The Democrats Just Don't "Get It" ... Going Green AFTER November

[welshTerrier2]

Perhaps someone can make a good case for the Democratic Party ... I hope they can ... I'm open to hear the case you make ... but as things stand right now, I'll probably be switching my registration to the Green party AFTER THIS ELECTION ...

Why ?? do I think Greens will have a shot at the Whitehouse in 2008? of course not !! do I think Green Power will sweep across this country anytime soon? no, I don't ...

Underlying my decision is my belief that Greens get it right on what I consider to be THE ISSUE and I'm afraid the Democratic Party does not ... and I guess I don't believe they ever will ... it's this loss of hope in having an impact on THE ISSUE that's leading me to switch parties ...

and what is THE ISSUE ... the issue is whether all decisions by those in power are made to benefit all of us or whether many decisions are made to benefit those who control the wealth ... the current state of affairs, and it's existed long before bush came into office, is that our government is owned by the wealthy and chooses policy to satify the very largest corporate shareholders ... the argument is not to say that Democrats are as insensitive to public needs as Republicans; it is to say that they are complicit in this power structure ... we really do have the best democracy money can buy ...

from the Greens' statement of ten key values:

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

Having said this, please read this critically important article by John Kenneth Galbraith from yesterday's Guardian ... while you're reading the article, ask yourself whether Democrats have opposed or supported the problem Galbraith is discussing ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-06.htm

Title: A Cloud over Civilization
Corporate Power is the Driving Force behind US Foreign Policy - and the Slaughter in Iraq

<snip>

One, as just observed, is the way the corporate power has shaped the public purpose to its own needs. It ordains that social success is more automobiles, more television sets, a greater volume of all other consumer goods - and more lethal weaponry. Negative social effects - pollution, destruction of the landscape, the unprotected health of the citizenry, the threat of military action and death - do not count as such.

The corporate appropriation of public initiative and authority is unpleasantly visible in its effect on the environment, and dangerous as regards military and foreign policy. Wars are a major threat to civilized existence, and a corporate commitment to weapons procurement and use nurtures this threat. It accords legitimacy, and even heroic virtue, to devastation and death.

<snip>

As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves the corporate interest. It is most clearly evident in the largest such movement, that of nominally private firms into the defense establishment. From this comes a primary influence on the military budget, on foreign policy, military commitment and, ultimately, military action. War. Although this is a normal and expected use of money and its power, the full effect is disguised by almost all conventional expression.

Given its authority in the modern corporation it was natural that management would extend its role to politics and to government. Once there was the public reach of capitalism; now it is that of corporate management. In the US, corporate managers are in close alliance with the president, the vice-president and the secretary of defense. Major corporate figures are also in senior positions elsewhere in the federal government; one came from the bankrupt and thieving Enron to preside over the army.

Defense and weapons development are motivating forces in foreign policy. For some years, there has also been recognized corporate control of the Treasury. And of environmental policy.

<snip>

[DarkPhenyx]

1. This is your opinion of what "the issue" is.

Not saying that you are right or wrong, but that is you opinion. Others, many Democrats included, will disagree that your opinion is right. If you don't think the Democratic Party adequately represents your views then don't vote for them. I on occassion don't vote for them either. My opinion is that the Greens have planks in thier platform I could never agree with, and the Libertarians want all the programs but don't want the taxes to pay for them. :shrug: I vote candidates, not parties.

In the end I hope taht, one day, we have more Green, Libertarian, Socialist, and otehr parties repersented in teh Government. I would love to see the power lock of the big two shattered beyond repairing. All of us would be better served then.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Yes, we need to work so that a lot of different parties can get into

the legislature at the very least. We are a representative gov't. but an awful lot of people out there do not feel well-represented. I do not think that two parties can be all things to all people, so I think we are better off letting some smaller parties focus on certain issues that the larger ones can't - or won't - deal with.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. me I want to see 16 people running for President...

...and the loser gets Pittsburgh as his own personal fiefdom for four years.

Politics is a lot like organized religion. The big ones don't meets the needs of half the population, and the smaller ones can't get an even break.

