Why should I support a party that doesn't support me?

We have, in the past, laughed at those who voted against their own self interest by voting Republican. But the Democratic party has evolved over the past three decades to the point where, for many of us, supporting the party means voting against our own self interest.

For instance, I'm a teacher. By supporting the Democratic party I am, indirectly, supporting Obama's war on public education. I am supporting lowering my own pay, subjecting my students to more testing, providing them with a lower quality education, and eliminating my benefits. Thus, I am voting against my own self interests.

Furthermore I am avidly against the war. Yet by supporting the Democrats I am supporting a war without foreseeable end in Afghanistan, and a simmering back burner conflict in Iraq. Thus, I am voting against my own self interests.

I also an ardent supporter of civil liberties. In fact I go to great lengths to guard my privacy. Yet Democrats have continued the Bush era assault on civil liberties, thus further invading my privacy. Again, I am voting against my own self interest.

I could continue with this list, which includes what is almost certainly going to happen with the Catfood Commission, but you get the point. So why should I support a party that is forcing me to vote against my own self interests? Why should I support a party that doesn't support me? Because they're better than the 'Pugs? That's not a good answer, because either way I am voting against my own self interests.

You cannot simply expect people to vote for a party or a candidate out of knee jerk reaction, or by using fear or bully boy, "love it or leave it" tactics. You have to offer people a reason for people to support you. Currently the Democrats aren't doing that for a great many people. Perhaps rather than using fear mongering and bully boy tactics, the Democrats need to start supporting us, the people, rather than trying to force us into voting against our own self interests.

Cuz I sure don't.

Primary.

Had a few successes. More failures. And now, I must do what an abused spouse does. Cover up for my abuser because there is no way out. The alternative is worse.

n.t.

Potential Republican Rule.

Look I cry a tear everytime I pull the lever for the Democrat candidate, but I grow violently ill at even the prospect of another Republican administration. The previous post is correct. If you don't like your Democrat, vote for another in the primary. Repukes always offer less.

...wait a minute, they offer nothing. I apologize.

Either a Republican gets what they want or a Democrat gives it to them. I'd rather clear them all out and start again with some people with principles.

Incoming!!!

*ducks*

Be afraid. Be very afraid

But sadly, the game in this country has been rigged for two parties. We would have to have a major political earthquake to make a third option viable. Not saying that it couldn't happen, but it would be mighty tough.

then a third or even fourth party would be a viable option because coalitions could be formed. What we have is a zero-sum game; therefore, 2 parties. People vote to avoid the worst case scenario. It's simple game theory.

That's why a third party will never be an option in this country. Ever. Unless we change our form of government. How likely does anyone think that is?

But that doesn't mean that the players in the two party game can't change. After all, the 'Pugs rose out of the ashes of the Whigs, and did so in a fairly rapid fashion.

One I'll have to ponder...

And, unfortunately, I see a far right party rising from the ashes of the pugs and a bigger split between the Blue Dogs and Liberals in the Dems as more likely than a viable left alternative.

I also see a far right party rising from the ashes of the pugs... and the not-that-far-right amongst the pugs being absorbed into the Democrats... and in the process the Democratic platform morphing to please/pander to those newly aquired not-terribly-far-right voters.

Rather than playing along though, the left needs to form a party of its own, just as the far right party you see rising from the ashes of the pugs would form. Just for the sake of ease, let's call this new Left Party the Green Party, and the Far Right Party the Teabaggers (because I feel no urge to show any restraint in the use of denigrating connotations).

At this point, there would be three parties: the Teabaggers, the Democrats and the Greens (forget Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, etc. for the moment). Obviously, with the current Electoral College system there can only be two real parties for presidential elections, but there is no such limiting factor for the Congress. As I see it, the membership of the Teabagger party that we're extrapolating would tend to be very old, demographically speaking... and I suspect that it would literally wither and disappear within one or two election cycles... at which point, by say 2024 or 2028, we'd be left with the Democrats and the Greens. Right and Left.

