RWingers say JUMP and Democrats ask 'how high'?

[Q]

- Have you noticed that DUers (Democrats) spend more time discussing what RWingers say than what they do? This is how RWingers have been able to frame the debate and discussion...and they've been successful at it since the 80s.

- During the 80s and 90s...Republicans convinced Democrats that 'liberal' was a bad word...'forcing' many of them to call themselves 'new democrats', splinter off from the party and denounce traditional progressive tenets. The New Democrats became so afraid of the word liberal that they began attacking them in order to appease the RWingers.

- RWingers called Democrats who only wanted the votes counted in 2000 'sorelosermen'. Democrats succumbed to the belittling and thuggery and gave the election to Bush* in a demonstration of 'good faith'. Republicans laughed all the way to the White House and the bank.

- And then came 911. George* sat on his ass in a Florida classroom...giving the Saudis a free shot at America. Bush* and Cheney later covered up the Saudi's involvement and 'convinced' Democrats not to pursue any incriminating evidence to the White House before November....saying that it would help the terrorists.

- The whole world could see that George and Gang* were lying about the danger Iraq posed to the national security of the United States. But Democrats gave him the 'benefit of doubt' to keep RWing pundits and mean old Republicans from calling them 'unpatriotic' and unAmerican'.

- I'm wondering when Democrats will rise up and refuse to be played like a cheap fiddle when the RWingers call them names? When will Democrats stop altering their image and agenda to meet the expectations of the Right?

- Don't wince when Republicans call you a Liberal. Liberalism has a proud tradition in America...bringing our country the closest it has ever been to equal rights and justice. Liberals and like-minded Americans are the only thing that stands in the way of the Neocon / Neodem corporate state agenda and a government of, by and for the people. Don't allow the RWingers to scare you out of your principles and convince you that 'bipartisanship' is about giving to them and not getting anything in return.

[JHBowden]

1. I'm sick of the pussy crap too.

Whoopi makes fun of Bush, and all we hear is the Daschle "I'm deeply saddened" routine again.

The Republicans are ignoring Homeland Security for their gay marriage baloney, and we're apologizing for Whoopi Goldberg??? Meanwhile, Cheney (who *is* on the Republican ticket) is using foul language on the SENATE FLOOR!!!!! What the Cheney is wrong with our representatives?

:mad:

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Daschle needs to step down and make way for a progressive

who will take the fight to the RWers.

[SunDrop23]

70. Here here!

[K-W]

2. Blame the victim mentality

Republicans get to frame the debate because they have taken control of the media. You make it sound as if democrats let them do this on purpose. You arent really brigning up anything new here.

Democrats dont wince when they are called liberal, it just so happens that being called liberal has lost democrats elections. Democrats are the victims here, lets not blame the victims.

[Q]

7. Yes...the RWing HAS taken control of the media...

...and it's not about Democrats 'letting' them do it on purpose. It's about Democrats CHANGING and becoming more conservative to avoid being stereotyped as 'liberal'.

- Being 'liberal' hasn't lost any elections. Perhaps denying being liberal has lost elections?

- Here's how it works: Bush* and his RWing puppets call a Dem candidate 'too liberal' and 'out of touch' with mainstream values. The RWing media reinforces this lie by parroting the Bushies. Democrats respond by destroying and smearing candidates who proudly wear the liberal label....calling them 'too liberal' and 'out of touch' with mainstream values. Liberals end up fighting against both the Right and the new conservative left.

- Thus...both the RWingers and New Democrats have forced liberals out of the running and any chance of running for high office. The campaign to destroy liberalism in America is helped along by both parties. The Right pushes the propaganda and the Democrats respond by running 'less liberal' candidates. Republicans win.

[Selwynn]

44. Fuck Victim mentality

"Democrats" are the "victims" because they don't have a fucking spine. They are the victims becuase they let themselves be victimized. Democrats haven't actually TRIED standing by honestly to God LIBERAL convicions in ages - and the old argument about how we lost elections so we must run away from what's right are old and tired.

The game plan "new" Democrats have isn't working. It's capitualited complicently in an illegal and unjust war, in the destruction of civil liberties, in the coverup of depraved indiffernet negligence before 911, in the coverup of intelligence politicizing, in the screwing of the poor in this country though new tax laws, cuts in programs, etc. "new democrats" have done nothing but concede to everything the right could ever dream of. And guess what - its not because they are "victims" - its becuase those are THEIR GOALS AS WELL. Oh yeah, they frame it slightly differently, and they use different words, but there's little difference.