[bryant69]

6. Yeah but which loser? Or do they have to share?

And, incidently, kind of rough on Pittsburgh.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DarkPhenyx]

8. It's an old SCA joke. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

4. yes, it is certainly subjective

as was the essence of my post that the Democrats don't "get it" ...

still, i welcome anyone to identify any issue with greater reach ... i define the issue as being measured by whether a government seeks to serve all its citizens or cater to a select few ... no single issue can encompass this scope ... i would like to think that in a democracy, we are voting to find leaders who "will solemnly swear" to do the best they can for all of us ... our current system fails to meet this standard ...

btw, i totally agree with virtually everything you said ... i do have issues with selected Green planks ... i also vote candidates, not parties although historically i've almost always voted for Democrats ...

and the rigid control both Democrats and Republicans seek to retain over the electoral process is clearly an evil ... we need to infuse our system of government with fresh ideas ... being in the center might win elections but it is not necessarily good policy just because you are "balancing the extremes from the left and the right" ... middle of the road is rarely the path to progress ...

[classof56]

5. Dare I say this?

Short of a wide-spread armed revolution (who'd make the bucks on that?) I don't see much hope of significantly and suddenly changing all this. I've long thought that the only reason our system works is because those of us who enjoy our freedoms and generally comfortable lifestyles will get up and go to work in the morning and pay our taxes to assure the things we enjoy continue without major disruption. Revolution isn't in our mindset, when we think we can change things at the ballot box. Sometimes that works, often, as we know, it doesn't work the way we thought it would. War profiteering has gone on for eons. I think we must strive to slow down the corporate control of the government process. The Greens' values are more than worthy of our support. I'm with you, though--let's start with getting Bushco out of power. The journey will begin there.

Tired Old Cynic

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. It'll be a grassroots effort. Fight in your towns,.cities and states

for election reforms of all kinds. If you can get some, you stand a better chance at electing better officials at all levels.

Right now in Maine we can get decent legislators because of the voluntary clean campaigns, but gubanatorial and candidates for the Hill tend not to go the public funding route for fear that they cannot win against a better funded opponent. So for now, we still have special interest Senators and Reps for our state in D.C.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. And that touches on something important.

Forget the Whitehouse. Until the parties get strong enough in elected numbers to become a legislative force they will naver take the Presidency. Focus your energy and money on the races you can win. and for Gods sake! Put decent electable candidates on the ballot. A good place to start? Those races where either the R's or D's have abandoned the fight to the opposition.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Except that election laws often require we run for the WH or Governor

It has to do with garnering a certain percentage of votes to stay on the ballot. That's another thing I would liek to see changed.

But Greens (and Libertarians, too, for that matter.) run at all levels:
http://greens.org/elections/

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Yer kidding? Right?

Fucking A! So an Independant could never run for President?

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Independents can run for prez & have many times, but for parties

to be considered "valid" they have to get a certain % of the vote. We lost our party status here in Maine several years back and had to start from scratch all over again. I suspect this will be the case in many states this year as a lot of Greens will be voting for Kerry to spite *.

[welshTerrier2]

10. on revolution

i am in full agreement with your observation that "revolution is not in our mindset" ... nor was I calling for one (for that very reason) ...

and I think we should be careful (especially after reading Galbraith's article) to understand that corporate control of our government has leached out far beyond Ike's warning: "Beware of the military-industrial complex" ... every aspect of our government is designed to serve the wealthiest citizens ...

and those who point to "progressive legislation" need to understand that the power elite surely view this as a need to make certain small, unimportant (to them) concessions to quiet the masses ...

this is why democrats are still "allowed" to win elections ... if the republican right pushes too far and their giveaways to the wealthy start to show through the cracks (bush's tax cut for example), no problem ... let's give the democrats a chance for awhile ... let the pendulum swing just a wee little bit back to the left ... it's better than taking the risk of a sustained social movement to overthrow the power structure ... it's all about minimizing risk to the wealthy ...

and as to your last point about getting bushCo out of power as the first step, i'm 110% on board with that ... my advice to Greens is:
1. battleground state: vote for Kerry, work for Kerry, fund Kerry
2. non-battleground state: vote for Cobb, work for Cobb and Kerry, fund Cobb and Kerry ...

bush has got to go ... there is no alternative ...

