the GOP no longer is in power, they'll have to shift left in their discussion of issues. Can you tell me how GOP dominance of three branches of government is better than the GOP being defeated?

and they continue the war, thereby continuing the looting of the treasury, tank the economy further in the name of the corporations, get blamed for what the pukes started, and thereby sink the D party for good?

Since I said (several posts ago) that I thought we'd (almost) all wind up voting for a D no matter what gets said in anger, I've pretty much covered the immediate, strategic part of the argument, but you've chosen to overlook that. You just want absolute, blind loyalty to a group's name. The DLC Dems know they can count on that attitude, that's why they don't even try to represent us anymore.

If we don't hold their feet to the fire, what Nader said -- wrongly, I think -- in 2000 will soon become true: there will be no difference between the parties.

Or we could insist that the Dems act like Dems -- but we can't do that while simultaneously excusing them for the sake of loyalty.

Results might have varied.

I didn't want to make this any more controversial, and I assume DUers can connect those dots.

Yes, we have DINO's in the Party. But if we get a clear, veto-proof majority and a Democratic President, we set the agenda and get the legislation passed. We control the next Supreme Court pick. And the DINO becomes today's Republican liberal/moderate....

Does that mean the work is done and we can all quit DU? No, then we start working on the DINO's and getting real Democrats to take their place.

They can vote for the Dem they prefer. All I ask is that at the end of the day, there is a Dem butt in that seat and not a Republican. Is that too much.

Unless the independent is someone like Lieberman, that maxim will serve everybody well in '08.

How many times am I supposed to hold my nose and vote before I realize I'm being made a fool?

What's so hard about that? The most dangerous enemy of progressives in this country is the GOP. Nobody else comes close. They need to go away, and for good.

You don't even care what my position is, you are just convinced that I have to vote a certain way and that I'm stupid to disagree.

IRV or a viable third party would be nice, but we don't have either. Any way of voting that splits the progressive vote so that the GOP candidate is indirectly helped, to me is just an abdication of civic duty. We are so obsessed with salving our conscience through our vote, but when one party is so incredibly dangerous I wonder how anyone can justify indirectly helping them to victory next year. How would you justify it?

I can be interested in defeating the GOP and vote however I please. Just because you can't or won't understand it changes nothing. But the fact that you haven't even asked what my opinion is that I've complained about being marginalized (which is no longer important, don't bother) says a lot about you and your willingness to sacrifice others in pursuit of your goals.

I'd be interested to hear.

Don't pretend you care about anything but people conforming to your expectations on this. If you're wrong, you'll just have to live with that when you find it out.

Express yours! This is a discussion board. If you have a mechanism for defeating the GOP in '08 that doesn't include voting for less-than-perfect Democrats, let's have it. If you don't and are just avoiding the questions, why? They're not scary, invasive questions, are they?

That is to say, I don't.

If you believe we can, why wouldn't you tell me (and everyone else!) how?

I don't know what to say to that.

And I will do and say everything I can to make sure the GOP is defeated in all possible areas as much as possible.

No Real Leadership to speak of...is there? Only Photo Ops and Spin....

Them Pubs deserve to be Banished to Tuva.....

Them Pubs deserve to be Banished to Tuva.....

We don't want 'em anywhere in the Pacific!

On the other hand, Tuvalu has made contingency plans to evacuate all 10,000 of its residents to New Zealand, because rising sea levels caused by global warming threaten the entire archipelago, so I guess as long as the exiled repukes aren't included, it might work out...

Richard Feynman made the place famous while he was still living...even went there on a lark.....

but that was in my childhood. I thought that it was now part of Mongolia.

Mongolia, by the way, is where the Japanese are getting many of their sumotori now that they have tired of Polynesians. Good call! "What is the sound of a sumo wrestler jumping up and down on a repuke?"

and need to be flushed down the toilet of history.

:kick:

We *COULD* clean the House in one election cycle.

Tesha

Neal Boortz? Is that you? :hi:

It simply isn't true--not at this point, not in this election year. You mount an effective campaign against troubling Democrats, you -will- enable a completely horrible Republican. In nearly every case. And it's frustrating because of course nobody wants to accept that reality, but it's what we have and we need to deal with it.

:wow:

Democratic victory in 08 FIRST AND FOREMOST. Without that foundation firmly in place, nothing can be built, nothing can be changed.

But at least it -punishes- the worst behavior, which in any analysis belongs to the GOP. And when punishing the ineffective behavior rewards the worst behavior, the choice (however ugly) seems clear to me.

For those who say "I can't in good conscience vote for (name Dem here)," I would suggest they think of their vote in terms of voting against the GOP.

Surely we can all agree on that concept - can't we?