How do we stand up for the principals of liberalism that are morally right, and the best and only hope for the future of this nation? By doing it. How about a new game plan: since we're losing fucking elections anyway, let's lose them on the moral HIGH GROUND for a few times now. Let's stand up and boldly speak a message of liberalism, and not capitualte or give into anything the right does. Let's actually stand for something different than the other guys. And if we lose, then we lose on conviction and committment.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the Democratic party looking around to see which way the fucking wind blows and then trying to CHANGE ITS IMAGE to fit what it THINKS is "popular." If they public developed a fixation with Nazis, the DLC would be right there to find ways to make the Democratic party more Nazi like, probably calling itself the "NEW New Democrats." Give me a break. How about just for a while the Democratic party starts reclaiming the great tennats of just society that are embedded within the philosophy of liberalism and progressive ideals and fucking COMMIT to that message, win lose or draw.

Instead of running around AFTER the public, how about changing public opinion. Instead of saying "I want to lead you, now where are you all heading?" how about "I want you to following my leadership in this direction, because this direction is absolutely right. If that doesn't seem popular to you, let me tell you why YOU should change your mind."

How about trying to win the hearts and minds of the people right here at home to a better progressive way? Maybe we will lose and election or three - but the Republicans will absolutely fuck everything up in the meantime, because that's what they always do. The only difference will be that when people are sick and tired of it and looking for an alternative, THERE ACTUALLY WOULD BE ONE in the from or a strong oppositin democratic party committed to liberalism and progressive ideals - why? Because it is RIGHT.

[K-W]

46. Dems are the victims because corporations have more money than poor people

amongst other things. but keep on blaming the victims, it will help the progressive cause alot

[Selwynn]

51. Bullshit.

The Democratic party has just as much corporate ties and money.

Just look at our candidates - yeah, boy they are struggling poor people.

But hey, keep on bawling like a baby about how poor and abuse poor democrats are, because you know - that always attracts people. It's high time for Democrats to grow the fuck up.

[lovedems]

3. I agree.

When the RWers attack us for being liberal, we should be liberal in our response.

It should be pointed out that liberals have many different voices instead of talking points that conservatives have.

I was a little disappointed that the Kerry/Edwards campaign distanced themselves from some of the statements made at the New York fundraiser. Liberals cover a large spectrum and have many different voices. I would have preferred they aknowledge that and embrace it rahter then distance themselves from the views expressed.

Liberals have voices, not talking points. That is a good thing if you ask me.

[K-W]

4. Democrats are in danger of becoming marginalized.

It isnt quite as simple as this thread makes it seem. On one hand drawing a line in the sand and fighting for the liberal agenda may work, on the other it may play into the republicans hands as it has done many times before and allow them to paint Kerry/Edwards as radicals. It is false and unfair, but when the right wing controls corporate money and the media, they have an incredible advantage in controling the perception of the country.

[lovedems]

5. Intersting that you should say that.

My brother is a RWer and he always says that I am extreme in my political opinion. I finally told him last week, "Don't confuse my dislike of this pResident with extreme politics!!!!!!"

He makes an effort everytime we talk to marginalize me. I asked him the other day, "Are huge budget deficits a liberal or conservative idea? Is invading a sovereign nation a liberal or conservative idea? Is bigger government (the implication that the government has grown immensely under Bush) a liberal or conservative idea?" I had a few more examples but to keep this short, I will stop here.

He looked at me with the dumbass look that conservatives get when they can't answer your question. My point being, DO NOT MARGINALIZE ME because you don't agree with my politics! The old saying that an airplane needs two wings to fly, smacked of reality to my brother.

[K-W]

6. Its amazing what they have done through the media.

Liberalism was accepted as the right direction for this nation by almost everybody. Running against liberalism post FDR would have been laughable. Even Nixon had a fairly liberal platform.

America is liberal and liberal is mainstream, but through thier takeover of the media, the right wing has made it look like liberal is one extreme and movement conservatism is the other extreme. Throughout the news media movement conservatives are pitted against moderate liberals creating this appearance. True radical leftists dont have a mainstream voice.

[lovedems]

10. One more thing

My brother spouts the "With Kerry and Edwards you are getting the most liberal ticket ever" mantra. I asked him to look up on the internet WHAT it is that makes them liberal. I said you will likely find pro-environment votes, pro civil rights votes and smart gun law votes to name a few. I told him to look up and find out what makes them "liberal" and then make that argument to me becasue he is a father of 2 girls and I suspect that the votes that make Kerry and Edwards the evil liberals, are votes that he would agree with.

I am trying desperately to get him to understand that liberal is not bad. As a parent, he will find that Kerry and Edwards find the same things important that he finds important when it comes to the future of HIS daughters! I ask him, "Do you believe in a clean environment?" Yes. "Do you believe in smart gun laws?" Yes. "Do you believe that when your daughters go to college it should be affordable and financial assistance should be available should they need it?" Absolutely. Well, dear brother, think again before you accuse someone of being liberal as if it is a bad thing! He won't ever change his mind about being a conservative but if he stops bad mouthing liberals, then I have done my job.

Bear in mind, if my arguments to him seem simple, that is on purpose. He is a conservative who thrives on talking points so I have to keep it simple for now!

