Let's face it: exhorting a disillusioned base to "stick with the team" has NEVER worked.

1980...1984...1988...1994...2000...2004. We never seem to learn.

Every time a weak, center-right Democrat loses an election we hear the same things over and over: "lesser of two evils", "purity police", "you're probably happy we lost", etc, etc, etc. And every time, we go right back to the same losing strategy.

Take 2000 for example. Sure, you can blame the Florida felon's list or the butterfly ballot. You can even continue to blame Ralph Nader and the few people who voted their conscience. But none of those things cost us as many votes as an anemic, middle-of-the-road candidate and his sanctimonious tool of a running mate. Gore's come a long way in 9 years, but in 2000 he wasn't exactly a progressive crusader. Failure to learn this lesson led directly to the Kerry candidacy of 2004 and another close, steal-able election against the worst president in history.

I thought after 2006 and 2008 we had finally figured it out: you run attractive candidates that excite the base and you win elections. You don't even have to excite them that much -- Democrats and Democratic values have always held the true majority in this country -- you just need to give them a reason to come out and vote.

But here we are again. We've lost two races with unpopular candidates: one, a corporate pirate and another who tried to out-teabag his opponent. And here come the posts begging us to "not lose heart" or to "hold our nose and vote" -- just as if the last 30 years of national politics never happened.

It's not going to work. It's never worked. If we keep nominating weak candidates, if our national leaders keep running to the right under some vague smokescreen of "bipartisanship", then Democrats will lose. And if, somehow, Republicans manage to field even crappier candidates than we do (see 1992), *we* -- as in "We The People" -- still lose.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I do know that this continual reliance on weak, incremental change and candidates just a little less appalling than their opponents is a proven failure. Even if we manage to eek out a few victories, we've already seen how one committed, radical Republican can undo decades of Democratic incrementalism.

It's time we stopped settling for less.

kicked & recommended.

:applause:

Get corporate money out of politics. It must happen.

Ever know any executives who donated $10s of thousands of dollars to PACs for candidates they hated? I do. If the big boss talks to his highly paid honchos, he can get them to 'voluntarily' fork over $10,000 or $20,000 at a pop. It's called 'bundling'. And isn't the Supreme Court inclined to allow even more direct contributions? Further, ultimately, the telecom companies can provide millions in funding for right-wing points of view simply through editorial slant, like Fox (or CNN, for that matter). The root problem might be that Americans are taught to not think for themselves.

and the rest will follow....

oh, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Feinstein...did I forget anyone?

Anybody notice how much better it's been since Daschle got the boot? It was like opening a window to clear out the smoke-filled room.

And that is crucial

I live near the border with VA and was exposed to a lot of his campaign via the media and my own interactions in VA. He was a horrible, inept candidate from the start and it just kept getting worse. Probably the worst campaign I've ever witnessed.

The stick-with-the-team rhetoric might sway a couple of waverers who frequent Internet sites.

It's not going to work in the real world. It won't be my fault for saying so, either.

Offer a true, distinguishable alternative with vigor and credibility that you will actually deliver, or repeat the same old history.

Obama did it half-credibly and won. (You'd have to parse the policy statements to know it wasn't really about very much change!)

This rhetoric about moving to the "center" (an abstraction for wonks) has been going on during the entire Reagan era.

You can talk about how single-payer and ending the wars is "centrist," and get the benefits of milquetoast rhetoric with a program proposal that actually gets people mobilized.

K&R

and not have to make excuses for our passionate liberalism. Kind of like the French had during WWII.

Anybody know a place?

Maybe... some sort of web forum...?

but you know Dems--they probably spoiled it with their endless whining about the Pukkkes picking on them.

I was invited, and participated for awhile - probably well over a yr or two ago now - but I'm pretty sure it's still an active forum. PM me if interested :hi:

Well said, and MUCH more politely than I would have managed!

:yourock:

Our constituency is working people. It's hard to get time to vote in presidential elections, let alone smaller ones, never mind simply remembering them. Because, I'm sorry, when you're a grunt days just blend into each other. I can't tell you the number of times I've missed mid-term elections because I didn't think about what day it was.

When the ballot is delivered to you and sits on your kitchen counter, it's harder to ignore. I just voted locally for the first time, simply because the ballot was there...why not? I suspect domestic partnerships will win out in WA (and 'fiscal conservatives' lose in another referendum) just becausse many of us vote by mail here. Apparently the VBM turnout in OR is 70-80%.

and allow it to do what it can, rather than asking for the impossible.

