If, let's say, someone like Howard Dean, did start a progressive party...

...and was able to pull a few other progressives in with him, let's say someone like Bernie Sanders, and others, how many here would sign up, give money or volunteer to work for them?
With so many Americans (lately polled) 60% or better, against the wars, against tax-cut extensions for the wealthy, how likely would a candidate be to succeed in 2012?
Thoughts?

That's what the teabaggers did, and while their track record in the 2010 elections was mixed, they managed to lead the GOP by the nose.

I agree 100%.

from mainstream Democrats, then?

Just as it did in the mainstream GOP. Sarah Palin was first asking teabaggers to exercise restraint, and then she started actively courting them, IIRC.

Then there's Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who represents my district. He defeated a Tea Party candidate in the 2010 primary, only to turn around a couple of months later and rebrand himself as a teabagger.

I can see the same thing happening on our side of the aisle, given enough momentum.

and whine and moan and pull whatever dirty tricks were necessary to retain power.

We have run our politicians through a severe Darwinian selection for some really bad traits - skill at lying, sociopathy mislabeled as charisma, and above all else, ambition to rule.

let's break things up.

It's going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight, one that we shouldn't start until and unless we are prepared to win it. These people play for keeps.

There's an infrastructure and name recognition, even if it's now fairly tarnished.

Why not steal the dirty tricks of the other team?

I think that the teabaggers are probably the majority of voters during mid-term elections. That's why they "led their party by the nose." I think that's the ONLY reason. We would lose the Presidency if we did that, in a general election. We'd split the vote.

I was very disappointed at the way he and his voting base were treated in the past.

So, would he want to start a movement to push Dems back closer to what most of here want them to do, though?

Alan Grayson would be a great mover in that direction, but it was claimed he had an abrasive quality, although I don't really know.

Because I am sure that Obama will our nominee in 2012 and we don't need to split the party. Nor do we want our voters to fall into that 'no labels' bunch.

Democrats have a platform for what we need that exists in many of our hearts and those progressives we have been able to put into office across the country.

We should not discount that; I know we don't in my area.

But I would love to see Dean take an active public role. I know someone who knows him personally and sees him when he can. I'll ask if he knows if Dean is thinking about it.

I would argue that our platform needs a lot of work, though, and if Obama does face a primary challenger, let's hear out both candidates and make our decision based upon the best evidence.

Let me know if you hear anything. Thanks! :hi:

He's a very busy government employee who travels a lot. I'm saving ththe link to your question to relay anything I hear to you by posting here again.

I don't know how the Inbox system here works yet or any of that.

I did read Dean's firm support of Bernie Sanders on the website link higher up in this thread, but that website is very quiet.

Just got a message back from my contact.

Howard's younger brother is more involved now. But he said Dean will not be running for anything, says that is for the new generation.

But he will help with other candidates who are progressive and rally the troops anywhere if invited to do so, and has been doing that in many place, even the UK.

And my friend says that Kaine needs to replaced as DNC chair by a progressive like Howard.

So it's up to us, and believe me, I know how hard it is to get the leadership to listen. Even losing elections doesn't seem to faze them!

Good on Jim for sticking with it, too. :hi:

It's called Democracy for America. http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

H2O man is right, try for a tea party type insurrection within the party.

I'm trying to shake things up. I think most Americans are getting bored with this two-party crap.

the "Progressive" party. Then the Republicans win.

It is simple math.

Look how much the teaparty got out of the Republicans. No reason a similar movement could not happen inside the Dem Party

If people are pissed enough, it's do-able (even though reclaiming the Democratic Party is a better option IMHO).

I like the Honest Abe connection/angle.

.

2) Regardless of the answer to #1, why does this not interest you?

How well did they do? Any other questions?

I'm talking about a REAL third party.

differ from the Greens - in policy that is.

Things have changed considerably since then. Mainly, Democrats not happy with the leaders of their own party. Sorry, but I never considered the Greens all that valid. I've been a card carrying Dem for 25 years and I have just pulled my head out of my ass. I'm hoping we can pull the best thinking, clear minded progressive Dems out, or in the case of Bernie Sanders, in. Sometimes the only solution is to walk away, and try something new. And, I am optimistic that we can achieve such a thing. I'm tired of towing the company line just because it feels safer. I'm ready to risk it.