[Blue Wally]

36. If we define liberal as

the mainstream views of the Democratic Party, liberalism has a powerful following in this country. After the Goldwater meltdown in 1964, we were pretty much all powerful in the country. Why have we lost so much ground in the last forty years??


1. The intra-party squabbles and nasty rhetoric over the Vietnam War convinced too many Americans that we were soft on security and soft on defense.

2. The wheels came off of the Great Society in the economic trauma of the seventies. Not sure we have everybody back on economic issues.

3. Some of the loudest voices in our party trumpet real extremes of social change in the areas of affirmative action, gay and lesbian rights, feminism, and abortion that clash with moderates who don't hate, but who don't want those issues to be in their face.


In all of these areas, the GOP has exploited our divisions and our weaknesses.

[K-W]

37. good analysis

also, the movement conservatives learned to lie and use propaganda to wrap goldwaters extremism in a liberal looking package, ie compassionate conservatism

[Blue Wally]

59. Propaganda

To be effective must be based on the truth. It may be slanted, it may be biased, it may be half-truths, but there must be underlying truths. Unfortunately, the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and various party single interest groups provide ample ammunition for the attack machine to be used against the whole party.

[Q]

9. What about drawing a line and fighting for the DEMOCRATIC agenda?

- But you're right about the Right controlling the 'perception'. The CIA calls it 'perception management' and the RWingers know they can't do it without controlling a sizeable percent of the American media.

- This gives Democrats at least TWO ways to respond: They can fight back...sending out their own pundits and experts to DISPUTE and counter the distortions and misperceptions. Or they can do what they're doing now: AGREE that liberalism is bad for America and change their image and agenda to appear more 'conservative'.

- If it's all about 'perception'...why are many Democrats too afraid to change that perception instead of accepting the Right's stereotype?

[K-W]

16. Once again, you miss the cause

Liberal pundits ARE trying to get heard, they arent booked on shows.

Might I suggest you read David Brocks' 'Republican Noise Machine' it documents how the right wing has exploited the media and created thier own media.

The Left doesnt get to choose who goes on tv, the right does. This isnt a fair fight, so asking why the dems dont fight hard enough is the wrong question.

Now fighting back is probably the only thing to do, but dems ARE fighting back, you just dont get to hear them or see them because the media doesnt cover them and only airs republican spin. So have some faith that plenty of liberals are fighting, meanwhile dont get caught up on the democratic failures of the past, hindsight is 20/20. And always remember that dems and liberals are always doing way way more than you will see on mainstream media.

[Selwynn]

53. Yeah Dem's are fighting back.... doing a great job... for me to poop on.

Here's how a fight back would actually look, it would look like Democratic congressman and representatives saying FUCK NO to every republican agenda thing that they have fucking rubberstamped for years. It would start by congressmen saying - you know what, elect me, don't elect me, but what I am for is RIGHT, what they are for is WRONG and I'm not only going to say so every change I get, I am also going to VOTE so.

It would be congressmen taking the free airtime they already get and not pussy footing around in their pathetically lame way and being terrified to even say a critical word about the republcian agenda. It would start by candidates for offices standing on conviction rather than whichever way the wind blows and wining or losing on that. And we would lose some, but we would slowly start winning more - and whether we did or didn't, being right is more important than winning. It doesn't matter if you win if you govern like a fucking failure.

As far as the media goes - the media goes in WHICHEVER DIRECTION THE POWER IS. Half of the reason the media is so right wing is because democrats have been such a bunch of fucking pussies for so long and have allowed the right wing to totally exploit that and solidify a media hold. But guess what my friend, the media was not always that way, and it can change. You don't start taking the country back by waiting until the media perfectly reflects our liberal views and THEN start boldly standing up for whats right. You start standing up for what's fucking right first, whether the media is behind you or not - in congress, and every part of goverment, in every place there is an opportunity.

There are plenty of liberal and progressive media outlets on the biggest market in the world - the internet. But most of the Democratic party won't touch half of them. Why? Becuase they're scarred shitless of being labeled "liberal." That's the problem - the democratic party is full of spineless, sniveling, wormtounge like cowards who only want to win in whatever pathetic, half-assed way they can. What we need instead is democratic leadership of courage, committd to ideals that says, "we may lose some of our battles, but by God we will NEVER AGAIN shy away from what we believe to be morally right. We will never, never, never, never again allow anyone or anything else to coerce or intimiate us into making deals or changing our message away from that which we KNOW to be about justice and equality. We will not be quiet, we will not yeild, we will not sit idly by. Cover us in the media or don't, represent us fairly or don't, but we will never again surrender from the convictions we know to be right for the sake of trying to score political points. " I believe if we did that we may lose some battles, but we would ultimately win the war.