There are third parties out there, but the system in this country makes the marginal. Still, one who is disillusioned with the Democrats to the point of quitting has the choice of hoping for a direction or just quitting and joining a more leftward party. You have the population of voters you have - most people in this country are in the center and there's the right wing to be fought off.

Reality is not always what we want but it is implacable.

There aren't that many people who get any gratification from having "Democrat" tattooed on their ass. Unless the party actually works for the people who vote, the party won't get votes.

Instead of trying to change millions of voters (who happen to be right), maybe we should focus on our failing leaders.

I don't know why it is that so many seem to be under the impression that Democrats are entitled to our votes as opposed to having to earn them. It is this attitude that allows the Democrats to come to us for votes and money then ignore our wishes when it's time to pass legislation. Like now. A majority of the people want single payer. Even more want a public option that EVERYONE is allowed to buy into. And so far what's on the table? Neither. But I'm sure they'll expect our vote in the next election. And I'm supposed to give them my vote because...

I would like to see more bold, progressive leadership but, at least for me, until other alternatives become more viable, voting the "lesser of the two evils" really IS the most important thing, particularly after seeing what happened to President Clinton in the 1990's when the Republicans controlled Congress. Sure, sometimes the Dems in Congress may seem spineless, bland, and too obsessed with "bipartisanship", at least they aren't running amok in Congress right now (and hopefully not for the foreseeable future) preventing legislation that moves us forward (even if by inches) or advancing legislation that pushes us 10 feet backwards, hamstringing President Obama with scores of baseless investigations (think ACORN, Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, his qualifications to be POTUS), and blocking federal judges and SCOTUS nominees.

Now how to do convince the millions of disillusioned progressives to show up and vote in 2010?

I thought that I made a convincing case in my post, no? After everything Clinton went through in the 1990's during his Presidency and everything we went through the past 8 years, I would think that that would be reason enough for progressives to show up and vote for the Dems until either the Republican Party moderates (doubtful) or completely falls apart- at which point the progressives and "Blue Dogs" can duke it out with each other. Right now, our main goal IMHO should be to keep Republicans out of power for as long as possible and AFAIK voting for Dems (pretty much any of them) is the only way I can see to do that. :shrug: Progressives can try to primary "Blue Dogs" or refuse to vote for them but I'm not sure that that works to our advantage, politically, because then the "Blue Dogs" will have to run harder to the right plus they'll be honked off more at progressives. I'm not saying their attitudes towards progressives is great or anything but the worst Dem is better than any Republican as far as I'm concerned. As I see it, we can either have a numerically superior majority in Congress with several different factions or an ideologically "pure" minority. What's your suggestion, exactly?

there won't be enough of a country left to save by the time the GOP moderates or dies.

We've got an internicene war now whether we want it or not. Either we leave the tent or they leave the tent, there is no more room for a left-corporatist coalition within this one party. One half of this party is going to the woodshed in the fairly-immediate future.

The problem with your case it that it fails automatically on account of taking to long...there is no time to wait, the "end" is proverbially nigh.

......so those whom feel so inclined are always free to leave whenever they want and start a new party or something. I guess we need to still have a few more years of Republican control so that they can FINALLY bring on the "end"!!!! :eyes:

I'm going to be honest...the type of candidate that will get me off my ass and out to campaign for is one who is too left-wing for my 55 year old Catholic anti-communist JFK-type-centrist Democrat father...my activeness pretty much ensures his inactivity. Pretty much vice-versa as well.

The question is how do you appeal to both left-Democrats and DLCers without moving to the center and with removal of corporatism from the table?

"at least they aren't running amok in Congress right now (and hopefully not for the foreseeable future) preventing legislation that moves us forward"

Really? I can name you a bunch of Dems right now who are doing exactly that with healthcare. Plus they've been letting a lot of Obama's nominations rot in the Senate. How many voted to defund ACORN? On what planet have you been living?

when it comes to HCR and the actions of many towards the Republican's Beck-inspired "jihad" against ACORN was especially shameful, however I would argue that there aren't any Democrats AFAIK, despite some of them being on the wrong side over the Public Option, whom are purposely trying to obstruct/defeat HCR in the same way that just about every Republican other than Olympia Snowe is. And, as far as ACORN is concerned, at least nobody on the Democratic side AFAIK is arguing for holding hearings to further demonize them and/or investigate "ties" between ACORN and President Obama. What about the Rushite/Beckite Republicans being in charge of Congress investigating President Obama's *qualifications* to be POTUS? I don't pretend to know what the ultimate solution is to the problem of making Dems ACT like Dems more but I'll take a few bad Dems over a Congress full of Rushite/Beckite Republicans like we had during the 1990's when Clinton was POTUS.