Of course, that presumes that the Left is ever willing to refuse to go along with the constant Rightward creep of the Democratic party... and also presumes that the Democratic Party leadership would be willing to continue its Rightward creep (presumably not fearing losing the Left from its base). From what I can see... the Democratic Party has no intentions of halting its Rightward creep in the pursuit of more and more of the (constantly shifting definition) centrist voters of the Republican Party. And, from what I can see, the Party Leadership has no intention of letting the Left stop them in the pursuit of those voters. And, increasingly, it looks like the Left might simply decide, sometime in the near future, to stop 'going along to get along'.

As a scenario, it makes sense to me... though, it all depends on the Left deciding that they've had enough... and either stopping the Rightward creep of the Democrats, or jumping ship altogether. We've clearly heard Rahm's take on that being a possibility...

Actually, let me rephrase that: barring any substantial changes to how we allocate seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral college, even a diminished Teabagger party will have a substantial overrepresentation, which could be worse depending on how the split goes in the Democratic Party. Until the allocation and election problems are solved (e.g. remove the 435 seat cap, go to an IRV system), any far right party is going to have an excessive amount of power.

who are seeing their very livelihoods systematically dismantled and sucked away by the rich.

The murder of the economy and systematic destruction of the middle class are what will eventually pull enough people to a third party option. If a third party arose with a determined, single focus of stopping the economic rape of most Americans and ensuring that people reap fair rewards for their work again, that party would draw from the Left and the Right and could never be stopped.

Just to really SCARE People.

President Obama didn't deliver the deathblow. He actively encouraged them back into the game and gave them the leg up they needed.

Who knows why.

And from the looks of things we're on the cusp of a 7th. It's during the changeovers between party systems that 3rd parties can have real power.

But, if you look at the 2nd party system (the first half of it at least), it wasn't a two-party system: everyone was a Democrat.

as the greens and the dems would have formed a coalition government. that is what is so frustrating to me. a lot of people dont understand that all third parties do is elect the party least like the 3rd one as they split their own side.

Then we should all vote Nazi Party!








Just kidding, I know what you mean.

system. It just evolved that way. There is no reason we can't have a third or fourth party beyond the issue of $$$$$'s.

That forces the growth of 2 strong parties, which in turn makes it less likely that people will risk voting for any lesser parties - not wanting to waste their vote and to risk having the worst possible candidate win.

A parliamentary system uses parties in coalition building to actually form the government, giving people the opportunity to vote their convictions, knowing that the parties can unite to govern in the right direction and that their individual vote will not have been wasted.

by Jay, I think, if you're interested. There's lots of analysis of #10.

Changing the form of government, I mean. People are being stretched very thing and desperate people do desperate things. I wouldn't rule it out.

if they actually take opposing stands.

When the two parties get all bipartisanie and both take nearly identical stands to the detriment of the public you don't have a two-party system. You have a one-party system with two different flags.

A kinder, gentler fascism.

It's the death of independent thinking.

Our 'winner take all' system, however, renders the 3rd option powerless. I propose that, since the DLC has completed its mission of transforming the DNC into 'moderate' rethuglicans, we organize and take over the rethuglican party, while it is in disarray, and make it the 'people's party'.

Outside of them, vote for individual Democratic Socialist candidates, such as Dan LaBotz in Ohio.

In Texas, it has been co-opted by the Republican Party, which ran a "dirty tricks" campaign to put them on the ballot specifically to "dilute the Democrat vote," according to one of the Republican operatives supporting the initiative.

...unless the national Green Party is willing to disown the Texas Greens. What's the likelihood of that coming to pass?

The two parties are merely different sides of the same coin (or, more aptly, stock certificate)

we'd have to clean up what we have. The lobbyists and corporations (I'm including military here) who essentially bribe Legislators to write favorable laws for them don't really care who they have to bribe, no? Therefore, would a third party not fall into the same traps and problems that the mainstream two do? Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't think even The Green Party for instance would be able to hold out long against corruption before they too started being more to the right, which is what the bribers wants.