[Hoping4Change]

8. Liberalism's lost script.

Anyone who is frustrated with Liberals ducking that label will find the following article from Prosect provocative.

snip

John F. Kennedy demonstrated how deeply optimism had become embedded in liberalism; he was practically the physical embodiment of hope. But somewhere between Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, conservatism and liberalism changed places...



snip

(At one time) conservatism -- at least in its American incarnation --encouraged social Darwinism, economic rapacity, protectionism, a minimal government, self-reliance, and independence. For better or worse, people were to be left to their own devices without any interference...it was an ideology in which power and fate ruled.

snip

To the oligarchs...it legitimized economic and social inequities because these were, after all, the products of natural forces... To less well-heeled Americans, it had the virtue of seeming tough-minded and manly...


snip

It was liberalism that was idealistic and hopeful, liberalism that believed in our better angels. Liberalism has its roots in John Locke, with his faith in human possibility, and in William James and John Dewey, who thought man was less a passive victim of history than an active shaper of it.


http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7506

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. What do you expect the Democrats in Congress to do when they....

...are out-voted nearly every single time. What makes it worse is when certain "stealth-GOP" Democrats vote in favor of GOP issues.

Maybe the people to blame are the millions of potential voters that always have something else to do rather than register to vote, and/or the millions of registered Democrats that don't vote, and/or the millions of registered Democrats who vote for GOP candidates or Dem candidates that might as well be Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, I see your points and I agree with most of them, but the bottom line is getting out the vote, something that we Democrats have failed to do over the last couple of decades.

[Q]

15. I 'expect' them to do what the Republicans do...

...SCREAM and RANT and not let up until they get results.

- Republicans don't hold the majority because most of America agrees with their agenda. They're in the majority because of ruthless, relentless attacks against their opponents and NEVER GIVING UP when the chips are down.

- Democrats...rightly or wrongly...are PERCEIVED as not standing up for what they believe, giving in too easily to Rwing smear tactics and not fighting hard enough against Bush* / GOP corruption.

- How do we change this perception? Tell the Right Wing Smear Machine to f**k off, tell the people the truth about their government and never look back.

[K-W]

18. Go buy a media company then

this isnt a fair fight, so stop blaming the dems. They dont get to scream and rant, and they can scream and rant all they want, the republican party controls the votes. So the dems in congress have 2 choices

1. Scream and yell while the repubs do whatever they want

2. Use what little leverage they have to compromise alot to get at least a little say in waht happens

They rightly choose 2. It may not look brave, and it may not make angry people happy with them, but its the best choice for the country.

[Selwynn]

45. Amen, Amen, Amen yea and Amen!

[unfrigginreal]

63. Fucking A!

:thumbsup:

[ShaneGR]

12. Ok Ralph

Whatever you say.

[Q]

13. I like your debate style...

...right to the point and irrelevant.

- Don't you find it at least weird that even Democrats are smearing (Democratic) liberals? Take a look at the DLC website...they use the same rhetoric as the RWing Republicans to characterize liberals as unwanted and unneeded in now 'conservative' America.

- I'd like to know why the 'new' Democrats are smearing liberals and denying them a voice or a place in Democratic politics?

[K-W]

19. Easy

They have bought the republican myth that america is more conservative, its hard not to when republicans win so many elections. Therefore they fear that liberal dems will sink the party.

Thier motives are semi-good, they are just very misled. Unfortunately with corporate control the way it is, pro-corporate dems get resources to keep leverage in the dem party.

[Hornito]

14. Especially sickening, was a question put to senators Clinton,

Biden, Schumer, Daschle, and others, yesterday, about whether they still stood behind their votes to invade Iraq, despite yesterday's report on the CIA and their defective information. All stated that they would still vote the same (ie: to support Bush and the neocons' lies).

What the hell is it with these supposed Democrats? Is anyone else as furious as I am with the supposedly "progressive" Mrs. Clinton, who, in fact, is really a DLC war hawk in liberal's clothing? Queen Hypocrite.

At the bottom of it all, and probably Kerry's vote as well, is this group's unstinting and unquestioning support for Israel. Vote after vote, these people have sided with Israel, and do her bidding in our Congress. Israel wanted the invasion in the worst way, and used all methods and chicanery at its disposal, to pressure our Congress to vote for this phony-ass war.

I am as sick to death of weak, corrupt, candy-ass Democrats, as I am the Repugs. I am also sick of people of dual loyalty (hello Lieberman, Schumer, King, and others...), subverting our nation, to the point of encouraging it to participate in illegal wars. These people are betraying our country, and its Constitution. If it were up to me, they would, one and all, stand trial for treason, right along with the Bush cabal.

[K-W]

20. I am sick of people on this forum exagerating

There is a real problem here. But the problem is neccessarily the people and you certainly arent helping by calling people hawks who arent hawks.

From now until the end of time politicians are going to be politicians. They are going to hedge thier bets, they are going to protect thier asses, and they are going to be stuck in the washington echo chamber.

Hillary Clinton is not some radical progressive, if she was she wouldnt have power. Without dems who will play the politics game and run to the middle we would live in a facism because no liberal would ever get elected.