[RichM]

27. The Democratic Party is in an advanced state of putrefaction.

We could never have gotten to where we now are without the spinelessness & abject failure of the Democrats. Sure, the Republicans were the prime movers - but our present state of shame could never have developed, had there been serious & determined opposition.

When you say you agree that "revolution is not in our mindset" & that you were indeed not calling for one, you are perhaps giving away more than you realize. To wholly exclude the idea of revolution from your mental processes is a kind of surrender. I know you think you were merely being "realistic." But do you think Jefferson was kidding when he said that from time to time, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots"?

He wasn't kidding - it's a very serious idea. Once you relinquish even the theoretical possibility of revolting against an existing system of government, you remove from it all incentive to be responsive to the people it supposedly serves. Once everyone subconsciously agrees to submit to "the system," the system becomes too powerful, and can no longer be kept honest.

We are now way past the point where the system has become intolerable. It can't fix itself. One measure of that, among many, is that in the face of this crisis of democracy, the Democrats are actually putting forward a ticket that is very supportive of the Iraq war. This is supposed to be the "liberal" alternative!!

Your analysis of why Democrats are still "allowed" to win elections shows that you understand the true role of the Democrats: they are mainly a tool used occasionally by the elite to pacify the masses with relatively minor "concessions." Here, you are recognizing that the system is largely a fraud, because the opposition is phony. It pretends to be an advocate for "the people," but is actually a tool used by elites to pacify the people - and thus keep them permanently subjugated. If you see that much, why would you still wholly exclude from your mental processes the idea of overthrowing a putrescent political system?

As far as the Greens go, they are significantly better than the Democrats (admittedly, not a difficult comparison). But Greens are still capitalists, and many of the deepest problems of US society - such as the tendency for wealth & power to accumulate in fewer & fewer hands - are consequences that flow from capitalism itself, not from particular parties or political personalities.

[welshTerrier2]

40. a good chuckle

i hadn't noticed your post squirreled away higher up in the thread ...

when i saw an all-too-infrequent RichM post, i thought to myself: This should be good ... i read one sentence and burst out laughing ... you did not disappoint !!! i loved your timid, kind of holding back your real thoughts phrase: "the spinelessness & abject failure of the Democrats" ... kudos, Rich ...

now, to clarify a few points you raised ...

first, on revolution ... i did not take the time to review exactly what i said previously ... the statement about "mindset" initially came from another poster ... my agreement with the statement should have stated (not sure exactly what i did say) that there is not currently an adequately laid foundation for a revolution ... revolution is not in the current mindset of the American people ... this seems to be true even on the extreme left ... i did not mean to imply, or should not have implied if i did, that revolution is not an option always worth exploring ... but i think it's time is not now ... i do not believe we have educated a sufficient number of revolutionaries to fight ... as someone else said in this thread, there is no critical mass ...

and i also said that i am not calling for revolution ... i say that because you build your strength incrementally ... reach too far, and your credibility, no matter how clear your vision, is questioned and your ideas dismissed ... perhaps some feel a better path is to dig in your stake way down the road so that others can see where you want to go ... it's not my style ... i sit here as a democrat voting for Kerry knowing that I am more likely to have the ear of other democrats ... it's not why i'm supporting Kerry; it's a side effect ... and frankly, i'm afraid i will lose that after switching parties ... labels are nasty critters ...

finally, i am not a capitalist ... i have written many times on DU that capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist ... massive, disproportionate aggregation of wealth will always corrupt a democratic political process ... you can't regulate wealth ... you can't control the wealthy ... you can't have campaign finance laws that limit the power of the wealthy ... you can't ban lobbying because we all know that we used to call it bribery ... even doing all these good things will not change the maxim: absolute power corrupts absolutely ... we have no choice ... massive amounts of wealth cannot be permitted ... period ... it is not a good system to restrict wealth ... it's a necessary system ... ideally, each person should be free to achieve whatever they want to achieve ... but humans are greedy and great wealth corrupts the freedome we all cherish ...

finally, there are many aspects of the Green party I like ... i frequently read things on their websites ... it has not been made clear to me that Greens are as supportive of capitalism as you've described ... do I infer you support the Socialist Party? if your looking for recruits, give me some information ... i'm up for grabs ...

