Not One Penny More. Zip.

Have you heard enough of the drumbeat already? What drumbeat? That would be the orchestrated drumbeat coming from the Democratic Party Apparatchik, that with very few variations is essentially this: left-wing activists, and much of what makes of the core of the Party base, must be "patient" "pragmatic" and "more understanding" with our "new" Democratic President and our Democrats in Congress when they go back on their word, when they break sworn promises and when they continue to promote Republican and reactionary policies themselves.

This Party Line paints the Left with quite an insulting broad brush these days as "irrelevant" or "spoiled" and, humorously, as essentially a group of "non-voters" within the "netroots" who don't "understand how Washington really works". And the Party Line has its paid propagandists and hired guns from phony progressives like Lanny Davis and Donnie Fowler to Harold Ford, Jr. and a host of others greased with corporate money who are providing the talking points to rank and file Democrats in order to gloss over the treachery of the Apparatchik's betrayal. And disappointingly, but not surprisingly, the Apparatchik has employed its own busy bees to work the the progressive blogs with their Party Line of predictable "cut and paste" justifications of imperialistic war-making, corporate sellouts, and compromise after compromise.

For in spite of their great protest and disdain of what they mock as "the non-voting netroots" and the irrelevant internet Lefties, the Apparatchik apparently is very worried about this modern marvel of unfiltered communications between Democrats hooked up on the internet. So worried that they have their phony "independent" posters employed working the blogs that they ridicule publicly, but sweat about among themselves privately.

But be warned, my fellow irrelevant netrooters, the same corporate financial largess -- that quietly purchased our government and, perhaps as much as 75% of our two party system and that gobbled up most radio broadcasting, television broadcasting and cable along with printed media during Michael Powell's heyday under they banner of "Media Consolidation" -- can just as quickly open up its weighty checkbooks to either buy off blogs completely or to purchase enough microphones at the blogs to disrupt them enough with their Party Line so as to make them ineffective.

Like Pirate Radio, we may soon have to have shifting Pirate Blogs.

Of course, aside from the Internet, all of this is nothing new to the Democratic Party. It's the age old war between progressive activists and our Party's politicians, the Establishment against the People. In not-so-polite company, many of us call this what it really is: class warfare, also known as "the history of all hitherto society." Yes, class warfare exists even within the Democratic Party. It always has.

The predictable thing is that this age-old tug-of-war within the Democratic Party is always so less obvious when Democrats are out of power. Why? Because Democratic politicians can pretend to be on the People's side because, after all, they are "powerless" to do anything anyway. Oh, but let them slide into those luxurious paneled offices, let them have that gavel to pound or that pen to sign laws into enforcement and my, oh my, do things change. Just like in George Orwell's "Animal Farm", the pigs begin to act and look just like the very humans they criticized and replaced. Funny how that happens, huh?

As long as Democrats are out of power, it costs our elected Democrats absolutely nothing to gin up the base with the old time religion of anti-war rhetoric we love to hear! These crafty politicians can pound a podium as good as a pulpit with their hell-fire and damnation preaching against the abuse of civil liberties here at home and the denial of civil rights to all Americans. Hell, even I fall into believing them. They can slip off those Brooks Brothers suits, slap on a pair of jeans and roll up their shirt sleeves and promise everything the Left has been denied for generations...because it costs them nothing.

When they are out of power, our Democratic politicians will swear how committed they are to protecting the reproductive rights of all American women and girls, they can rattle on that they are indignant at the second-class citizenship of gay and lesbian Americans, they are bombastic about American militarism abroad, they will rant and rave about how "uncivilized" America is not to have a single-payer healthcare system like the rest of the world, they will scowl and howl against corporate giveaways and loopholes and those "terrible" global trade deals! But like I said, it doesn't cost them anything, because they are not "in power" and can always drone and whine one of their favorite hymns "our hands are tied; we're not in power."

I have lived to see some real and measurable progress in my lifetime. But, as Professor Howard Zinn pointed out long ago, all progress in this nation, be it social, legal, environmental, civil, racial or economic has come from what he calls Direct Action by the people rather than from Electoral Action by politicians. The greatest American that ever lived in my eyes is still the former Frederick Douglass who said "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Politicians never concede power to the people unless they have to -- when a demand is made. Direct Action

I have given thousands upon thousands of dollars over my lifetime to Democratic Party politicians -- that's what I call them now, not elected officials, but politicians -- and I can now make the retrospective judgment that most of that money was wasted. I wonder to myself: what did all that money buy?

Still, this Old Leftie has a himself a "pragmatic" side, too. And in this Age of Pragmatism, I think I'm going to exercise it more.

So, this year, 2010, I have my own New Year's Resolution which seems sensible to me and yes, pragmatic:

I will not give another penny to any Incumbent Democrat who voted for all three of the following:

1.) The Iraqi War
2.) The Senate version of the current Health Care Bill.
3.) The Bush and Paulson Bailout

I don't see how anyone could say that I'm a pouty "purist" when I will let my fellow Democratic Politicians off the hook on two out of three of what I consider truly shitty votes.

So, here in California, I will cut Barbara Boxer some slack because she, along with a brave minority of a few Democrats who bucked the party, voted against Bush's illegal war. That single vote will allow my pragmatic side to donate to her Senatorial Campaign this year. Also, because Jerry Brown is not an incumbent Governor, I will also happily give money to his campaign. But, Senator Feinstein has three strikes against her and is thereby not eligible for my time or my money should she run for office again. Her war-profiteering husband surely can make up for my paltry absence.

Still, on the national stage, I will no longer give as much as a copper penny to the DNC or to any Democrat who has three strikes against according to my most pragmatic (and forgiving) policy.

They will not get one more penny from me again. Zip.

And, they probably won't need it anyway, they have their corporate sponsors now to take care of them.

And finally Happy New Year to all my fellow "irrelevant netrooters".