Clinton will go where she thinks she needs to to get and keep power. It is our job to convince her and make it possible for her to get and keep power by being more liberal. She will be what we and this country make her.

[Hornito]

21. Your lame excuses are exactly why the Democratic Party is

where it is today. Have any of you ever heard of fighting?, and I mean fighting!, for principals? The Repugs do it, and look what they've got.

What you're saying, is that Clinton, and others, simply abandon principal for power. And they want my vote? Fuck em'. And as far as Clinton being a hawk goes, may I suggest you review her voting record before you defend her? Her voting record speaks for itself, unlike your baseless assertions.

[K-W]

24. You are exactly the reason the dem party is conservative

The party believes that the far left is too hard to please and that the sacrifice of moderate votes would be too high to please the far left. And when I see posts like yours where you unfairly judge dems I wonder if they might not be right.

The Republicans didnt get where they were by fighting, they got where they were by lying and cheating. Now if you arent going to allow democrats to play politics, and be misled sometimes what good are you as a constituant? How can clinton risk moderate votes to court your vote when at the slightest hint of moderation or hedging her bets on a war vote you call her a hawk?

[Hornito]

27. As I said YOU , and others who think like you, ARE the problem

with the decline of the Democratic Party. I have been a Democrat for almost 40 years. I am liberal, as the Democratic Party used to be, when it was strong, and kept to its principals.

When you have walked as many precincts as I have, and worked as many elections, then perhaps you might understand the sense of betrayal I have towards those who have hijacked our Party.

IT'S ALL ABOUT PRINCIPALS. NO PRINCIPALS, NO PARTY.

[K-W]

34. You just make a bad situation worse

The democratic party refuses to lose elections just to please your principles. The movement conservatives have made it exceedingly difficult for a liberal dem to get elected to nationa office. Thus national office dems are afraid to be liberal.

The only way to fix this is for us to organize and work to change that condition in electoral politics. If we did that we could fix the problem.

You only make things worse. Dems lost big, they dont control a single branch of government, they are scared and hurt. If we stand by them, and work to fight the conservatives, the party will correct itself. If we abandon the party, we only help the conservatives keep control and keep the democrats running scared.

You want the dems to stand and fight for you, fine, why dont you stand and fight for them?

[Hornito]

39. Listen schmuck, as I said, I've been a fighting Democrat for

almost 40 years, and am out there fighting for the Party in upcoming election as well, so who the hell are you to tell me what I should and should not do? Why don't you tell us exactly what you've done to support our democracy, and our Party?

Your responses are indicative of EXACTLY why the Dems are out of power now. They gave up the fight, and let themselves be steamrolled by the Repuglians. I am not ashamed to be, or say, I am a liberal. You could be a poster-person for the DLC.

And for your information, there ARE more liberals in this nation, than conservatives. You believe otherwise, then you have been brainwashed.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Name-calling is really going to help you sell your agenda, isn't it?

[Hornito]

49. As least I'm fighting, which is more than I can say for some.

I am so sickened and frustrated by those who suggest that we should abandon our morals and our principals, and still think we should be a Party that deserves the support of this nation.

I am convinced, that the number one reason, above RW media control and all the rest, that we face what we do today, is weakness, and our leaders' failure to go toe-to-toe with the Repug fascists.

Hopefully, this will change. Hopefully, Kerry/Edwards will soon realize (I think they already know), that the gloves have to come off, and stay off.

[K-W]

48. Then why have democrats labled as liberals LOST elections

keep on living in your dream world, im done discussing this with someone as intolerant as you

[Hornito]

50. I am "intolerant".................. Intolerant of bullshit.

n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

55. That's easy.

Because so called Democrats have enabled the fascists to take over the media. Or do you think that all those media deregulation bills would have passed without Democrats? If you want answers look no further than pussy boy Daschle. Sure the repugs lie and cheat but that's how they fight. Do you think anybody ever called LBJ (as bad as he was in some areas he never shied away from being called a liberal), RFK or FDR spineless? Hell no. We need more Paul Wellstones and less Joe Bidens. That's my 2 cents.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. The NeoCons control the media and the message that gets to the public....

...and that's the bottom line in this debate. If you don't have any way of getting your message out, how do you expect to win any of the debates?

I've been a Democrat quite some time myself, but unlike you, I've kept up with the times. When we were young, the parties competed on pretty equal footings. With the purchasing of our once-objective press by major conservative corporations, the message getting to the public began to slip rapidly to the right.

Additionally, the majority of Americans don't understand that the media is controlled by the rightwing. They believe that they are getting good information vis the newspapers, magazines, and television.

The solution IMHO is to gain control of at least 50% of the media, and that takes a pile of money and influence. Kerry and Edwards seem to have broken the code for raising money in huge amounts...maybe times will change.