If they, the party Democrats, do, then they will move to where the most voters are for them - in fighting for single-payer and an end to military interventionism, to take two examples.

Reality is the mess we collectively made of it, in part because of unwillingness to engage it and change it, rather than assent to its supposed "implacability." Or more simply: why are you upholding defeatism?

Then they would do it. They do want to get re-elected.

Most people are morans in this country unfortunately. The number of people covered is still greater than the number not covered. Thus they don't care and are liable to those arguments about socialized medicine. People fear change.

Why don't you ask how we can keep someone from getting re-elected when they work against the interests of their constituents? If our reps really fear for their jobs, they'll shape up.

If Congress gave in to a strong majority will, they would have never passed the Henry Paulson Unlimited Bankster Plunder Act of 2008, um, I mean "the bailout." Congress took more than a million angry calls going 90% against that week. They voted for that junk and got re-elected anyway.

Of course you know Congress does not work that way, and has been captured by well-endowed lobbies.

And I don't agree with your thinking about "most people," either.

Again: Defeatism.

You made the point I wanted to make after reading that post than I could have. I agree completely.

"Most people are morans in this country unfortunately."

It doesn't drop from the fucking hand of God.

Was the financial meltdown "real"? sure.

but 100% manufactured as well.

no, reality in these things is not "implacable".

Are the organizations and corporations that donate lots and lots and lots of money.

The real base are people that hold their nose and vote D no matter how pathetic and right wing the democrat running.

The real base are the people that are so loyal they refuse to ever, ever run a primary challenge.

The real base are people that that talk about moderation, centrism, warchests, and electability at State conventions when there is an opening to put a real democrat in place.


Sorry but I have been at poltics in the real world for quite some time now and your 'real base' were the kind of democrats that voted against Wellstone back in 1990 at the Minnesota State convention.

1) Whether you like it or not, Kerry was the most liberal viable candidate running in 2004 - mot Dean. He was an environmentalist since the 1970s. If you've noticed, on foreign policy he has pulled Obama to the left in several cases. The fact is the angry left didn't bother to look at a public record going back to 1971. The fact is that Dr Dean polled double digits behind Bush over the entire interval the polls included him. If you were honest, you would see that the left that "held their noses" did to the most liberal nominee in the last two decades - yes, including Obama.

2) The "attractive candiates" of 2006 were, on the whole far to the right of Kerry. Can you seriously argue that Webb and McGaskill have the "Democratic" values you found lacking in Senator Kerry? The truth is that in 2004, when asked how the country was doing the week before the election, 59% answered either fairly well or very well. In a time of trouble, that made it harder for people to jump. What chnaged in 2005 was not the quality of the candidate but the mood of the country, by 208, over 80% gave thought the country was in bad shape.

1) Kerry was pathetically weak on the Iraq War -- THE topic of the 2004 election. He was also clueless on his response to the swiftboaters. He was a weak candidate. Weak. I don't know how you can call someone liberal who gave the worst president ever the support he needed for an illegal war of aggression.

2) 2006 was a liberal victory. Yes, you can cherry-pick a few DLCers out of the bunch, but for the most part it was a solid move to the left for Congress. In case you need your memory refreshed, check this out: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jgraz/4

and add Kerry, he would be well above the median,

The fact is that Kerry spole against the war before it started and if you read his Iraq speech (given at NYU) you would see that it was an exit plan. You also ignore that he spoke against permanent bases in the first debate. The fact is that you heard what you wanted to hear. Do you know what it means when a knowledgable Catholic says "It was not a war of last resort"? = a point Kerry made OFTEN both before the invasion and afterwards. How do you explain the incredible amount of support Kennedy gave him - far more than he gave to Tsongus or Dukakis or even Obama - not to mention, he supported Kerry for 2008 until Kerry opted not to run.