Furthermore, with the strengthening of third parties, you end up with a President et al who likely have a minority of support - more voted against than for, which history tells me often ends in bloody coups and revolt.

Multi-dimensional chess!

Change!

That one is so darn cute...

Maybe the plan is just that sneaky and clever...

and I doubt he even knows how to play checkers.

:nopity:

she is the noise machine to keep the rabble aroused until the real candidates sort themselves out. She is part of the smoke and mirrors.

There's Race To The Top, and then there's the white supremacist shitshow we saw in Texas over their history standards. There's not making marriage equality any kind of priority, and then there's pushing a constitutional amendment to make it impossible. There's leaving the Hyde Amendment in place, and then there's actively trying to make abortion illegal and cozying up to the kind of people who shoot doctors.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Staying home or voting 3rd party in November is morally repugnant. It is an action that is unarguably more harmful than the alternative. The status quo is bad, but the most probable alternative is much, much worse. This might sound like fear mongering, but there's much to be afraid of.

Poppy said he is the smarter one. Dont turn your back on the Bush Crime Family.

.....please......:rofl:

I've asked these same exact questions, and like this JoePhilly guy, people yelled at me. There just seems to be this Borg mentality that we all circle the wagons, but nobody is allowed to stop and say..."wait a minute...where exactly are the real differences?"

I better be given a good reason to go out and vote for a Democrat and not being a repuke is not enough reason for me go out and vote anymore. I'm not going for that "lesser of the two evils" crap every again.

edit: spelling

interests. I had no idea he would actively work against them and in some cases try to destroy them. I can vote for benign neglect. I refuse to vote for someone who wants to wreck what I have.

eom

but Obama is not running in 2010.

I've also noticed that he and his ilk have set an agenda and tone, and many of the people up for re-election 2010 have embraced his policies with zeal. He's just the lens through which I'm viewing the the 2010 election.

Even Rahm isn't stupid enough to believe that. This will be a referendum on Obama, top to bottom. No matter how much we scream and beg, the uninformed voter is pissed at Obama and every Dem will take the blow.

First, anger at Obama should not necessarily translate to YOUR congresscritter or candidate, who you can lobby to move the President to the left.

Secondly a Republican Congress is gonna move the country further to the right, including the President. It sends the message, 'the country is not happy with liberal policies'. Why would it send that message? Because the more conservative candidates would have won. If we, the voters of America, want to move the country to the left, we do not do so by allowing conservative candidates to win.

I has reservations about Obama, but voted for him for two reasons: to block McCain-Palin, and because I thought a Democrat, any Democrat, would turn the country away from the policies of the past eight years. Apparently, that assumption was wrong.

I love your username, BTW. Angry Old Dems are the best kind, in my experience. :hug:

there arent any better alternatives here in America... afaik.

And frankly, this "love it or leave it" attitude is very reminiscent of how the ultra conservative mindset works. A telling statement, very telling. What, this country is only for those who support one of the two major parties:rofl:

I sure havent heard of it.

Granted, they are currently small and insignificant, but then again so were the 'Pugs until they mopped the floor with the Whigs in four short years.

Think about it.

good luck.

Or not....it's up to you regardless of the pummeling you get here.

You can not even begin to imagine how important they will be in the next few decades.

The left definitely has it's own authoritarians, and they're just as blind to hypocrisy as those on the right.

just making a suggestion that maybe he might be happier somewhere else.. given the circumstances.

That was the sentiment you expressed.

Unless it's opposite day today.

Supporting an "I" over a Dem.

Clearly alot DUers dont like to hear it.

Yeah, even I'd be embarrassed about that one and not want to talk about it. You should be ashamed.

Clearly they have enough things bothering them now.

BTW, Crist is not a Republican.. just in case you didnt know that. Cheers!