[Hornito]

43. Good points on the media, and as a retired editor/publisher, I

can testify to your assertions. BUT, media or no media, if our Party cannot stand up for its principals, then it means nothing. History has had many who labored under adverse circumstances, but they still triumphed because they stuck to their principals, and never gave up the fight.

[Q]

29. But they 'run to the middle' and stay there...

...promoting ever more conservative politics.

- The New Democrats promote the 'Clinton way'...which has more concessions than tradeoffs or give and take. We're losing the fight against those who would reverse decades of progress in the areas of....accountable government, free and fair elections, civil rights, women's rights, environmental protections...and using our military to protect our nation...not fight battles for the elite.

- The Democratic leadership has become more conservative...not because that's what Democrats/Americans want...but in RESPONSE to RWing rhetoric and negative stereotypes of traditional Democratic values and principles. Instead of defending those principles...we CHANGE THEM to suit the opposition.

[Q]

22. There is definitely wide-scale denial going on...

...and the Iraq 'war' is the focus. But this is exactly how the Vietnam war continued on past any sort of reason or logic.

- A 'war' like Iraq doesn't happen and continue unless both parties are on board. Although neither Dems or GOPers would admit it in public...WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS for those who contribute to their campaign coffers. Want to run for President of the United States? Then you have to denounce liberalism and present an agenda that doesn't offend the military/industrial establishment.

- Comeon people! Your government is for sale to the highest bidder. They regularly trade campaign cash and corporate favors for legislation. Is this the kind of government you want?

[ecstatic]

23. excellent point

I believe that's why many from our party rejected Dean, although I'm long over it now. Go Kerry & Edwards!

[marlakay]

25. What they have that we don't is more unity

I notice reading on most dem boards that every one has their idea of how it should be and the only thing that unifies us now is voting for Kerry. Other than that, its my issue is more important, or my way of speaking out, or if the politicians would just do it right.

Reading everyone ranting and raving doesn't get us anywhere when you look at their side and other than a very few who don't like Cheney, they stand together on a list of crap that is soo unbeleivable!

Rant and rave about Bush and I agree totally, but I have a hard time with dems who rant and rave about other dems. This is our chance to take over and if for no other reason everyone should get together and support other dems and vote for them so we WILL have more strength in congress and the house.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. I'm all for voting Kerry and a blue Hill in this fall, but

I will be working very hard on convincing them to do something about major election reform.

[Hornito]

31. Me too!

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Keep an eye on my website. I'll be putting up

either petitions or mailing forms so that folks can send out letters to our head honchos on the subject. :D

[K-W]

30. People want ideological purity, but we dont have the system for it

If we had a proportional representation system, then we could all support only parties and politicians that we liked fully. Unfortunately we have a system that only allows a few parties to have power, so these parties have to be broker parties. It means that parties will always be moderate in tone and very very hesitant to take risks.

It also means that the way to get your issues in a platform is to support a party and work to get power within the party, not to abandon parties and sit around sulking.

The system sucks, but its the only system we have right now, and the best way to get progressive ideas in government is to vote democratic and work to get power in the democratic party. This is exactly how the movement conservatives got power in the republican party. They proved thier ability to get people elected, so the party embraced them.

If we can prove our ability to get democrats elected, then the dem party will ditch the dlc and knock down our door. So far the only faction that has had significant electoral success is the DLC, so the party leans towards them.

[Q]

66. Purity? I'll settle for honesty and integrity...

- This 'ideological purity' argument has been around at least as long as the DLC. It's been used since the 90s to rationalize spliting the party in half and chastize those who won't play ball with the 'new' democratic agenda.

- Is it 'purity' to expect the party to support traditional democratic principles? Is it purity to expect our values not to be watered down to the point where they're difficult to distinguish from the opposition?

- You sound alot like the real conservatives BEFORE their party was taken over by RWing zealots and neocons. They thought they could take their party back too...but there was too much money and power on the neocon's side and moderate Republicans were pushed out.

- That's exactly what's happening to the Democratic party: liberals and progressives are being pushed out and replaced with those who support the 'new democratic' agenda.

- Where will the liberals and progressives go if they can't find a voice in the Democratic party? They'll find third parties (after November) and many of the rank and file Dems will go with them. That leaves the Neocons and the Neodems to fight for the so-called swing vote.

[senseandsensibility]

26. Very well written and convincing!

;-) Thank you for taking the time to put into words something that I think many of us feel inside. We don't hear this from our Democrat politicians or "liberal" journalists, except in very rare cases. But it is so true that it could literally mean the difference between our side winning or losing in November. I hope all DUers take your message to heart. And keep this kicked,please!:yourock:

[Catt03]

32. I think I am past all the blame

This election is unlike any that we have ever experienced. The Bush "government" has changed everything; culture, law, environment finances....everything. Nothing is as it was in the 90's and before and will not be again

In reality, I believe the world has changed...forever...due to the polices of this administration. This fact is much bigger than what the Democrats did or did not do; what the press contributed or submitted to.