As to fighting back aganist the SBVT, He did, The fact is that he had more to counter them BEFORE the attacks were made than Bill Clinton had on any of the attacks on him -

He had:
The official Navy record on his web site for all to see. The medical potion was not there, but was available to the media for a week or two.

All the men on his boats for any medal were 100% behind him.

The Nixon tapes showed that they looked into him and found he was a war hero and clean.

Seantor John Warner, who was the Secretary of the Navy in the VN war defended Kerry's silver star, which he had reviewed.

Within one day of the SBVT book, Kerry's team put out 36 pages idetifying lies. (Just as Obama did on the Corsi book) They soon after found the SBVT shared a lawyer and donors with the Bush team.

The fact is the media, even after it was abundantly obvious that this was a lie, condoned a character assassination.

Kerry lost. Against the worst president in American history. Nothing more needs to be said.

both in suppressing the vote in Ohio and likely using a wire in a debate. Against a media that did it's best to not really cover Kerry and which willingly allowed lies about his caracter and career. Rather a lot, in a time where most people did not think the country was doing badly. If he were so bad, why did he make the election close?

Not to mention that losing does not change your political position.

Oh right, he preserved his political viability.

Can you imagine what would have happened had Kerry refused to concede. The Clinton wing of the party likely would have immediately denounced him, and the far left would them have denounced that part of the party. What would that do to the party going forward? Not to mention, give me a path that leads to him being announced the winner within the 6 or so weeks available. This was not a case of recounting ballots. Part of the problem is that much of the cheating was done by preventing people from voting. That does not give you ballots you can contest. Assume that they filed a claim that there was fraud. How long would it take to try the case. Likely longer than the time available - which would throw the designation of delegates to the Republican Ohio legislature. In addition, proving fraud might not result in being able to approximate what the true result was.

The fact is that there is still not "take it to court" proof. Nor, is it possible in this country to insist on using a statistical analysis as RFKjr did to make the case that Kerry would have won had there been no suppression. As it was, Kerry immediately made an effort to try to keep people involved.

Not to mention, this still does not mean that he wasn't the most liberal of any of the candidates of 2004 or 2008 and the most liberal nominee since at least 1988.

With 2000, it is possible to show that had every vote in FL been examined Gore won. (That doesn't include the votes in Palm Beach that really were his, or the votes lost to suppression of the Haitians or through the bogus "felons" list. ) You saw how the Supreme Court handled that. There Gore had the support of the FL supreme court.

Kerry would not have had the support of the Ohio legislature, court or the Supreme Court. On top of that, unlike 2000, looking at all the votes cast would not find that he won.

To Kerry, that might seem like magic, but it's what we needed him to do.

which was to stay fighting on all the issues he ran on. Keeping his eye on the future and working for the change he wanted in 2004, but was cheated out of. Sorry, he didn't give you the likely counterproductive temper tantrum you wanted.

Not to mention, "we" does not include all Democrats - I think his efforts 2005 - 2008 were important and helpful.

The rest of us expect a bit more *actual* fighting from the candidates we support.

contributed to 2006 and 2008. What you wanted would have been destructive. Not to mention, a lot of what people define as "actual fighting" is just loud talk - like Grayson. The fact is that Kerry in 2006 gave Democrats what became the Iraq policy - with Kerry/Feingold. That was used to counter Republican claims that we had no plan.

I remember best what a dumbfounded coward Kerry was when the police moved in and tazed that guy at one of his speeches. Kerry didn't lift a finger to calm things down and keep the police from going nuts. He just stood there like clueless, not like a leader behaves.

And I worked in the Dean campaign as a volunteer. I know all about the rotten dirty under the table tactics Kerry used against Dean. Despite that I held my nose and voted for Kerry because he was a Democrat as did every other Dean supporter I know.

Lots of selective memories around here.

So while what you're saying is correct, winning a few elections here and there is not really as relevant to them as preserving the basic system that keeps them fat. They don't really want power as a group, b/c they're not really there to achieve anything, other than loading up on fringe benefits, and setting themselves up for lobbying/speaking gigs down the road.

As long as we have these corporate whores leaving Congress and going straight into cushy executive positions, we'll always have some form of this legalized bribery.

Which is exactly why we need to stop compromising with these assholes.

knr

Field candidates who will run on THIS:



Of course, once elected they would actually have to produce, and NOT run back into the arms of Wall Street and Health Insurance Corporations.