I didn't say I wanted it to be the Greens. Don't you have any faith in our ability to recreate ourselves into something better?

Dr. Dean to the rescue.

Democratic party.

Really--I hate to say it, but Google is your friend.

Doesn't sound like you're all that interested in learning something. :shrug:

Are you kidding me? I was involved with the Greens back in the nineties before they became a national party. I don't have to read their platform AGAIN.
I didn't think they would do anything more than steal votes away from Kerry back in 2004 (and I wasn't all that happy with his campaign either, which I worked on).
My point is, we need to find the best of what the Democrats have to offer as far as forward thinking, viable, progressive candidates are concerned. Then get behind them in the most forward thinking way.
If that means a new party, let's do it. A movement from within? Okay. I just don't think that will work. We'll just get what we got in 2008. Broken promises.

McKinney Secretary of State, and whole 3% of the population will vote for it. Hurray!!!:sarcasm:

for the progressives.

Howard Dean and Wes Clark. I miss both of those guys. Two straight up and competent people who know how to stand up to nonsense.

good mention. He's in.

Reinforcing a progressive coalition in the party is 1. Doable (build on existing coalitions), 2. More efficient politically (leverage DNC structures / constituents), 3. More effective nationally and regionally (again, DNC structures / constituents)and 4. Financially feasible.

fwiw, I suspect Dr. Dean would concur. 3rd Party promotion as a protest response to current Democratic policies is a self-defeating proposal, imho. :hi:

the Dems themselves have been self-defeating for 4 years now. Two wars they couldn't or wouldn't end (when clearly the majority of Americans want out). No public option. Tax-cut extensions for the wealthy when clearly ONLY the wealthy wanted them (though a few have said they didn't). Social Security now threatened. 10% (or better) unemployment retained. Estate Tax cut. No viable solution for climate change on the table. Americans earning power/personal worth declining. Foreclosures, foreclosures, foreclosures. Bankruptcy up for the middle class. Earnings and bonuses up for the rich. Shall I continue???

Howard does indeed concur.

Dennis Kucinich, for example, polled less than 4% in the primary, and Nader get less than that in the national election.

There's not a chance in hell of succeeding.

Howard Dean is a fine choice...or Wes Clark.

on both the response and the unrec.

Although I'd follow Grayson in a millisecond.

As much as people here don't like to admit it, most of the votes are in the middle. Splitting off the "base votes" at the left won't create enough votes to win on a national level, and will push more center votes over to the Republicans.

remember that the Repugnants march in lockstep and Dems don't. To start another splinter party just for the sake of change means that the liberal side of the country will be meaningless insofar as accomplishing anything meaningful.

Chase the 3rd party advocates out of the party. Want reform, do that inside the party making sure that our glorious incompetents listen to what we want to happen. Best case is that impeachment and single-payer would NOT have been taken off the table. Elect candidates who are not millionaires and/or do not hold themselves above the rest of us. Consider Franken as a possibility for president...he seems to be the only dem working for the electorate(perhaps the only one working period).

Change the party from the inside. Consider closing the primaries to registered Dems only. We don't need all the crap we have endured from 3rd party advocates for the last several elections. Where were all the Obama voters in the last election? They didn't show up.

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

And besides, he's a team player who knows how politics work.

But go ahead with your way-out-there dreams, it's a fun way to pass a winter day.

Julie

insurgent within the ranks of the Democratic Party, they have no clue as to what Dr. Deans politics are.

He is about as mainstream Democratic thought as they come.

they saw him to be exactly what they wanted him to be in 2003 and 2004. He is a good person and was a good, but very moderate governor of VT for 12 years. Kerry was to his left among the viable 2004 candidates and that is why Kennedy went so far out of his way to support him - and both were viable because they were enough in the mainstream to be so.)

What about that little issue called the Iraq War. Which by the way, is still going on.

http://www.icasualties.org/

Video: Dean reacts to capture news



As of August 2010: Withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Iraq and reduction of the number of bases from 357 to 94

Do you work for Fox news? How about posting the context, the date? Dec. 14, 2003, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Dean comments on this and the "OCCUPATION" of Iraq.
So what's your point? And American Soldiers are STILL giving their lives in Iraq!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/02/us-military-2-us-soldiers-killed-in-central-iraq/

you know exactly what my point was.

Please explain.