First we have to try to save the democracy. I do not think there will be any room for repairs. It is as though we have to start all over again and it will take years to to just stabilize this country and the rest of the world in relation to the United States.

I guess we could scream and shout at all those who did not have the insight to do something or to punish each contributor to the destruction but I think that is just a waste of time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Bingo. Concentrate on the fight in front of us, win that....

...and THEN make the necessary changes.

[Q]

56. What's in FRONT of us isn't 'winning'...

...but taking back our government and restoring Democratic values.

- It's NOT a democratic value to wage unprovoked wars on countries that can't defend themselves or that haven't threatened our national security. Yet...the Dem Leadership now seemingly accepts not only HOW we got into Iraq...but 'staying the course' and installing democracy at the point of a gun.

- The types of changes our country needs to survive can't 'wait' for political expediency.

[Q]

42. It's not about 'blame'...but about TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

- The Bush* government CAN'T 'CHANGE' ANYTHING without the direct or indirect cooperation of the Democratic leadership. You make it sound as if all these changes took place under the noses of the Dems and without their knowledge or complicity. That's just not true. Democrats need to take at least SOME of the 'blame' for helping to establish the corporate slush fund called 'homeland security' and the Constitution-destroying 'Patriot' Act.

- But instead of taking responsibility for helping to set up the conditions for Bush* to wage aggressive war against Iraq...they now all fall into lockstep and agree that invading/occupying was a good idea. In other words...they're participating in the LIE in order to win a seat or two at the table of power. Is it worth selling out the people?

[Catt03]

54. So you do not believe the Democats in Congress when they say

they did not have all the information and if they HAD they would not have voted for the war?

[Q]

57. There doesn't seem to BE many of this type of Democrat...

...because most (if not all) of the leadership seems to agree that they would have invaded anyway.

- But they DID have all the information. When they first took office...even the Bushies admitted that Iraq was powerless to threaten us or their neighbors. There was no 'new' intelligence to prove otherwise...which is why the Bushies had to INVENT reasons to attack.

- Even the Dem leadership knew one thing to be true: that it was Saudi Arabia...not Iraq...that helped terrorists attack the US on 9-11.

[VolcanoJen]

35. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!! Thank you, Q!

I've been furious all morning, watching the media report that the Edwards Bounce is non-existent because of the homoerotic smears and the Whoopie Goldberg joke.

Why is it that we refuse to take our own side in these kinds of arguments? Why are we so afraid to confront these Lee Atwater tactics, and call a smear a smear???

I'm fighting, even if our party won't.

[Q]

52. RWing pundits equate 'fighting back' with 'wild eyed liberalism'...

...and it seems to be working. This is why we have to say NO MORE. Let's stop acting like Povlov's dogs who run away ever time we're attacked with words that stereotype.

- We're called 'baby killers' because we believe in a woman's right to choose. We're called heathens and Godless because we believe in the separation of church and state. We're called 'environmental extremists' if we protest the raping of our planet and the elimination of regulations and protections. We're called 'sore losers' if we complain about election fraud and want every vote counted.

- But being called these things shouldn't sway our resolve or force us to alter our agenda. We fight for these things because we believe in them. Not fighting for them is giving up on decades of struggle.

[Selwynn]

47. I'll take some of whatever he's having! Absolutely right on all counts.

[Q]

58. "Are Kerry and Edwards Lovers"?

- That's what passes for 'debate' these days. I hope that more Democrats come to the realization that perpetuating this type of smear only helps Bushie Republicans deflect debate about the way they're running this country and destroying democracy itself.

[KoKo]

61. Q, there's not much to debate these days.. Kucinich is going to bring

his recommendations to be put into the Party Platform, and his activists are out there pushing it forward by getting petitions out to the public at every event. There are "forces at work" out there, even for organizing a "Progressive Wing" of the Democratic Party here in NC. They already had a convention and are trying to get support to run their own candidates against the NC "DINO's."

Most of it's going on "underground" and folks don't really want to get into discussions much here like we used to. I think the "Plame Thread" that's ongoing is a good sign. It's easier to talk about Kerry and Edwards being "gay lovers" because it's what the cables focus on. And, it's important to know some of this, but it does get out of hand so that we look like we are just some arm of CNN/FOX/MSNBC sometimes.

But, it's hard to debate what Kerry and Edwards are proposing because so many of us here have some disagreements with their stance on Iraq and some other things that it gets into a "Flame War."

I know what you mean but don't know how to change it "out there" or in here. At least in here there is INFORMATION....out in Media Land there's no where for the Democrats to be heard except on C-Span where they do rail against the Repugs...but it's never picked up by the Mainstream Media. :shrug: Just my opinion.

[Q]

62. The Democratic leadership...

...doesn't WANT their true message to be heard because it would TURN OFF most or all of the voter base. They're not very CLEAR on Iraq because they want essentially what Bush* wants...including military bases and to use Iraq as a 'staging area' for other incursions.