Good luck with that, and don't forget the hypocrisy you're engaged in.

BTW, Crist is still NOT a Republican no matter how many times you type it.

Perhaps with enough repetitions you will eventually believe it. Hell, do it enough and you might even be able to live with yourself and your hypocrisy. But remember, by following your course of action you have absolutely no moral standing to lecture others on this board who support candidates who aren't of the Democratic party.

At least the vast majority of non-Democratic voting DUers vote for even more liberal candidates, not homophobes like Crist. Have you no shame?

oh, that's right, when you do it it's being "pure".

and i'm also pretty sure you know damned well that the people who are supporting crist are only doing it to keep a crazy-ass teabagger out of office.

you'd rather have said teabagger get elected and crow about how pure your ideology is.

Yeah, even I'd be embarrassed about that one and not want to talk about it. You should be ashamed.

:rofl:

pathetic

Telling someone to leave the country? I'll bet you were one of those rednecks who wanted to have a brewski with Bush, yeah? :sarcasm:

Mouthbreathing jackbooted blinkered thugs are not needed in this party.

You start to reek of them. If you support Crist like the previous postser does then you support Repukes.

That doesnt sound like a Democrat. We have a corrupted Democratic Party. I am not going to accept it. I am going to fix it. I am going to kick the Blue Damn Dogs out. Kick the corporatist DLC out. If you support them, out you go Jake. There is no room in my party for corporatist lovers.

duh

Democracy? Over. Welcome the new fascist feudalism.

There used to be and there had better be again or we slide ever more into disaster.

I am angry and you should be too.

I am not planning on leaving.

America should be about Americans, not winners and losers.

"America: Love It Or Leave It"

you are screwn.

It is impossible to vote against the wealthy, who are represented first and foremost by both parties.

We need choices.

As Howard Zinn said, "If the gods had intended us to vote, they would have given us candidates."

see?

By assaulting my profession? By threatening Social Security? By taking away my civil liberties? By bleeding this country dry via illegal, immoral wars? If that's a sign of Democratic support, then geez, tell me, what the fuck is it like when they don't support me.

That or it didn't exist

If I'm a gay peacenik who isn't terribly rich and not incorporated, then no, not so much.

Dean is a Dem, if he'd run for office, for gawdsake.

In my state we have Dick Durbin and Schakowsky(sp?), among others. The black caucus is a roster of working Dems. Etc,

But even they can only do a very limited amount of good, and that has dwindled to virtually nothing. Meanwhile, my profession, my lifestyle, my privacy is being threatened by Democrats like Obama. Weighed in the balance, the minuscule amount of good done by Kucinich, et. al. is far outweighed by the damage being created by the rest of the party.

Neither party is representing "we the people." The corporations and war machine rule. I don't know how we're going to get out of this mess.

in order to perpetuate the illusion of a big tent. His buckling under to support the health insurance profit scheme at the behest of the Party really illuminated how he serves the interests of the DP and why the Party tolerates him.

...and it wouldn't kill you to occasionally remember that they exist. too.

Perhaps they'll return the favor -- who knows?

:bounce:

It's not a tactic, it's common sense. If you're not happy with it join the Republicans or a third party, or have no party affiliation.

I do love the irony though.

The far right - "Obama is an Liberal extremist!"

And then a few on the far left - "Obama is just like Bush!"

Such a cavalier dismissal of the concerns of lifelong Dems is guaranteed to be a losing strategy come November this year and in 2012. Perhaps you should work on your political and people skills, you certainly won't win the hearts,minds and votes of people with the attitude you've currently got.

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

You can quote me now: When DADT is finally a memory, it will have happened largely in spite of Obama, his White House congressional liaison, his Chief of Staff, his Defense Secretary, and many others who work for him.

No amount of preemptive whining on your part can change that sad fact.

Specificially how has Obama and the others you mentioned tried to stop the repeal of DADT?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/stepforward/archives/202872.asp

among many others if you do a google search on how the "repeal" that the house voted on got in the bill.