Kerry did vote for the IWR, but he spoke out in January 2003 about not rushing to war - and called it not a war of last resort. It was fair for Dean to use Kerry's vote, but the fact is that neither would have gone to war.

As to what they thought should be done Kerry was clearer and spoke in more detail - and it was clear that he would have moved to start leaving in 2005 - in teh debates he was mentioned the permanent bases and said he was against them. (In fact by 2006, Dean backed the plan of Reagan administration's Korb which spoke of staying another 2 years when Kerry and Feingold were speaking 6 months and shifted to one year to match what the Iraquis themselves said.)

I worked on both campaigns. Dean in 2003 and Kerry in 2004. I still say that Dean was always in the forefront, then, on the war debate because he clearly, and always opposed it from the beginning. That being said, Kerry had to do a lot of back stepping on this because of his initial vote. The Republicans used this against him (along with his own war record, which I am still baffled by). Dick Cheney dodged the draft five times. Funny what passes for patriotism in this country.

Dean in 2002 said he was for Biden/Lugar, which was the SFRC committee's version of a resolution -- that also would not have really prevented Bush from doing what he was going to do. This was Kerry's preference as well. There were talk show comments of each - and Dean was, if anything, the more aggresive of the two. On many Dean related sites that have links to his appearances, everything from summer 2002 until the end of the year were scrubbed. His side exaggerated how anti-war he was and spoke of Kerry as pro-war, even though he starting in 2002 spoke of a long list of things that should be done before war as considered. His vote was wrong - but it was given as he said to give Bush the leverage he needed in diplomacy and getting the inspectors in.

Dean's own preference, for a resolution would have been even easier for Bush to have violated. Here is what he said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.


HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879

(I can't find the FTN interview as it appears to no longer be on line. This is a link to David Swanson's post of many Dean statements. Swanson was a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org - so this should be an acceptable source for a quote that was in the mainstream media back in 2002.

An additional factor in Dean being seen as the only anti-war viable candidate is that Kerry missed the DNC event in February 2003 where Dean gave a strong anti-war speech - he was having cancer surgery at the time.

As to Kerry backtracking - he really didn't. He spoke in 2002 - early 2004, of Bush not going to war as a last resort and then rattled off a laundry list of things he didn't do. The phrase "last resort" means a huge amount - and is one reason my Catholic mother still does not like Kerry. If a war is not a last resort, it is not a just war. My WWII era mom took this to mean that Kerry was saying the war was immoral - which is exactly what he meant which can be seen in his Pepperdine speech on faith ( http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm )

The confusion was that Kerry continued to explain the reasons for his vote which were consistent, but it was easy for others (with the help of the press) to conflate the vote and the action of going to war - even ignoring that 5 months seperated them. In addition, there was a concerted effort by the Republicans to distort Kerry's position. In addition, the rhetoric of the primaries, where Democrats do exaggerate differences hurt as many disappointed Dean supporters believed the tough charges of Trippi that unfairly attacked Kerry as "Bushlite" and as a corporatist (though as even Nader saw that was not true of Kerry).

In the fall of 2003 and early 2004, I was for either Dean or Kerry - picking Kerry as I looked into their backgrounds and looked at their speeches. But, I would have been happy with either and worried that they would essentially knock each other out - leaving a centrist. One thing I was totally convinced of was that Kerry would not have led the country to war if he were President. This was not conjecture - this was based on a few speeches in January 2003 - that were strong enough that David Frum, writing in National Review, singled him out as someone who would never agree that they should go to war and that everything that could have been done was done.

Well-appreciated.

Not for what he really is. No difference from Dean. Just because Dean was against the war and is slightly more progressive on social issues, some here at DU are convinced that he's some "leftist." It's simply not true. Dean is very much a Democrat who will not do anything to destroy the party by dividing it.

"Just because Dean was against the war and is slightly more progressive on social issues"

Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war, and on social issues, Dean has been sounding a more progressive note of late, but he was never more progressive on social issues. All one has to do is take a look at his stance during the NYC Muslim community center issue.

also for civil unions, not for gay marriage. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

don't know his national stance on marriage, but do know he thinks civil unions are "okay enough".

I have a dream.

They would have to make up more than one third of the electorate to have any hope of winning rather than just enabling Republicans.

Leave it to the Republicans to suffer that fate. Then work from within the Democratic Party.

will ever be good enough.