Not. One. More. Fucking. Penny.

I just got a fundraising letter from the DNC today...right into the recycle. It was my "renewal" letter.:eyes:

Happy New Year!

:toast:

K&R

Most pragmatic, indeed. :toast:

From DINOs.


P.S. Voting is a public option. Just sayin'.

Otherwise, how are they going to know that the golden geese have stopped laying for them?

really big all over it and send it back.

envelope. Include the envelope in which it came, the part with your address, a small note of why you aren't sending money, and include a small piece of sheet metal (no sharp edges). They stop sending you stuff after about 3 months.

really? i think everyone here thought you were going to sell the farm and give all of the money to obama, you know, given how supportive of him your posts usually are.

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

:hi:

I just got a solicitation from Mr. Mary Matalin, something about donating for Democratic Governors. I sent James Carville the envelope back with my regrets. "Since I believe Jerry Brown will be running for Governor when Arnold's term is up," I wrote. "I think I would rather send his campaign money directly. That way I know it will go to a politician whose ideals are similar to mine."

I like your response to Carville/Matalin Inc. :hi:

He was actually a really good governor the first time and I think we are going to need him to clean up the mess started with Pete Wilson and ending with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

as in new orleans, new york, detroit, etc. black & other poor being relocated from the central cities through disaster, abandonment, development - "any means possible".

his ties to developers + strong support of charter schools & inattention to public schools makes me distrust him.

my recollection of his governorship was: good on environment, less so on social/economic policy.

not that his opposition would have been better.

& i admit, this is my knee-jerk reaction. i haven't looked into it seriously.

Given the state of affairs in East and West Oakland... and especially the little bits of black folk who're "pushing middle class" and buying homes in East and West Oakland... especially out around Peralta and out around Hegenberger/73rd Ave... Jerry Brown's development plan might've actually done wonders to help the bottom line of property owning middle class folk, including many of the dark skinned persuasions.

DotCom implosions, followed by Real Estate implosions... hit before the prosperity could make serious inroads into Oakland though... and the monies receded back across the Bay to SF, and back Southward to Silicon Valley... and many upscale downtown condo complexes largely deserted were the lasting legacy of Jerry Brown's attempts to develop downtown Oakland.

Better than nothing. There's at least some "Yuppie Draw" to downtown Oakland now... to bring in some dollars... and some classic trickle down economics (the only sort that the US sponsors anywhere really... no Democrat would be crazy enough to do anything terribly noticeable for the Teamsters, for instance... and it was Jerry Brown's City Council President, De La Fuente, who took the front most role in shitting on the emerging taxi driver's union, working in conjunction with the teamsters, when they (we) tried to use city regulations to break a little bit of the power of a Minority Woman's monopoly ownership of the industry in the city... Democratic Party shut down of workers of color trying to organize in the face of a female owner of color... who had money to donate to city candidacy races...)

Jerry Brown's not so bad. He's a party machine guy though. At least he had the guts to refuse to defend Prop 8 when it was challenged. Tolerable level of party machinism... the sort of "compromise" candidate that the Centrism Purists think the Left doesn't know how to accept... probably because the Centrist types have no concept of real Left positions... and think the Compromises ARE the Left positions...

earfull! It was insulting to get a solicitation from "Mr. Mary" after what we've been through. I guess he's back on Dem payroll and now he can report stuff to his wife who probably is still wired into Cheney. Disgusting...the whole thing. So much for that "change we can believe in."

That tells me so much about where his politics are. Does he share an office with his wife? I'm wondering.

I guess. I get DNC Solicitations all the time but the Dem Congressional and Senate Fund Raising is to my E-Mail. I unsubscribed to the Senate a few months ago when they were hitting me...but I believed in Pelosi enough (House Voted for Public Option in HCR Bill)that I was still getting e-mails from them.

But, this one from Carville from DCC asking for funds was the last straw. I wonder if they ever really read the "comments" when one "unsubscribes" from their sites. I have to hope they do...but I'm not as important to them as their Corporate people...so they probably put that "comments box" there just so I can "vent" and they can "pretend" they hear me.

Still. I gave it my best...and we should keep giving them hell.

:applause:

the inbred outrage you are quoting from does not exist in the hall of power. No one in DC or Sac thinks the netroots are dispensable OR irrelevant.

Except the neocons.

You write correctly: "No one in DC or Sac thinks the netroots are dispensable OR irrelevant."

I said the same thing: "For in spite of their great protest and disdain of what they mock as "the non-voting netroots" and the irrelevant internet Lefties, the Apparatchik apparently is very worried about this modern marvel of unfiltered communications between Democrats hooked up on the internet."

And the next time we meet, which I hope can happen, may it not be at El Coyote.

I thought you were disparaging the parties, not what it meant LOL
Hey David PM me. I would like to get together not at ElCoyote!

Where do you for Mexican food in that neck o' the woods now?

:shrug:

Can you friggin' believe that? Like an evil wormhole or something. Prop 8. As William Pitt says, "facepalm".

It was a great time and I have fond memories of meeting a lot of DU'ers back then.

Is Jerry Brown's old stomping ground, Lucy's El Adobe, still open on Melrose? They made great food.

I think I've only been to one other SoCal DU "Meetup" since...

And yes, Lucy's is still there! :hi:

Except they don't like folks lingering after the meal, so it might not be a good choice.

Our precious NothingShocksMeAnymore was there that night, too and I miss her.

:hi:

In any case, yes -- another MeetUp is vastly overdue. At a place where we can linger!

He's entitled to his opinion. As a result of it though, he has educated many people. For that I thank him. Like the OP, I will never donate on a national level either. As he pointed out, and you don't need DU to know this, the DNC doesn't need the donations of the 'little people', they will be richly rewarded as they have already, by the Corps who sit at their 'table' when there is important legislation being discussed. It would be very foolish to pay for a seat at a table that you know you will never get. That is what we have learned, and not from DU.