The are the Dallas Cowboys or Notre Dame of politics.

It's a simple choice. Punish the ineffective enablers while rewarding the worst people, or reward the ineffective enablers while punishing the worst people. To my mind, I don't want to reward the worst people -ever-, and the worst people are far more deserving of punishment.

Plus, media influence and therefore our political debate is based on political wins. If the GOP wins again, the Democrats will cleave even more closely to the right, and so will the media, since the right wing is an enormous jackpot of money for corporations--significantly more so than the center-right Democrats.

Further, it is around 25-30% of Democrats that collaborate regularly in fascist policies. It is 100% of the GOP that collaborate -and- initiate those fascist policies. Cut the GOP minority significantly, and the numbers look good for passing progressive legislation, even if some come kicking and screaming.

And finally, the GOP is the worst threat to progressive politics in existence right now. They essentially are fascists. They are the worst enemy to any form of mildly socialist politics in this country. Therefore they need to be defeated as an effective political force before any true policy shift can happen.

a difference. There is no quick fix, and it's sad that the blind hatred of Nader and the left has made it so that after 8 years the moderates and conservatives still don't feel any need to appeal to the left.

And since that minority of fascists has a disproportionate appeal to the media and corporate power in general, they have an inherent advantage that allows them to force incredibly unpopular legislation. Also, ambitious pols will cave time and time again to chase after their success and influence, and to remain elected. It's cancerous. You don't approach a cancer by saying "well let's kill those cels that are precancerous and not worry about the actual cancer." You also can't pretend that splitting the progressive vote in '08 will do anything but empower the GOP. We have no viable third party, and we don't have fair or responsible media. Replacing Democrats and punishing the GOP all at once would be great. How do we do it in '08?

Or do you want to be some kind of extremist and use water. Better to stay in the middle where it's safe :sarcasm: I think 08 is already fucked, so don't ask me what to do. Learning to offer a genuine alternative over the last 8 years probably would have helped though.

To you that's 87 octane gas vs 93 octane gas? How is totally defeating the GOP not part and parcel of getting to where we want to get? And isn't that something we can do in '08? Besides, removing the fascist GOP would cut down quite a bit on the octane of those enabling democrats. What's more, the media see that as a rebuke of GOP ideology, which is a huge bonus. They won't see Democratic defeat as the defeat of an enabling ideology that's not left enough, they'll see it as a rebuke of the left, since the two are somehow equated in the mind of the media.

"we should support X, because no matter what X does, it's better than what Y does" what happens is that eventually X gets wind of the sentiment and lets himself become more like Y. So while it might work at keeping nefarious Y from doing his wicked deeds, it also ultimately makes it impossible to expect X to behave like anything resembling adequate. So knock it off, eh? We're several months from the first primaries and the last thing we need is an emboldening of the bad elements of our own party.

They were beaten heavily into submission by Democrats for over a dozen years, and the Democrats readily maintained majorities long beyond that. How did the GOP get into power? By beating Democrats. The more power they got, the more their views gained supremacy. How can you not see the connection?

I don't remember Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution as being something which ignored their activist base. In fact, since Reagan their party has been working hard for the right.

Nixon would be lynched by the freepers based on his policies of the day. Plus, being so bent-over-backward pro-corporate, they had an intrinsic advantage in the media and in economic centers that the Democrats can never totally share. Without public funding for campaigns or regulated media, that means a great deal.

The voters may well have become more conservative, more bold, more doctrinally rigorous in response to tasting success.

Or are you saying they'd become bold in all the wrong ways?

Basically, the Republican leadership understand how to energize it's base and lead the party to consolidation of success.

The Democratic leadership is unable to connect with its base and not only is it unable to lead the party to the left, it is unable to even keep pace (or possibly even direction :( ) with what its voters think.

To me, their blind walk off the cliff following Bush's leadership will ultimately do incredible damage to the party. The fact that they are walking off that cliff in almost united fashion to me isn't enviable at all, but scary as hell. I don't want that level of party loyalty, even if the lack of it currently hamstrings the best Democrats in favor of the best-connected, pandering Democrats. We basically have a shaky coalition, wherein no leftist identifies with the good elements of the party, but rather feels alienated by the many bad or weak elements of the party. "The Democrats" to most people means Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm, etc. It doesn't mean Kucinich, Gore, Feingold, Conyers, etc. With that fractured a party, isn't it only natural that a Dem majority seems to perform less effectively than past GOP -minorities- at times? And would attacking bad Democrats shake up the party in the right way, or just indirectly provide the GOP more ascendancy in the political debate?