Allowing a survey to be conducted so the military can learn about troop reactions does NOT = trying to block it.

A survey was conducted prior to integrating blacks in the military. In fact, military members were overwhelmingly against it and it still happened. What else you got?
'

a homophobe. Loaded questions, blatant homophobia, it was draconian. You ever shower in a locker room? You ever have to fill out a survey asking you if you were comfortable doing it? It was a bullshit survey designed to keep DADT in play.

It is an example. And it's not that Obama is actively trying to keep DADT in play, it's that he doesn't really give a shit. His attitude shows that.

Do you have it linked somewhere?

How can the survey be designed to do what it can't do?

Secretary Roberts stated unequivocally DADT being repealed is NOT dependent on the outcome of the survey. Carl Levin clearly stated the troops do NOT have veto power over the repeal.

The repeal IS going to happen, just as President Obama promised.

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

you either love what it's turning into, or you leave. Isn't that how the Republican Party got taken over by "the crazies"? We don't have to let that happen to the Democrats.

IMO "love it or leave it" is not coming from the people who built the Democratic Party. Stay and fight Madhound. Primary the DINOS with Progressives, and work to get corporate election machines out of the system. And work to make the system work for more parties.

I don't mind constructive criticism. But I honestly don't take some of these people seriously. The beavers who do nothing but hunt for and post any material they can find that's critical of the President or the Party. The "He's all bad" with literally nothing good to say about him crowd. In my opinion they're disingenuous and they're not really interested in anything constructive.

If the shoe fits, stick it.

I'm frankly tired of all the (redacted) on this site acting like President Obama needs to go to their house, drop on his knees with tears in his eyes and beg for them.

Nothing President Obama or even the Democrats in Congress can do will change their votes anyway. Mark my words - when DADT is fully repealed as I predict it will, there will be thread after thread of people saying it passed "in spite" of Obama and manufacturing arguments about how he tried to "stop it." They will credit all of their whining on the internet as having "forced" Obama into begrudgingly signing the bill.

If you're so freaking unhappy with the party, if you feel so strongly that the party has "left" you then leave the party. Go some place else.


This is a (D)emocratic website and if I wanted to watch a bunch of people foaming at the mouth with their irrational disdain for the President I'd go to redstate.org or some place similar.

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

Good luck with that.

At this rate, it'll take you a couple years to work through all of them.

:eyes:

Your next post won't have one either.

Please explain to him the meaning of the words "jingoistic" and "cliche". Then, if you don't mind, point him at one of the many fine online dictionaries where he can look up further words for himself.

Once you've done that, could you please point out where he's employed "jingoistic cliches" in his prior posts. (Hint: they're right up there ^^^).


I'd do it myself, but I think I'll have better luck teaching my parrot to read. Thanks in advance. :hi:

You. Don't. Have. An. Example.

Which is why you're calling people to your aid.

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

"Love it or leave it" is certainly a cliche saying but it's not even mine. I was quoting the OP.

"This is a (D)emocratic website" is not a cliche per say, but it might be a common thing for people to point out on DU.

Further more, neither example can even remotely be described as jingoistic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jingoes
a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; bellicose chauvinist.

So, in jgraz world saying "love it or leave it" or "This is a Democratic website" is professing your patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy.

Want to try again? Oh, wait. Nevermind you already ran away. Next time we talk at least try to give me a challenge.

since you brought it up?

I was initially for the Iraq war, but changed my position when it turned out the WMD claims were false.

I am for the war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

When and where did you serve? Lotta jumps? You still in?

I'm stationed at Fort Bragg and I have around 17 jumps, give or take. I don't have my jump log in front of me. I'm talking to you from my iPhone BTW

Did you graduate out of Eubanks or Fryer?

He just enlisted. My other nephew just enlisted in the Navy. Unfortunately he's not quite as left as I wish he was but I love him dearly none-the-less.

You you know what MOS he picked?