The people who fight for the issues that are important to Democratic principles are in need of money so that they can continue to do so. The ACLU eg, who have been fighting torture policies for years, and other organizations who do similar work. Donating to individual candidates, specifically not selected by the DLC is imperative, since that wing of the party has funded their chosen candidates in an attempt to block more progressive democrats.

I agree with this OP ~ it was necessary to actually see what a Democratic majority would do before making decisions about what to do next. Now, we've seen it and it's easier to develop a strategy to take the party back onto a course that is in line with their stated platform. Because of Bush, we have allowed the Republican wing of the party to dominate and to push their agenda, not all that different to the Republican agenda. Continuing Republican policies is not something I will contribute to, so I understand where the OP is coming from.

There's so many of us that feel the same. Your voice and your comments here are helpful. Pointing out the ACLU as a great example of where our money and passion can make a real difference is Direct Action. And there are many others like the ACLU. Thanks for weighing in.

how I feel so thanks for taking the time to write it down ~ I think we can get this party back, the same way we got them a majority. It just means directing the resources towards a goal that I think is reachable and not giving up ~ :-)

We wont know if thats true so long as neo-liberals like Rahm have his ear.

Obama is not progressive on a lot of issues, that is a fact. But we knew at least something about that during the campaign. I supported him, but was worried about some of his statements about important issues and actions. Given the choices we had, he was the only logical choice.

He is progressive on some issues and that is why I would prefer that he win in 2012 rather than allow the WH to fall back into Republican hands. That will be the choice, as I cannot see any Democrat runniing against him.

But, since I now believe that the executive branch has been pretty much coopted and even the most progressive president probably would not be free to implement many of his/her plans, I think the focus should be less on the Presidency and much, much more on Congress. Iow, I would not be working too hard or even paying much attention to the Presidential campaign, other than urging people not to vote for the Repub.

All donations and time from now on are best directed to Congress. Because with a strong, progressive majority in Congress, it won't much matter what the WH does. And if Obama's hands are tied in any way, what better way to untie them than to give him a Congress that will make sure we get Real Health Care, and an end to unnecessary wars, prosecution of war criminals etc.

It isn't or shouldn't be about personalities in politics. We did that. Now for many democrats is is back to being about the best way to get the issues we say we support on the infamous table, but this way, with progressives having a majority of the seats, rather than being left out altogether, as they are now.

The good Democrats need support in Congress, and that is where I intend to put my energy. Whoever the president is, s/he needs to know that Congress is no longer in the pocket of corporations. They need to be scared of the people for a change.

Truly, if this is what change we can believe in means, then what the hell is the difference between parties? One has a soft cuddly Socialistic slogan but never delivers, or you get the Republican War Pigs that force granny to take off her shoes at the airport.


Personally, Obama won because the thought of another Bush was just too frightening to contemplate. Now that we see that this administration is cut from the same cloth, I think a lot more people are not going to be fooled by the Also Ran, Any Craps Bet by the DLC who saw that Hillary could not win because of her offensive taint.

I for one distinctly remember the vitriol from the Hillary camp, yet lo and behold, she is sec of State, is hiring Blackwater for a few more years, and her buddy Rahm has got Obama's ear.

People that don't see this for what it is are in complete denial imho.

No more money is the key. If our voice means nothing to them, then let them print their own money, taint the blogs with their planted propaganda, and become as obvious as the nose on our faces.

Screw em.

He's never be claimed to be far left of the middle. :shrug:

But it's right that the left wing of the party hold his feet to the fire on progressive causes.

Not really a progressive trait, you know.

And no, he shouldn't be kicked out. We need the breathing room. I had hoped his fiery rhetoric would lead to another FDR, but instead we get Big Dawg 2. Too bad, but, as I said, we need the breathing room. (And they say we aren't pragmatic!)

Rahm will be the first one to scream that it is the left's fault for not showing up (or voting 3rd party). Unitl then, he'll claim we don't matter.

We can only hope that Obama might wake up before then and see the damage his little buddy is causing.

Unfortuantely, there are too many people that let others think for them, so his wailing just might work..

And we simply will not support them. EVER. I don't care what insults they throw our way, they can't make us. And that feels soooooooooooooo damn good.

Oh, wait, that's only Rahm. Good cop, bad cop. I think I've seen this movie before. It's Big Dawg 2, Change We Can Believe In!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

:)

They can get all the money they need from their corporate buddies. You know... the ones they've been making all their deals with.

Maybe that's the new plan, based on an old plan... a permanent Democratic Majority.

Now where have I heard something like that before...?

Yep. :)

Maybe.

But once the Dems look like election losers, the corps will just fund the permanent puke majority that was already underway until the nation got too fed up with them and wanted something different.

That's the one thing you have to give to Republicans, they are loyal whores. And the corporate class likes dependability.

Republicans certainly have the Competitive nature to eat their shit sandwich with gusto, but after a while, even the most fervent conservatie wile realize they are being fed and exclusive diet of shit sandwiches from their leaders.

Call me ethical, but Obama is no better or worse than Bush, but it is clear that he is not running the show, except for the bahalf of the Big Corporations, Central Banks, and the Military Industrial Complex.

For that, he has destroyed any respect I once had for the man, and as far as the ineffective and weak nature of the Democrats, I no longer have any loyalties to the Democratic Party I still consider myself a Democrat, in that I believe in equal rights, application of laws, and social equality, yet the current party does not represent these basic principles in the slightest. Obama has resorted to the Hollywood image maker to fool the masses, and I'm not falling for it.

Happy New Year.

I refuse to keep giving money to the party. But I have given money to individual campaigners, even in other states. I like Barbara Boxer and I like Barbara Lee (my reps) but I have loathed Diane Feinstein since she signed the Patriot Act.