The policies of the land will not improve until the base has a party. So either it's conquer the current democratic party apparatus, or it's go start a new party and kill off the rump-democratic party from outside. Neither one of these is going to have pleasant immediate consequences, but until it is done, the rightward drift will continue. Realize that if Rahm, Pelosi, and Reid become the new incarnation of what is left-wing, the political spectrum of functioning politicians will continue to go right.

This all boils down to one maxim: if you don't like what they do and you don't want them to keep on doing it, you can't vote for them anymore.

I gotta do work now, TTYL

However it's my understanding that the Democrats respond to losing votes by chasing the resultant GOP success, who do not lose votes due to their captive and unthinking support from the base. Plus, GOP success turns our media coverage to bias far more than did past Democratic majorities, and without public campaign funding that corporate support becomes all important to ambitious pols. So can simply not voting for bad people turn that around?

btw. is there any transparency laws where a congressperson/senator, etc., has to disclose what his/her portfolio is - re: conflict of interest?
How can you trust anyone who rakes in a ton of cash from Halliburton stock to make genuine efforts to stop the war in Iraq?
or is it a case of ' oh, that's how they all are', chuckle chuckle.

But how about the party who in vast majority pushed for the war, initiated the war, and continue to shill for the war? Don't they deserve to be punished more than the party that contains 20-30% enablers? Or is it all or nothing?

that makes him a hypocrit.
but he doesn't make those kinds of decisions.

I'm talking about the ones elected who do make those decisions and who may directly personally benefit from those decisions.

Even if the two are essentially the same in your eyes, there's one crucial difference if one of them is destined for office. The bad Democrat will empower the best Democrats, and no matter how high your standards there are at least a few Democrats that do very well. Feingold and Kucinich come to mind. With a larger Democratic majority, the best Democrats get empowered and the worst Republicans get marginalized. The problems caused by enabling, skittish Democrats is mitigated when the party they enable has as weak a minority as possible.

Greatly appreciated.

K&R.

:bluebox:

They may be the minority but they are a sizeable one. We need to cut into that margin significantly or the democrats can kiss any hope of running things again goodbye.

And if your choice is between two flavors of corporatists, at least the Democratic corporatist will inexorably help the anti-corporate members of the Democratic party by increasing the majority. There are zero anti-corporate members of the GOP. This assumes there is no viable third party candidate.

I punish a democratic corporatist by voting for non-corporate dems. If there are none, then I'll write on in, or vote independent or 3rd party.

If that enables a gop corporatists, I believe it is the dem party that has done the enabling, not the voters. The party enables the gop corporatists when they don't offer dem voters a candidate who actually opposes corporatists. Whether the dem corporatist or the gop wins, it's still a corporatist.

A "win-win" situation for the corporatists. Too many Democrats in Congress have enabled the bush administration's agenda for the last 7 years. Even with a majority in the house, the non-corporate dems can't get our issues "on the table."

Every time we cave and "get behind" the corporatist candidate selected before any primary vote can be cast, we enable this cycle to continue.

I'm not voting for a corporatist. It's not a partisan problem, imo, but a war between the "haves" and "have nots" of all and no parties.

Granted our representatives need to be held to a higher standard, and loyalty oaths based on "hooray for the lesser evil" are fucking lame, but don't we have a responsibility to consider the risks of punishing even deserving Democrats? I guess it depends on framing as you say--does looking at the likely end result (either a Dem or a Repub in the office) change the morality of punishing the Democrats, since it enables the GOP? If the Democrats are unable to see this drives the base away, and consistently haven't seen lost votes as a reason to move left in the past, what can we expect to accomplish at the ballot box?

voting with corporate dems helps move the whole party, and most of the voters who will stick with them no matter what they do, further and further to the right, until the left is so marginalized that it's ok to demonize them and purge them, not just from politics but from society.

This election is a short term result. Repeatedly compromising for the short term, over a few decades, has a devastating long-term effect.

The Democrats, I believe, WANT to drive the "old" base away, and adopt a "new," centrist/corporatist "base."

We can either fight that process from within, or without, or both, but if we enable that process, we are hurting many more people in the long run than we do by withholding a vote from a corporatist today.

But I have a far lousier rallying cry than you will:

"Vote for the less bad so the worst doesn't get in" has never really inspired anybody.

We have some common ground, some common goals, but disagree about how to accomplish them.

Withholding votes will not work until a massive number of people do so; small fractions of party voters can be marginalized and blamed, and the party marches on.

Building that mass, though, starts with one vote at a time.

what needs defeating most? THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. That would allow any of our votes to make a difference and allow for real change in the Democratic Party.

TC

They allow people to express themselves at the ballot box far better than our current system.

We need more Progressive Democrats. We need to hang on to our Democratic seats and pressure them to become more Progressive; replace the GOP with Democrats, and pick up some seats with Progressive Democrats.