- Can a 'movement' change the direction of the Democratic party? Probably...if you have a couple decades to spare. After November...the ONLY way to change the party is to refuse to vote for those who espouse anti-democratic ideals and think that Democratic principles can be horse-traded or compromised.

- The cold, hard facts are right in front of us. There are really TWO Democratic parties. The half in control right now is spearheaded by the DLC. Just like the RWingers...THEY want to put an end to discussions about war, progressive government and the patriot act.

[KoKo]

67. I agree....and here in NC, I'm trying to ally myself with the "Progressive

Wing" of the party. But it will take awhile...maybe not decades but A decade to see the change.

I watched the Nader/Dean debate on C-Span today. The one thing they agreed on was that the Dem Party has made the same mistake over and over of going for the "swing vote" and have left there base behind. That was what they agreed on. Dean said, after Kerry is elected that was what needed to be focused on..the base and bringing party back to it and he said that he and Nader would agree on that, but that it was too important to get Bush out to focus on it now.

I think "change is in the wind." But, the time for change was after Selection 2000 and if that wasn't a "wake up call" then the "Mid-term Election" loss diaster for sure was a signal that the Dem Leadership was "out of touch" with the base. But, they didn't listen and we are where
we are today, and we have to hope against all hope that it works to give us time to get that base in power.

It's all we can do unless we just drop out...I guess. :shrug:

[Q]

60. Glad to see...

...there are so many 'liberals' remaining in the 'party of the people'.

- It should go without saying that we have a duty to country and party to try to vote Bush* out of office in November. Whether Bush* or Kerry wins shouldn't temper our resolve.

- It's a battle of corporate welfare versus social welfare. Of women's choice. Of worker's rights. Of education and health care for all.

- I believe that liberals/progressives can bring the party back to where the people want it: working for them.

[BlueScreen]

64. Timely in light of yesterday's vote on the House floor

in which the amendment concerning library and bookstore privacy was deadlocked, due, in part, to splinters among the Democratic Representatives.

The Dems have to stop allowing the Republicans to frame the issues.

My real worry is that after winning the election this year, all of this new-found unity on the Left will melt away without George W. Bush there to unite everyone against him.

Cheers,
Sagar

[Q]

65. Actually...the amendment passed...

...and GOP party bosses held the vote open until they were able to intimidate enough REPUBLICANS to change their votes. The amendment had the majority it needed until the far right wingers used their tactics of coersion and threats to change the outcome in their favor.

- Democrats DID complain the last time the Republicans did this to them on the medicare scam vote...but they shouldn't have allowed them to do it again without storming out of congress and orchestrating a mass protest against the anti-democratic forces in both houses.

[Chili]

68. can we just win this election first...

...and bash each other's brains out later?

Meant to add,...Koko, I agree with what you said completely. Reach out to the base NOW... win the election - then inform the public and change direction of the party once we have the power to make those changes stick. We can't do anything until we win.

[Q]

69. No 'brain bashing' going on here...

...but glad you joined the DISCUSSION.

- Those who now control the Democratic party...the New Democrats...have no interest in 'reaching out to the base'. If they're reaching out at all...they're reaching out to the same corporate interests as the Republicans. Blacks, workers and social welfare have no more of a chance in a New Democratic administration than a Republican one.

- May I say that you're naive if you think you can change the party AFTER they get the White House? In 2008 we'll be told that we can't promote a progressive agenda because Democrats must hold on to the White House. The party bosses will say that Kerry won because of his 'moderate' agenda instead of the truth: that anyone but Bush* put him in office.

[Chili]

71. but Q...

"Blacks, workers and social welfare have no more of a chance in a New Democratic administration than a Republican one."

I'm not naive at all. On the contrary, I see very clearly. Why do you think that is, that there's no chance ANY party will reach out to them? Because we live in America, and in America, the majority rules. The people who really want social change are in the minority - and in fact usually ARE minorities. And politicians, to our everlasting dismay, or, in your case, disgust, don't have enough power to change that, no matter how much they may want to. You reach too far into the neglected constituency, and you alienate those further towards the center - and no matter how much any of us don't like it, the fact is we need them to gain power. That IS a fact. The Democratic party is, by definition, the party of inclusion, and that means that even the moderates must be considered. Nothing gets done without them, and nothing gets done without the minority and labor votes. We're stuck with each other. Without representation, nobody gets anything.

It's a lose/lose situation most times, but, someday, someday that may change. In the meantime, I'm not going to risk destroying the only party that let's us INTO the party by trying to force self-destructive reforms at a time when the most important thing is to get our policies into the game. Right now, we're locked out. We have nothing. We have to get IN to make any changes at all. And most importantly, take back the House and the Senate - at least one of them. Another 4 years of Bush and a Republican congress would be the most disastrous to those very people we're talking about. That must be avoided at all costs.