That and the so-called "Homeland Defense Department".

Barbara Lee gets my money and my support.

"non-voting netroots" my ass. Both in the primary and the general, I not only voted, but worked 20 hour days driving the inner-city folks to the polls. Lap after lap after lap.

They want to move to the center and mock the left, then they can look to the center for donations and volunteer activities.

I'll vote, but pity the fool {/mr T} that calls me for general fund donations or volunteer work. I need a break from this kabuki theater.

I value your volunteerism. Now we just need to be picky who gets our passion and shoe leather. Thanks for your comments.

who put in at least 30 hours a week registering voters and then phone banking. Hubby and I voted early so that we could drive over 75 miles to take a wheel-chair bound woman in rural Georgia to cast her vote for Obama. This was her first vote since Clinton.
Not to mention our $ donations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7794638

I now limit my $ and time to progressive causes.
My cell phone is through Credo and I round up 5 - 20 dollars a month.
At the end of the year I vote to where the money goes.
Now I will be able to donate more to my favorite charities

Since I'm in Georgia it is not hard to vote against the incumbent (most being R's).
I will support and campaign for any D's who run on a progressive agenda.


k&r

Actually "the center" which is really a construct is far less likely to donate money or time and as their passions are far dimmer they are far more likely to stay home and see what is on television than us hard core liberal progressive activists.

!!!!!!

you radical, you.

;-)

so they don't need me any more.

asking for money.

Yeah, it's one of the oldest out there, I'd say. :)

Beat me to it!

Of course, then DU would start sounding like a bingo game. :D

People are now looking for a constructive way to bring the Democratic Party back to actually representing the people who have supported them for so long. There is a whole wing in the party, namely the DLC who have successfully managed to ensure that they listen to Corporations who to be fair, have more money to spend buying votes that we the people. But if OUR votes are not for sale, we can collectively change that by making sure the money we do have goes to candidates who actually represent the stated policies of the Democratic Platform.

And it was the Supreme Court who decided the 2000 election. Gore actually did win, so the 'Nader made the Dems lose', is wrong on so many levels I'm always surprised that people are not embarrassed to keep repeating it.

It has been used to try to let the cheaters off the hook though, although I can't understand why any Democrat would want to do that. History will record the facts and thank the gods for people like Bugliosi who has recorded the facts. It was a disgrace that the USSC inserted itself into the electoral process and gave us eight disastrous years of Bush, but a disgrace also how many Democrats are still willing to overlook that assault on democracy, by falsely blaming Nader.

The Repugs love you for it though, as the last thing they want, is to be reminded of their subversion of the Democratic process.

So, for the benefit of not supporting the burying of the facts, once again for the record, it was the USSC that presided over the travesty of the result of the 2000 election. Gore won! Nader had nothing to do with it.

and charades are the new, shared, election play-book.

probably worse. I spent 8 years screaming at the top of my lungs about the Bush regime only to discover that 'change' was in name only.

Seems like I am the only one who has been changed. I am much more critical, and I would like to think less hypocritical. If it was wrong when Bush did it, it is still wrong when we do it.

Either we act like liberals or we don't.

"Either we act like liberals or we don't." Best quote of the year!

Happy New Year, ssa!

Quite telling that some here condemning your OP are also condemning another thread with excerpts from a book about the BFEE's criminal history.

I like the "three strikes" guideline.
Since moving to a new town, I have not registered to vote but plan to register as Independent this week.

But you've outdone yourself and nailed it. Nothing but net.

Well done. :toast:

A whole thread with, as of the time of this posting, 37 recommendations and people proudly proclaiming they will work in opposition to Democratic candidates no matter who their opposition is because of their votes on three issues.

Just awesome.

Where am I again?

"people proudly proclaiming they will work in opposition to Democratic candidates no matter who their opposition"

Where was that? Or did you just make up your little straw horse all on your own?

Or perhaps you can not see a distinction between withholding one's contributions and volunteerism from a candidate and working "in opposition" to them.

Which is it? Did you read the OP? Do you just make up little straw horses? Or are you unable to distinguish not supporting and working in opposition.

Or maybe, like our mandated health plan, you also would support mandated contributions and working for candidates. Hmmm.

Been reading whole sentences since I was 34.

You should be able to back up your assertion with quotes from the OP then, right?

Right?

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

'Will work in opposition to Democratic candidates ...... who have a 'D' after their names, but that's about it as far as being a Democrat goes. Do you blindly support people who despise you and work against your best interests?

I know that many of the people here worked very successfully to get a Democratic majority. Without them, it probably wouldn't have happened. Now, many of those same people, having seen how quickly they were left behind once everyone got to DC, have decided to use those same skills to elect REAL DEMOCRATS this time.

Besides, Rahm has basically told the 'left' to get lost. So, why are YOU complaining, this is apparently what the leadership of the party wants. You're talking to the wrong people. Talk to them.

but there is much else to praise in that post. His litmus test is very liberal. I'm only going to contribute in primaries where it will be possible to unseat the incumbent rethug or blue dog. I will not contribute to the DNC or the DCCC but will be sending money to DFA. I recced this for his very lucid discussion of the problem.

Edited to add: You're at DemocraticUnderground. It used to be that Democracy meant one person = one vote. Sadly, it now means one dollar = one vote. My votes are going elsewhere.

But if I did, it would be going to DFA, PDA, or local progressive candidates.

Not a cent to Tim Kaine, or any other entity controlled by the DLC.

What a paranoid and pathetic post. Don't want to support the DNC and party organizations, don't. A lot of people support Democrats over the party organizations. This is simply another lame attempt to claim that people who don't agree with you are paid.

Precision!

paranoid and pathetic.

NT!

A bunch of people salivating over drivel. This post is akin to attention seeking irrelevant declarations: The DNC sent me a letter asking for money, and I unsubscribed.