It's just sad how far we've fallen.

We've fallen so far so fast, it's tragic.

We ought to be hoisting Roosevelts second bill of rights up high as our flag. This should be a top ten list on our party platform every time.

With regards to the insurance industry they do Not have the 'right' to make a profit by deny people a service. They do not have the right to exist.

Puts all the weaker arguments in their place. FDR was the greatest leader this country has known in the last 200 years, who was not assassinated (Lincoln and Kennedy would in my book round out the top 3).

Of course they do! The status quo is a world in which they are the owners!

What is the enemy of the status quo? Change.

Without revolution to unseat the real owners, there will be no change.

Bulls eye!

Most politicians will follow the path of least resistance and cave at the merest mention of being "too liberal". They are herd animals who will bleat in chorus that real change is impossible because there aren't enough of them.

The one thing that they are really good at is making excuses and blaming everyone but themselves for their failures and cowardice while promising that things will change..someday, if the conditions are right, maybe, if we give them more money to run their campaigns, and, of course, continue to hold our noses and vote for their sorry asses.

Hold your nose and vote and vote for the lesser of two evils only perpetuates the corruption that exists. Both those memes are BS.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

....and get scared. Like any of those people would EVER vote for them.

That Bachmann Bundestag rally today should embolden Democrats to shove a strong public option bill right up their asses.

That would stop the bullshit pretty god damn fast. :grr:

Then the Foley scandal broke and they dropped another 7 points in the polls.

He got 500,000+ more votes from individual voters than his opponent did. He won Florida. He won the election. He was cheated out of his rightfully won office. He did not lose because he was a "weak, center-right Democrat". He "lost" because he was cheated out of his victory by a corrupt system, including opponent's cronies who were sitting on the Supreme Court and his opponent's brother who was calling the shots in Florida, fer cryin' out loud!

We all agree that BushCo stole the 2000 (and 2004) elections. But it was clear from the start that W was a dangerous moron. It should have never been close.

Monica, Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers, Hillary's amazing stock transaction, impeachment, ad nauseum. That took away votes that would have otherwise gone for Gore. Plus media pundits like Maureen Dowd were lambasting Gore every chance they got ("He wears 'earth tones' OMG!!!!!"), while giving his coke-addled opponent a free rein. Not to mention Jackasses on the radio like Limbaugh and Hannity who were deriding everything "liberal", non-stop, 7 days a week. Gore could have run as the next JFK or FDR and they still would have found a way to install Idiot Boy.

Gore in 2000 had the same problem that Kerry had in 2004: he was clearly inauthentic. That's why MoDo crapped on him and that's why the media's negative portrayal of him resonated.

Compare that reception to his current public image. Since he started working on climate change, he's been the butt of many more conservative jokes than during the 2000 campaign. Yet he's still viewed as a hero by the vast majority of Americans. Why? Because he's strong and sincere in his beliefs. That's what wins public opinion and that's what wins elections.

He got more popular votes, that is, the majority of American voters wanted him, and he would have won Florida if the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to count the damn votes had been followed, instead of being overturned by a US Supreme Court full of opponents' cronies (including the Veep candidate's hunting buddy, fer cryin' out loud!) who issued an unsigned opinion based on the flimsiest of reasoning and a totally unrelated Constitutional amendment and was declared not to be precedent-setting, even though Supreme Court rulings are considered by default to establish a precedent. And that's not to mention the Republican leader of the Florida state assembly who vowed to give the state's electoral votes to Idiot Boy regardless of the vote count.

:eyes:

Gore won the goddam election. It was stolen from him by a corrupt system. His "loss" had little if anything to do with his perceived shifting toward the center-right. It had everything to with corruption and cronyism that reached to the highest levels of government. How hard is that to understand?

He was running against a functionally retarded psychopath. If he had run as a real Democrat, the election wouldn't have even been close. As it was, he and Bush effectively tied and it opened the door to stealing the election.

No one can steal a 15-point win.

Have you ever been to Tennessee? They're still fighting the goddam Civil War in parts of the state. In those places, a "real" Democrat is a Dixiecrat, not a liberal-minded man who gladly signed the Kyoto Protocol.

And what do you mean, no one can steal a 15-point win? They did, in broad daylight.Led by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Judge Saunders Saul, and the Florida state assembly, not to mention the Felonious Five on the US Supreme Court.