Did you graduate from Eubanks of Fryer?

He'll sink himself. He doesn't need your (stellar) help. I think he's on leave right now anyway, because he has hundreds of posts over the last two months. He's a busy beaver (I think that's his icon - a beaver butt).

I know of only two wars, both are being fought for profit, for the oil fields in Iraq, and for access to the best route to the Caspian Sea oil reserves, in Afghanistan, planned long before 9/11. We were not concerned about that Taliban just one month before 9/11 despite knowing that Osama Bin Laden was living in Afghanistan at the time. In fact, U.S. officials had them over here for a visit, treated them like visiting royalty from a friendly state, and made them an offer they thought they couldn't refuse in return for allowing UNOCAL to build a pipeline there.

For whatever reason, the Taliban refused, and a few months later, we invaded them, planted bases in all of the 'stan countries paying off vile brutal dictators like Karamov in Uzbekistan to let us do so, and then years later we are still there. There was NO attempt to get Bin Laden, Al Queda is long gone from Afghanistan, not that you ever start a war to go after terrorists in the first place.

So, if you meant you support the war in Afghanistan, it can only be because you didn't have the facts.

to correct things I feel that are presented incorrectly! And if you feel my correction is IMPROPER regarding the spelling, there are other things that I might take issue with too!

However, I will merely say that I disagree with your assessment here and would rather NOT get into a pissing war! Or ANY war for that matter, regardless of how well it's presented!

Why are we then negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan for various reasons. And why are we fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, since there are less than one hundred of them in country?

If you are for war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, then I suppose you support us continuing to fight in far flung locales like Yemen, Sudan, etc. etc., essentially a war without end, amen. Is that what you want?

There is no good reason for us to be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All we are conducting is wars for empire and resources, disguised as this "war against terra." Yet you're falling for that sucker's line. Sucks to be you in that case, gullibility is not a positive personality trait.

None of your cliches, jingoistic or otherwise are newly created, just churned out like, well, cliches.

sorry!

Obama is playing chess. By keeping Gitmo open, expanding Bagram, asserting absolute government immunity in warrantless wiretapping suits, killing more people in Afghanistan with more drones, supporting indefinite detention he is actually working to close Gitmo and Bagram, to reestablish the fourth amendment, ending the war in Afghanistan and to restore due process. Who knew pushing the accelerator in your car when you are moving toward a brick wall would actually make you stop!!! Stupid me. The next time I want to lose 10 pounds, I will eat more and exercise less. I get it!!!! Doesn't this smell like Orwell?

:puke:

Christ, you had to go back to Agnew to get that gem.

I won't say to you what we used to say to him because I try to follow the rules.

damn interwebs!

And yet the amazing tent sure does shrink when it comes to hear the grievances of liberals.

"Love or leave it" the last time I heard that was from a republican. Ain't that a bitch.

They sure did love that "big tent" back then plenty of room to get those elephants in, now they are in so they act as if they own the place.

will never say anything else I find worth listening to.

That's some sick jingoistic shit.

union, gay,contributing Democratic Party member like me. It is rather insulting, I will write in, and leave, before I'll settle with "you have no where else to go so STFU". They have already lost my voice and my money, now they send in newbys to insult me. Good luck with that I say.This GayTM is closed.

... the far right are idiots and progressives are basically correct.

What is so hard to figure out here?

n/t

driven by conservative media talking points.

another duh

How about over time Obama's lack of integrity and service to the monied and MIC over people is becoming ever more appalling?

I would rather get the Democratic party get those that have co-opted traditional Democratic values out of the party.

When I voted for and gave money to Obama, I expected a move back towards the Democratic values of my youth not neo-liberal wet dreams.

I suppose it's to be expected from someone whose avatar is showing its ass.

supports which of those statements?

Less Evil



I don't agree with everything in the Democratic platform either but I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket in every election for the foreseeable future.

is more like it.

seems pointless to me. We need to turn the damn car away from the cliff. The DLC branch of the Democratic Party, which is in full control right now, seems to have no urge to do so.