I seem to recall that being boiled down to one word... ah yes.

INSANITY

We all saw what happened in 2000 as a result of the Nader campaign. I know all the standard responses to this too so you Nader folks can save it.

i add: the Afghanistan war as well

do you? If they find out this one is compromised, they will can him/her and have to start all over building up posts to look legit. Of course when you just paste WH press releases and snarks, it doesn't take long to get the 1000's note.

A lot of you haven't given a dime to the Democratic organizations so a declaration that you're withdrawing support is nothing but bullshit grandstanding.

I wasn't a big donor but I gave monthly and supported state and local candidates. I still do that but only to individual candidates.

in on the house side. Plus the house wasn't as egrious and at least fought for the PO initially.Also, I think you will see disgust with both parties.Neither have been any good on many things. The GOP is awful as expected but the Dems were a surprise disappointment.

:crazy:

K&R

RL

I wish I could focus my frustration so articulately.

I certainly have no hopes for 2010 from the White House or Congress now.

It's better than Bush. I repeat that to myself a lot now.

The bar sure has fallen when that's now the standard though.

Frustrated with you.

...to the Democratic Party Establishment (DLC) was for the American People to give them:

*The House
*The Senate
*The White House
*an overwhelming MANDATE for "CHANGE"

No more excuses.
The Health Care "Reform" bill emerging from Congress IS The Democratic Party.
There is NOTHING to hide behind.

The statement that DAMNS the Democratic Party is:
"This bill is the BEST we could do."

In 2004, I stopped all donations to the DSCC and the DCCC when I witnessed them spending MY money to torpedo Progressive Democrats IN LOCAL PRIMARIES and replacing them with their own Corporate Approved Republican Lites.

Donations to the DNC stopped when they exiled Howard Dean and took credit for HIS work.
Since 2006, I only send donations directly to Liberal Democrats with strong track records (I'm a little stricter than you are for qualifications)...or to Progressive challengers to Blue Dog incumbents.

K&R

NT!

The turnabout on this has been the biggest source of my whiplash this year. And seeing the justifications for it here has been a surrealistic heartbreak. I sort of expect politicians to sacrifice their integrity in one way or another eventually. It seems to be the nature of this system. I didn't expect people here to turn on principles they claimed to support all in the name of expediency and "the win". That's a subject for another day, so I'll end it there.

Happy New Year to you, David.

...election integrity was important and crucial. They had hearings in basements. We signed petitions they took to the WH gates. We were worried about paperless voting, secs of state who were also campaign chairmen, caging, etc.

Since 2006 what has been done to ensure fair elections?

NT!

We were gamed. The really amazing thing is that they think we haven't noticed!

thinking that these events are merely pressure relief valves meant to calm the base and establish their opposition credentials. In their own less obvious way, these calming tactics are another form of misinformation...similar to the blatant misinformation that the gop feeds it own base every day.

I don't know if Rep. John Conyers would be pursuing voting steals if he could --

hard to know because I've never heard Pelosi or Reid talk about computer steals, 2000

steal -- anything like it! What I have heard Pelosi say is that the Dems were elected

in '06 -- see video - to end the war! That was the day after the election!

Only 6 weeks or so ago, Pelosi was telling us we'd have a Public Option. So, who's telling

lies and who is really in charge?

Re voting -- in order to have any real options beyond the two party tyranny, we need IRV

voting which would give us the opportunity to vote first, second, third place candidates -

without having a spoiler effect. But, clearly the Democratic Party has already made attempts

to co-opt the Green Party. It's been turned back to some degree and at the moment the Greens

aren't a big threat. But should things head up again, the infiltration will begin again.



Coming back to the issue of the computers . . .

We not only have the individual voting computers which are of course HACKABLE --

but we also had the LARGE computers used by MSM come in during the mid-1960's.

Up to that time, MSM could only report actual vote totals. They did have the occasional

discussion about the likelihood of which way a county might go, but that was pretty much it.

There were polls which could be referred to, as well --

But the LARGE computers gave them new power -- power to PREDICT elections -- and then the

power to CALL elections for candidates and the power to PREDICT electoral votes and CALL

states for presidents.

In 2000, we simply saw them take those powers and reverse them ... RECALLING Florida from

Gore and later CALLING Florida for Bush!

This is just more reason why, IMO, we need to put the TVs in the closet --

bar their advertisers from any profit. If we're going to be propagandized by the right

wing, let them pay for it!!

Big flurry of emails at the end of the year/quarter. Not a dime.

corporate sponsors and fundraisers in order to make them more responsive to the grassroots.

Yeah, that'll work!

The OP is claiming to be "irrelevant," sarcastically, of course, but by becoming even more "irrelevant," that'll show them. (See the claims "as if we had a voice anyway."

You don't get it. It's brilliant.

I must be on to something!

they give them.

I will give to those who worked for the people but like the OP, not one cent to those who sold out to big Corps. And how do you suppose we stop them from taking money from those Corps? Do you really think that the people can compete with that kind of money?

I think Democrats who sold out to Big Business already made their decisions. They will take whatever the base they so despise gives them, but they will continue to work for the ones who pay them the most. Just look at the record.

You're suggesting, considering the reality of the situation, that people keep throwing their money away. Rahm has already spoken for them. He has said the 'left should be ignored'. That works both ways. Talk to him although I think it's a bit late now. The people didn't abandon the party, the party abandoned the people. That is the reality of the situation. It's like telling an abandoned wife that it's her fault her husband left her and she should keep on giving him stuff. Sorry, I don't do abusive relationships.

It's way past time to move on and direct the considerable talents of those who put Rahm and his buddies where they are, towards working to elect people who actually care about this country and its people.

then how will people ever elect representatives that are responsive to the people rather than corporations? I'm just asking because the first part of your post seems to be saying one thing and the last part the opposite.