If Gore had won by 15% nationally, there's no way they could have stolen it.

three days before the election, 1/3 of likely voters were still undecided.

I've never seen that, before or since. To me, it says that Gore failed to differentiate himself from Bush and ended up relying on the votes of people who were smart enough to be appalled by Bush. Because Gore was afraid to take strong stands, a significant percentage of the public voted on the basis of perceived personalities: the perceived down-home folksy (old line Connecticut blue blood) Bush or the perceived aloof Gore.

Unlike you, I was in this country and was still watching all the cable news shows and political debates. Here's how they went. Bush would state a strong position on something, and Gore would say either, "Me, too" or "Maybe not quite so much."

This was on the advice of the DLC, which told him not to be "too liberal."

I came within three days of voting for Nader, I was so disgusted with all this wishy-washy centrism. (I did vote for Nader in 1996.) But when I saw that 1/3 of the voters were still undecided, I thought, "Gore needs all the help he can get," so I mailed in a ballot for Gore.

Since he was running against the biggest doofus in the history of American politics, Gore should have won enough votes to make the election impossible to steal, just as former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber easily won election twice when he ran first against a visibly dimwitted Congressman and then against a fundie anti-tax crusader. Kitzhaber won both elections two to one.

If Gore had campaigned as himself, not as a cautious DLC drone with a closet Republican running mate, he could have done the same as Kitzhaber.

Yes, that was surreal. Most of us spent October, 2000 wondering how in the HELL Bush was still in the race.

And then we did the same thing all over again in 2004. It makes you wonder if the Democrats actually want to win.

when he had 8 years of (false) prosperity as wind at his back

Thus sparketh the "They're All The Same" movement.

run losers for governor. That is why we end up with so many Republican governors.

The guy can really bring a strong progressive message and would be great for California.

Don't look back...in fact just don't even look...just vote.

Seems to have only worked for Clinton personally. Other than that, the DLC has racked up loss after loss.

oligarchs/ industrialists pull the strings and own both parties. Horrid puppets emanuel ried obama etc now set the stage for a republican resurgance by intentionally governing badly. The march to the right is stronger than ever. Love your family , love your dog and forget about any illusions you have about a just america.

The Democratic party cannot assume it has my vote OR my money.

You said it PERFECTLY...

The "democrat" in Virginia was runing AGAINST Obama and the Democrats' position on Health Care - he was WORSE than a repuke!!!

that conservatives and liberals believe they control the outcome of elections even though they are outnumbered by the moderates and independents who decide elections.

wins

Steve Fraser on the Crisis of Capitalism
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20091105_steve_fraser_on_the_crisis_of_capitalism/

"Today virtually every reflection on the nature of the current global financial collapse and what, for the moment at least, is being called the “Great Recession” invokes the specter of the first Great Depression and the promise (or for some the threat) of the New Deal. Is our dilemma like that one, as severe or less so? Will it reform or even revolutionize public policy? Does it call capitalism itself into question? Should we expect the kind of social upheaval that made the 1930s so unforgettable? Will it go down as a turning point in American political history the way the elections of 1860 or 1932 did?

Every early-on-the-ground indication suggests otherwise. The first 100 days (now as I write the first 200 days and counting) of the Obama administration are a failure. At least that’s so when they are measured against the only other first 100 days anyone really cares about, namely Franklin Roosevelt’s. Those famous few months compacted together an extraordinary legislative/executive response proportionate to the unprecedented dilemma facing the country even if those responses were not always consistent, coherent or effective. It included a national bank holiday and law guaranteeing bank deposits, an “Economy Act” severely slashing government expenditures, legislation separating commercial from investment banking, two recovery acts aimed at reviving industry and agriculture, a securities bill to bring the stock market under public scrutiny, an agency that saved hundreds of thousands from foreclosure and eviction, a lightning-fast work relief program, a major infrastructure-building project, and an unprecedented federally directed effort at regional economic planning and development. The atmosphere was electric with a sense of alarm, anger and accomplishment. Walt Disney’s “Three Little Pigs” cartoon debuted in 1933 to wild popular enthusiasm because it seemed to allegorize the country’s plight: Its regrettable recklessness during the intoxicated devil-may-care Jazz Age ’20s, its rediscovery of the virtues of frugality, and its determination to confront the “big bad wolf,” those Wall Street financiers who had laid the country low.