We need another alternative.

and if you have another alternative I would be happy to consider it


Maybe if we had more consistent support for Democrats then there would be room to move to the left as a party


Since we always seem to turn on each other it becomes necessary for Democratic politicians to garner support from the middle.


Maybe it would simply be better to not drive 100 miles an hour and then complain about the dangers of doing so.

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

in before Delete!

And humble at the sight of your superior understanding of life.

So . . . that's something.

That, my friend, is a step up!

It never happened. Got a screen cap?

but if one has to explain them then neither are they jokes.

than ever. Thanks for asking.

Spoken like one who isn't a teacher, one who doesn't give a damn about the wars, civil liberties, the LGBT community or anything else besides just winning one for the party.

In other words, another short sighted person who doesn't give a damn about the plight of others.

And, yes, the party has forgotten us.

We are all in this together, and if teachers and gays and peace people would remember us, then we could work together.

As it is, its everyone for themselves, and that isn't working out so great.

NO to regulations on the banking gangsters, NO on unemployment extensions, NO on health care for all, NO to job stimulus, NO to campaign finance Disclose Act, NO to higher BP & oil companies financial responsibility, NO to everything....Stifling Dems with filibustering because of the 60 votes "super majority" bullshit!

But republicans certainly say YES to deficit raising tax cuts to the very rich, YES to deficit raising wars for corporate profits (corporations still making billions of dollars off these republican wars) republicans saying YES to deficit raising bailouts to corporations & deregulation, allowing corporations to pollute, cheat and collude with no oversight allowing their corporations to do as they please.

It will be more of the same if we are apathetic as Dems were in 1994

Rather than this faux filibuster bullshit, force the 'Pugs to pull an all night, pee-in-a-cup and talk 'til your blue in the face filibuster, while you use the bully pulpit to beat them about the head and shoulders for obstructionism. Then see how long they last, how much they will keep saying no.

Meanwhile, it is the president whose initiatives have threatened my profession, my life, have continued these wars and are threatening my lifestyle. That's all on a Dem, no 'Pugs needs.

Allowing the republicans a chance, a better chance to assume the majorities in Congress - Yes, I have my complaints, many the same as yours, but I also see the bullshit especially in the Senate with republicans who pretend to be democrats, Lincoln, Nelson, Conrad, Baucus and asshole Lieberman who votes in the Dem caucus...All I can do is vote for the most liberal progressive candidates offered to me in my state and I won't sit home and not vote....I see no point in making it easier for the republicans to change the good things that have come into law with the Dems in the majority and many good bills that are still being proposed....Why take it all away from the many good fighting democrats who continue to speak out and try?

We had 20 years of republican presidency in the last 29 1/2 years, (and 28 republican presidency years in the last 41 1/2 years) - 14 recent years of republican rule in Congress (as well as a 5-4 republican majority in the Supreme Court, that still exist) not to mention the corporate media and the power of & money of the corporations who run this government....change aint gonna happen without a long hard fight and we can't just give up!

It's like the Tao: "The opposite of a great truth also is true."

But, it's not.

Personally, I'm in favor of taking over our Party and having it stand for all that makes us Democrats:

Democracy for All.
Peace for All.
Justice for All.
Liberty for All.
Equality for All.
Excellent Public Education for All.
All Working for the Common Good.
Economic Justice for All.
Universal Health Care for All.
Jobs and Unions for All Workers.
Care, not just Compassion, for All of the Less Fortunate
Good Government, applied to make life better for ALL Americans.

The list goes on with specifics. Democrats know them when they hear them.

I say we Stand and Fight.

Exactly.

Are you a dead ender?

Hope you like President Palin.

He got handed a LOT to do, but you're so impatient.

He looks dreamy in those bathing trunks, isn't that enough for you?

Its only been almost 2 years, why so impatient?