I meant those like Baucus eg, or Feinstein and Nelson, Landrieu, and others who take huge amounts of money from the corporations and then vote for Corporate interests every time.

I know some of the good guys also take their money, the system is so screwed right now, that it takes a lot of money to win an election. But, some of them still try to represent the people, people like Feingold eg. and Kucinich.

What I'm saying is that we need more like Feingold and Kucinich and fewer like Landrieu and Feinstein. The more new members the good Dems have to back them up, the less likely it isthey will be forced to go along with bills, like this health care bill eg, they really do not like.

Feingold and Sanders don't like a lot about this bill. But they had no say early on, so now they are in a position of being labeled as obstructionists if they don't vote for it. If each vote wasn't so crucial to a Dem win, I think Feingold would vote against it. Sanders decided to use the awful position he was in to get something for the people.

But, imagine how different it would have been if a majority of Senators were like those two. I know that we can't get the money out of it without Congress passing some decent campaign finance laws. And that won't happen until the bought and paid for members are removed from Congress.

That's why it's important to get people in there who will not be influenced by the money, and whose candidacies are not funded by corporations. Which is why it is important for us to make sure that all donations go directly to candidates who will represent our interests. Don't know if that explains what I meant. I know it's going to be hard to get enough money to get good candidates elected, but I do think it's possible.

1 - hold a Peoples Convention inviting all to participate.
2 - allow no signage, or media until the final session
3 - answer the questions: what do we want from government, what do we require
4 - those who don't want anything from government are being well served now, they may be dismissed.
5 - draw up and agree on a People's Platform
6 - let the press in
7 - invite candidates to run on the platform
8 - vote

Give us your ideas. I'm not being snarky. I mean it. This is a place for the exchange of ideas. We can use more, not less in the idea department.

makes sense to me.

here.

So you're all taken care of for 2010 and 2012 (Obama)

its important to me that the most progressive candidate wins each election that comes up.

as committed to election reform as we are to real health care reform the situation will only grow worse. They care about corporate dollars, not netroots pennies. With diebold on their side they don't truly need to worry about your vote, either.Until I see as many threads on DUabout taking action on election reform as I do threads expressing disappointment in or adoration of Obama I'll have no hope for change.

There are only a few politicians worth donating to, on either side. I will not contribute to the Democratic National Committee or to any of the myriad "campaign committees." My money will go to worthwhile causes this year.

:kick:

then i tell them to get me off their lists..that not another dime , not another red cent..and not another minute of my time and labor..until they ..stop the wars, stop the FISA spying on me and you ..and not until they give us real health care reform ..not the bullshit they are trying to shove down our throats..and not another dime until they get people back to work..and until they gets my dimes back from Goldman Sachs and all the other Wall Street whores and banks and help people find work with my money! And I add further ..until they hold the criminals of the Bush administration accountable for crimes and treason to this nation!

No caps on credit card rates & concealed weapons in National Parks? Some "Reform". And adding insult to injury, is they want you to make a "donation" via your credit card! As if. No real banking reforms either. Banks, Big Pharama & Insurance companies making out like bandits. No increase in SS for the elderly & the disabled for the 1st time since 1975, either. ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’

Thanks David for saying what needed to be said. Not one more penny.

Righteous.

Coffeehouse political slang is no substitute for a well thought argument, and tends to indicate that a post's intentions are not to think, but argue, or present another screed.


edit:typo

I've since re-skimmed the OP, and the argument seems to be "I'll stop donating to those who aren't leftist enough for me".

11 words.

Why this whiny redundancy has taken such a stranglehold on certain liberals is a mystery, but it serves a useful purpose: stopping me from taking the poster seriously.

wtf? if you had liberal tendencies you would be pissed too.

Teh stupid, it burns!

I'm guessing we vote at above 90%. Even in off years. Whoops. That Rahmagram is not going to fly.

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

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

I'm with you ... they get nothing from me.

Sabrina 1 points out that "... it is important for us to make sure that all donations go directly to candidates who will represent our interests."

Yet how do we make sure they DO represent us?

If I may, suggest a different tack altogether, a sort of strategy to take back America.

Would it be possible for a candidate to run for elected office WITHOUT taking money the way traditional pols do, which amounts to hundreds of thousands if not millions? I would certainly support those that take a complete detour from newspaper and any print ads, tv, and radio ads where a lot of this money is spent. The more important point however, is that the ruling class will throw financial support behind their chosen candidate, and perhaps that is the candidate to avoid altogether.

And how do the working class candidates get their message across? A boatload of cash would not be needed if the "internetz" were used to reach the masses. This must be mated to a door-to-door campaign, where your middle class neighbors, people with whom we share common interests, stand alongside a candidate and can VOUCH for their character. The "irrelevant" Netroots (cough), can play a vital role by organizing the local and national programs that will support these candidates, creating the Peoples' equivalent of the DLC or the RNC. (Any wonder why control of the internet is such a hot button? This is it!)

This idea is a work-in-progress, with the goal of finding people that represent our interests and filtering out the impact of corporatism. Until the internet is shut down and the law of the land no longer allows us to choose our representatives, this may be the only foothold we have in fighting this system corrupted by money. WE, the people, pick our candidates even before the primaries, not allowing the DLC or the DNCC to lay out the choices for us.

Happy New Year, Zephyr!

Would it be possible for a candidate to run for elected office WITHOUT taking money the way traditional pols do,

Good question. I don't think so at the moment. But eg, Bernie Sanders doesn't take money from Corporations, he does take donations from Unions and other representatives of working class Americans. I haven't done the research so I don't know how many others do this.

While it would be better for candidates not to have to take money from anyone, that is unrealistic considering how they communicate, through the media mostly, in today's world. But given a choice between someone taking money from Working class organizations and big Corporations, well we can see the differnce in how Sanders votes and speaks out on behalf of the people.