Matters couldn’t seem more different now. On every major issue from health insurance to financial regulation, from energy policy to foreign policy, from economic recovery to labor law reform, the new regime and its sizable majority in Congress equivocate, seek allies on the right where there are none, and convey a sense of paralysis."

Obama and his team apparently don't think there is a national, possibly global, economic emergency. As with Bill Maher, the biggest news we've heard so far is that 'the Obama's bought a dog'.

Who do we have in Congress that is truly for We, The People? Maybe ten? Seriously. The rest are at the Wall Street Trough.

Nope. We, The People are on our own.

K&R!

raise our expectations of government.

The most dangerous thing to the people who run this country is an engaged and energized electorate.

I have avoided DU because of its snarkyness and overheated dialog.
I have spent the last month watching GOP.com Suddenly realize it is not really that mean spirited here after all.

The GOPers are having the same discussion right now and it is downright scary to watch. Those people are dangerous and likely to be more so in the coming years. It is important whoever we nominate that we win because they are about to start sending up some real(insert Godwin's Law rhetoric here).

Now, that being said, since they are not going to be trying to race us to the middle and are actually ramping up their nasty-talk it gives us more opportunity to run on Liberal values. On GOP.com forums, and remember that is an Official GOP mouthpiece, they are literally telling pragmatic Republicans to "get out of the party, we don't need your vote." Really.

What a fantastic time to recruit new members. I have seen numerous posts there from folks being who share many core Liberal values and don't know it. Liberal has been a dirty word. Somebody send me a non-confrontational educational link that I can forward to people looking for a way out. We need a way to approach these disaffected GOPers w/o saying "you are an idiot and everything you know is wrong." Well, not out loud, not at first.

Second point... you want interesting fun candidates? Run. Or get involved Now. Know your precinct chair. Donate or spend time working for a promising opinionated youngster NOW. Next year is too late. Candidates don't come out of a vacuum. Want to elect Liberals to 'make' Obama sign Liberal bills? You gotta... wait a minute... Who am I lecturing here.. I'm the Noob. I look forward to your replies!

:hi:

I think I mentioned this earlier: Repubs are purging people who aren't sufficiently hateful. I'm advocating that we "purge" representatives who are not working in the best interests of their constituents. That's a huge, huge difference.

We lefties have been saying for a long time that a true populist message would pull in people from all parts of the political spectrum. Aside from being a cautionary tale on the dangers of drinking while pregnant, these tea-party rallies have really acted as an outlet for frustrated populism. These people's lives suck and they want to blame someone in power. Wouldn't it be nice if we could direct that anger at the "right" people?


Edit to add: And no, I have no plans to run for office. That requires being nice to too many brain-dead morons.

Ahh...
It just feels so good to talk in my REAL voice, not my troll voice. Yes I have been trolling the hell out of them, but gently, just to suss out their real intent and get a peek under the shrinking tent. Trolling is unethical but I felt justified after Rush encouraged sabotaging the Dem primaries. They really are scary over there and I come away double motivated to slap 'em down.

and thanks :-)

Gov. Rendell and others are telling us that instant liberal Arlen Specter can be trusted, and is the only Dem who can beat Toomey. They say Joe Sestak can't beat Toomey. If Specter wins the primary, I will have to hold my nose in order to vote for Specter.

He's a sure loser in the general. And... even if he wins, we lose.

:dem:

-Laelth

Governing bodies that collectively ignore laws, or bends them, or changes them to have little- to no effect on the public good are typical for America's broke ass style of politics. And the one's who really do care are consigned to being a too left Statesmen of their state alone. We need those few leaders nationally. Who prevents them from representing and advocating for the progress we need? The flock of the same feathers. After all, we keep taking it. Give a dog a bone and he will forget about his masters- for a while anyway.

They have falsely convinced people we have no power, and the status quo is too expensive for piss ants. It is readily bought up by the corporate rulers. We can't compete to buy those changes we desperately need. All the little ants keep marching- all do it the same.
But we can vote. (like that really matters in the grand scheme of all things greedy, shitty, broke, and immoral.) They say we are free.

Democratic values that are advocated for and popular in the streets - are glazed over legislatively. For if they give us what we want- they won't be worth the money they take. The war on poor continues because it is profitable to keep folks from sharing in their wealth.