We'll get to you, but we have more important things right now.


and

so

forth

:shrug:

we find ourselves in today. More and more I think the Dems are here to provide just enough scraps to us that we don't revolt. The Dems could have filibustered either Roberts or Alito, but they chose not to. Yet the Republicans filibuster just about everything. The Dems expect us to vote for them out of fear of what Republicans will do, not because Dems are good, they are just better than Republicans. I'm tired of voting based on fear - that's what Republicans do.

Just like they did before!!!


Oh wait...

from first appearances.

How about a couple PROGRESSIVES.

but imagine trying to get one confirmed by the Senate. The Blue Dogs would instantly turn tail and act like repukes.

Still and all, Sotomayor is not "another Kennedy", and I doubt Kagan will be, either.

their committee chairs and sit down and shut up as we are told to do

i get too pissed off to word it as eloquently and thoughtfully as you did but I feel the exact same way! The Dems are more and more like Republicans - who I can't stand - all the time. Why would I want to vote for that? Because they try and scare us with dingbats like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin if we don't vote Dem? Sorry Dems - we need to have faith in yall, and right now many of us just plain do not - and for all the good reasons listed by Madhound.

you appear to be giving up on the Democratic party? Yes, there are fringe parties, Greens, Naderites, Lieberman's Party of Lieberman, etc.

You have listed some valid reasons for your dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party. Who or what party would address your issues.

:shrug:

The point is to develop critical mass to build a viable alternative. (Meanwhile, I support people pushing the DP from within.)

labor issues? When was the last time you can remember Democrats as a party stand up for the workers of America. And not just Unions, but all workers.

:shrug:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-5276927.html

With "friends" like these, who needs enemas?

RL

who are asking the same questions, and getting largely the same rather unsatisfactory responses.

Yes, the Republicans are scary ... oh, man, are they scary ... and the Tea Baggers would be hilarious if they weren't so vicious. But I envy them in this regard ... they have banded together to energetically engage in the political processes of our times. They have an actual movement, even though its organization and funding cannot quite be described as being grass roots in nature.

This is democracy in action ... politicians will lead only if the people tell them where to go. So far, we have not been nearly as effective at banding together and MAKING folk at least listen up. We have to make it clear that kowtowing to the Fox News crowd is guaranteed to produce disgust, anger and primary challenges. I would hope we would remain more reasonable and less doctrinaire than the right wing nut jobs ... but we need to be just as vocal and definitive about our principles and purposes.

Forever wars, a crumbling middle class, flash flood style erosion of civil liberties, a never ending series of betrayals that enrich the elite and suck the country dry ... yeah, I'm tired of it.

But until we can get enough people to agree to a broad vision, and sign up for it, and who passionately advocate for it ... what we have is the best we are going to get. Voting Republican or simply not voting won't make it better.

Voting Republican, or simply not showing up to vote, is a lot like committing suicide to avoid being killed.

So for the moment, that is my best advice ... but, hey, is there a way we can gather like minded folk to actually DO something?

Trav

And one of those candidates will win.

Do you care, or do you believe that whoever the Republicans put up will not make things any worse?

Don't support anyone. No one can make you go to the polls.

But elections WILL go on.

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

but you will get some push back on a site called Democratic Underground.

Meanwhile, in real life, real live Democrats are threatening my career, my life. I think that real life takes precedent over some political chatboard any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I didn't say it was a threat.

Some DUers might just reach right through your screen and...

and...

call you names and try to make you cry.

:rofl:

Real life DOES take precedent, and it's not looking great this year.

It is a gathering of people to try furthering some common ends.

Instead, what I'm seeing is a Democratic assault on my career, my life, almost everything I hold dear. So, you think that I should vote for those who have put me under assault? I should vote against my own self interests? Again, don't we think it is foolish when people do that with Republicans? Isn't it hypocrisy when we encourage people to do the same for the Democrats?

I can't see that being the case except for right wing nuts.

Which party will support you then? The Socialists? The Greens?