Regarding your other question, 'how can we be sure' about candidates being on our side. That is difficult even if they are, once the get to DC they will be assaulted by lobbyists and other party members tempting them to take contributions from Corporations.

I think the only person I can think of who never took any money, as far as I know, was Ross Perot, but he was a billionaire.

Still, I do think it is possible to find others, like Sanders, who understand how compromising it is to accept corporate donations as far as who they will be expected to represent. I'm sure there will be disappointments, but at least now, we know the importance of not electing obviously compromised politicians and hopefully have a chance of electing more like Sanders and even some of the Dems who despite taking corporate money, still work as best they can, for the people who elected them.

For a lot of people, this awakening to the reality of DC is still a shock. It would take a lot of planning to find the best candidates figure out how to finance their campaigns. But Sanders in a way, has shown one possible way to be able to afford to stay in office.

I wouldn't have a problem, at least until we get enough real Democrats and/or Progressive Independents in Congress to change the rules regarding CF, with doing what he is doing, accept donations from Unions and other organizations that actually represent the people. I'm sure there are ways that too could become corrupted, but so far, I don't see any other way.

HCR, and all of the lies and broken promises that were made surrounding HCR, is all one needs to examine to know exactly what the hell is going on here.

Talk is cheap, very cheap indeed, as we are finding out one more time.
For the working people and the little man, MY ASS.

Take your corporate pay offs and continue to pretend that you are helping anybody. You may fool some folks, but my eyes are clear.

unless we start to see just one sign that things are turning

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

give Democratic corporatists a convenient excuse so as to continue getting "campaign contributions" from moneyed interests like the insurance and defense lobbies.
Publicly financed campaigns are a remedy. Or, we can resort to pitch forks and torches.

or I already have been, let's put it that way. If they're not progressive, if they lie, if they become corporate toadies, and if they capitulate too much in the name of "bi-partisanship", they can kiss my rosy red ass. And I will not have my "party loyalty" questioned. I'll be as loyal to them as they are loyal to their campaign promises. ;) To borrow a phrase from a well known numbskull, YOU BETCHA!

Otherwise I'd be contributing.

Pragmatism = Politics as much as we hate to admit it.

And it is something I will remind them of when the DNC, DSCC and others tap me for money again.

My donations are going to DFA and PCCC.

I got a lovely Xmas card from the DFA gang just the other day!

... here and send along to friends so they can read this, too! Many thanks! :-)

You have at most one person currently representing you who could meet all three and who is up for election this Fall. Depending on your state there may be none at all.

Period.

"Politicians never concede power to the people unless they have to -- when a demand is made. "

As much as we here would like to believe in the Democratic Party and its elected reps --

Democratic candidates - unfortunately, the Democratic Party has been made null and void

by the right wing corporates --

The coup on JFK was not simply to kill one leader, but to take over our "people's" government --

and to destroy the Democratic Party to keep it from being used in any manner to keep those

responsible for the coup from being brought to justice. To keep the Democratic Party from being

used as a tool to overturn the coup. And to keep the Democratic Party from active legislation

which would prevent the bankrupting of our Treasury - the class warfare on citizens.

To keep the Democratic Party from being the peace party -- the anti-war party.

To keep the Democratic Party from being the defender of human rights.

Where is the Democratic Party's voice today re homelessness, poverty -- or any anti-corporate

legislation? Rather, it is steadily and quickly beocming less anti-war and more corporate!


The predictable thing is that this age-old tug-of-war within the Democratic Party is always so less obvious when Democrats are out of power. Why? Because Democratic politicians can pretend to be on the People's side because, after all, they are "powerless" to do anything anyway. Oh, but let them slide into those luxurious paneled offices, let them have that gavel to pound or that pen to sign laws into enforcement and my, oh my, do things change. Just like in George Orwell's "Animal Farm", the pigs begin to act and look just like the very humans they criticized and replaced. Funny how that happens, huh?

As long as Democrats are out of power, it costs our elected Democrats absolutely nothing to gin up the base with the old time religion of anti-war rhetoric we love to hear! These crafty politicians can pound a podium as good as a pulpit with their hell-fire and damnation preaching against the abuse of civil liberties here at home and the denial of civil rights to all Americans. Hell, even I fall into believing them. They can slip off those Brooks Brothers suits, slap on a pair of jeans and roll up their shirt sleeves and promise everything the Left has been denied for generations...because it costs them nothing.

When they are out of power, our Democratic politicians will swear how committed they are to protecting the reproductive rights of all American women and girls, they can rattle on that they are indignant at the second-class citizenship of gay and lesbian Americans, they are bombastic about American militarism abroad, they will rant and rave about how "uncivilized" America is not to have a single-payer healthcare system like the rest of the world, they will scowl and howl against corporate giveaways and loopholes and those "terrible" global trade deals! But like I said, it doesn't cost them anything, because they are not "in power" and can always drone and whine one of their favorite hymns "our hands are tied; we're not in power."

I agree completely. Thanks for your post, David. :yourock:


K&R

Please stop donating to a party whose politicians allow two immoral occupations to continue, rendition to continue, the Patriot Acts to continue, and the bailouts to Wall Street to continue.

It would serve them right if people disenrolled from both parties en masse - and re-registered as either independents or third-party members.

Nothing less will motivate them to act in the people's best interests.

I have been a hardcore party partisan since I first registered in 1979, but that changed for me starting in 2001. You see what a person/candidate/Party is made of when the chips are down, and what I saw the past 8 years opened my eyes to some ugly truths about the Democratic Party I so loved.

Pure Party loyalty is out for me. I can't play that game anymore. I will not be the chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

From here on in it is the individual candidate who gets my time. my money, and my vote.

Brilliant!