:rofl:

I'm not sure what it is, other than possibly an unwillingness to look at his actual record and positions.

to believe that a third party would do, or be, any better than what we've got now.

Why?

Because we're dealing with human beings, who are imperfect and prone to things like greed and power-grabbing and corruption.


What makes anybody believe that a third party candidate would NOT be subject to doing a few shady, unappetizing, or even downright dangerous things?

Really.

I know it's nice to think that one's chosen candidate is a near-saint, but that's bullshit.

People believe what they want to believe, then when the object of their admiration/adoration turns out to be only human and falls off the pedestal and breaks promises, people are shocked and betrayed because they didn't take into account human nature.

Fast forward to October 2012. Presidential debate. Barack Obama vs Sarah Palin vs Howard Dean. Who wins?
(Doesn't really matter, I'd watch this one just for shits and giggles)

He'd be at home still wondering why he was invited to debate the President of the party that he wholeheartedly supports.

Look, I can't say I don't have the obvious issues with Obama (did when I voted for him, still do), but I don't get why you're so hung up on Dean. Dean's history would put him even further to the right than Obama, and even today, despite his crowning as the unwilling spokesperson for the disenchanted left, he still isn't much more than a run-of-the-mill moderate Democrat that happened to be good at giving exciting speeches. His policies (like Hillary's, another stupid personality cult that lead to just as many angry people) aren't all that out of whack with Obama's.

I was really trying to go for a little levity with this one. I'm not THAT hung up on Dean. I originally said, "someone like Howard Dean". I'm open to hear who else is out there that people think might make a good party front person. And, some interesting names have popped up. Thanks everyone! Any others???

That would be me, you, underpants, everyone on this thread, your Uncle Bob--well, everybody.

But let's not let that get in the way of your fun and games, right?

Dean isn't even anyone I consider progressive at all, and Sanders just talks a good progressive game - he still votes with Dems no matter how shitty and fascist the bill. There isn't a sole in the current political establishment that I consider to be really progressive and willing to buck the system - they're part of the rotten system we already have.

One of the biggest problems with 3rd parties in the U.S. is that they're underfunded, and can't mount an effective media campaign during an election cycle. Like it or not, most Americans are heavily influenced by the media presences of the candidates they're voting for.

The Green Party doesn't have enough money to run commercials, and consistently pull 1-3% in national elections. Ross Perot, on the other hand, mounted a well funded lone-wolf campaign in 1992 and single handedly pulled in almost 19% of the voters nationwide, blowing away this other third party counterparts. What made the difference? Perot ran television and radio ads constantly, in most markets across the country, and presented himself as a viable and well-funded candidate.

A new Progressive Party probably wouldn't win any major seats in its first go-round, but if it could pull enough funding to consistently run candidates year after year, it would probably find itself in a position to run for, and potentially win, the presidency after a decade or so.

So the question isn't whether Dead could pull together a party, but whether Dean could consistently pull in enough major donors to mount serious campaigns across the country every single year. If the answer was yes, then I'd absolutely support it. If the answer is no, then my support for the party would be reserved for the same types of votes as I currently give the Greens...they get my vote only when the Democratic candidate is so horrendously bad that I can't vote for them in good conscience.

Dean was at first a longshot, but raised a lot of money and support in 2003. Some of this was his stance on the war and some of it was state-of-the art fundraising, which Obama later tapped into. Dean knows how to raise money, that's why he was given the DNC chair.

Let's not get Palin elected.

move the party to a more progressive platform.

I'll be working for change.

than he really is. And Dean doesn't want a third party. He is a hardcore Democrat. And again, while he is slightly more progressive than Obama, he's not that much more.

party.

Obama at least in principle supports very stringent gun control (though he has the sense not to touch that with a 10 foot pole right now) and Dean doesn't remotely support that. Dean's also a lot less into the "community planning" kind of things like transit and green energy that Obama supports. And they've both criticized the "old guard" of the party for ignoring the possibility of market-based solutions in places where they (according to them) make sense.

However, we can't do it by always folding in behind the conservatives concerning policy when they threaten us or call us names in the press.

Party has exactly zero bearing on choices, it's politics and policy for me.

Electoral politics would be out of the realm of possibility until a movement took hold.

No one needs a third party: what we need is a representative and progressive party.