I stand with you David!

political cookouts. No more door-to-door. If there is a Dem primary and the primary challenger is a known progressive (not a phony one) I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I simply won't vote. I will not pay so a Democratic President makes me and mine pay to not have health insurance, or gives me health insurance that is approximately worthless. Also, no more war presidents while 1 out of 2 US children some time in their lives will be on food stamps.

Obama's performance so far! At the end they wanted my thoughts about Obama and then asked for donations.

I DID fill it out and WILL return it, but told them they WON'T get any money from me because I'm one of those people that Rahm doesn't like! "Those People" who are supposed lefties and should be ignored! Said that I still intended to vote, but I may end up voting for myself if that's what it came to!

I don't think they're going to like my answers to their survey nor my comments! I was taught to tell the truth and I did. Sometimes you can be blunt, and sometimes you can fudge around the truth by saying something nice before you tell the truth!

I didn't fudge around anything!

They only care about the donation anyway. That's the purpose of the mailing. And it doesn't matter if we don't donate anyway. Sure, they like the $$$ but they'll just tap another lobbyist if we don't pony up. Screw the DSCC, D-trip and the DNC.

even get the survey since EVERYTHING they've sent me recently I've returned and told them NOT to contact me! I've told them on the phone, in e-mails and snail mail and it hasn't stopped!

They haven't gotten ANY money from me in a very very long time, but I guess they still have their palms out to be greased! but YOU ARE correct, they'll get it some way even if WE don't give it to them! Still it's nice to see that so many here don't want to give away our hard earned dollars as we did when Obama was running!

We FOUND a way to give then, NOW we won't even try!! At least I won't!

most of my non-local contributions go to NGOs and candidates in other states. Since I pulled out of the Democratic Party about ten years ago I have the luxury of voting for democratic candidates without receiving all the junk snail mail. Emails are another matter.

Nicely written and you perfectly describe not only my current stand on what I call the "Principles versus Party" issue, but the general view that caused me to go Non-partisan (Independent) in the first place.

Regardless of their negative qualities, and there are plenty of those, I think the Teabaggers are responding to basically the same general sense that the parties are no longer serving the interests of the people.

It's important that we vote with both our votes and our money. I also think that dissent is patriotic as long as the dissent is being voiced to those in power. Their political future should be a function of whether or not they are listening.

We may ultimately have no logical choice but to vote Democrat because it's the lesser of two evils, but nobody has to follow the party line between elections. People of principle should voice and act on the principles.

Thanks for a great OP.

No change, no contribution. No change, no check.

Remember that old joke...something like...

Q- Why do you keep banging your head against the wall?
A- Because it feels so good when I stop.

And I keep coming back.

As long as there are blogs I will be speaking out, 'cause frankly there aren't many people within my otherwise invisible sphere who have the ability to do so. I hope to always afflict the comfortable somewhere, 'cause I'm a bitch like that. ;)

Great post David. I've been lagging, but I think I'm gonna toddle over to my gmail and unsubscribe from a bunch of detritus I picked up during the election. I have no money, but any time spent cajoling my fellow workers to vote (my main political activity) will be devoted to progressive candidates only.

My main regret is that I no longer live in CA and cannot join you guys for mexican food. :hi:

I'll start by saying that the OP is thoughtful, and presents your points very well. I not only agree with you, but I suspect that the high quality of your essay is the reason that a few people take such strong exception to it.

Keep up the good work!

and am more focused on issues/causes. Progressive politicians are good but, as you said, they will say anything when they are out of power. I don't trust their words anymore - only actions.

I suggest supporting those few true Progressives and Liberals directly, even if they do not directly represent you. I live in Texas, yet I support DK in Ohio directly.

Of course, the best thing is to get people you would want to support to run, win the primary and then win the election. Or run yourself. All locally.

I can assure you, it is much better (and more rewarding) to support and work for an unsuccessful Liberal locally than it is to support and work for "the best choice we have", who then betrays (or at least disappoints). And, of course, even better is to support someone who is truly strong enough to do what you expect and wins, then goes no to make you proud.

If this is not possible, then get out of politics altogether and begin the reform discussion from there. (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7395760)

That Obama is setting up the pieces, that he is a political genius.

If this is so, then why his insistence during the campaign on no more politics as usual? If it was just going to be some delayed political game as usual, and he wasn't going to actually move forward on anything out of pure moral will, then why lie? Just to get elected?

puppeteers would prefer all to be done by an iron fist in a velvet glove. They know they've done so much harm all ready, the system would collapse.

Consequently, while the primaries will surely be manipulated in the same way, I think they will want to make it easy for Obama supporters to vote this time - not as difficult, as in the past.

But once bitten... Maybe a large number of Democratic votes will stay at home nevertheless, so when the US acts in its normal, self-righteously violent way on the world stage, under the Republican 'aegis', the fig-leaf will be gone, and the emperor, whoever he might be, would manifestly be as naked in the whole world's eyes, as the day that he was born. there is little enough wriggle-room now. On the other hand, I'm plainly speculating on the basis of factors that strikes me as significant about the situation in the light of the past.

If I, as a leftie, am irrelevant, then so is my wallet.

More bloviating about squat from you :eyes:

seems to indicate "Not One Penny More" to Democrats. Well, I'm glad that you will give money to some Democrats (including Obama, since he was against the war in Iraq). And I think it's great that you "have given thousands upon thousands of dollars over my lifetime to Democratic Party politicians" - you have done a lot for the US and the world.

About "The Senate version of the current Health Care Bill":

Paul Krugman (and I!) think that it was right to vote for that one (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1):

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

(..)

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically.

(..)

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

(..)

Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.

Don't do it.

The experience from history is that social reforms the Congress passes, get better over time, while "the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all".

What do you think they will do with their massive fortune?

Do you really think they will allow the bill to get better over time?

In the first few years they will lobby (bribe) congress and senators to remove waht little reform is in the bill, then, they will come in for the kill, raising rates and providing little. It's really a no-brainer.