[Beam Me Up]

18. Dear "Tired Old Cynic"

I'm almost as old, tired and cynical as you present yourself. As I see it, however, we can no longer afford such luxuries. We have work to do and a revolution to fight. Now, by "revolution to fight" what I mean is seeing to it that important information get shared by as many people as possible. There certainly can not be anything approaching a real "revolution" in this country (and around the world) until there is a critical mass of individuals who have at least a general idea of what the hell is going on.

You can, for example, become a conduit of information to people you know. You can suggest they download and listen to the MP3 files located here: http://www.aeschatech.com/medialibrary/ -- which includes books such as Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony OR Survival" and Michael Moore's "Dude Where's My Country?" -- among others.

You can read and disseminate the information contained in the multiple Plame-Indictment threads which have been archived in several places including here: http://www.aeschatec.com/dumpster/

Everyone needs to understand that most of the conflict that arises in the world is due to the greed and lust for power of a very few individuals which, to date, are beyond the control of the majority. This can be stated very simply and, once it is grasped, everything begins to look different.

We are on the cusp of something here. You and I may not live to see "the promised land" so to speak, but we MUST continue to do our part to see the vision of a better world transmitted to those who come after us. Transformation is a lengthy process -- but that is a good thing because if it is real and genuine, it becomes a permanent part of human history. Besides, from the point of view of personal integrity, it isn't about whether we "win" or not -- it is about our sustaining our own values in the face of overwhelming adversity. Something gets generated, "crystallized," within.

[classof56]

38. I thank you!

I have bookmarked the website you gave me, added to my growing list of what my spouse calls my "subversive sites". I am familiar with Noam Chomsky--have listened to him on NPR, watched him on Free Speech TV (which I no longer get since I swtiched to local cable) and have a CD someone gave me of one of his speeches. I have read Michael Moore's books, and many other progressive authors. Currently reading Robert Reich's "Reason". This weekend I will staff the local Dem party booth at a downtown event. I try my best to share with others the truth as I see it, but as you know, dealing with closed minds is nigh impossible. I also communicate with my elected representatives, knowing full well that, too, is often a waste of ink, paper and breath.

I have a pretty good handle on history--majored in it in college, about 40 years ago, when I was so conservative I almost joined the John Birch Society. That shows you the transformation I have made, and it actually was a lengthy process, as you said, but it was real and genuine. I have grandchildren and desperately want a different world for them than is presently being offered. I do call myself a tired old cynic--maybe it's my defense mechanism in the face of the daily disappointments I have to face, as I'm also a realist. But I like your statement, it's not about whether we win. It's about being true to ourselves and attaining inner peace in the face of all the adversity and chaos. I can't do anything about being old, but, hope springing eternal, maybe the future will make me--or my children and grandchildren--not so cynical. I will definitely strive to sustain my values, no matter what, though like you, I may not live to see the promised land. I know it's there!

Bless you for your thoughts. Let us maintain! Oh, and I like your tag--I frequently use that phrase...Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here!

[Beam Me Up]

48. Indeed "Beam Me UP"

:hi:

I know I'm only "just visiting" this planet.

Sounds like you are very active and involved. Here is another thought for you -- and myself: We seldom know what effect our actions actually has. I know from experience that sometimes I'll say something to someone who utterly disagrees with my opinion or point of view. Oddly enough, however, many times I've had that same person turn up, sometimes years later, and say, "You know, what you said back then was very important to me." What I'm getting at here is we mustn't under estimate the effects of our efforts. It may seem as if no one cares or is paying attention or they are having little effect. But real change comes from within one's self and sometimes it comes as a result of a lot of small things accruing a certain "weight" over time. One thought here, another there, and slowly but inexorably the attitude or opinion or point of view shifts to something new.

There is one more thing. Embodying our values, holding them within ourselves as something truly apart of us, creates within one a certain quality of energy. This is sometimes called "presence." Difficult to put into words, I'm sure you've had the experience of meeting someone who, though ordinary in most ways, had a certain effect on others around them. We commonly call this "charisma" but I'm talking about something different. It is an inner response to being in the presence of someone with the weight of their own convictions.

Best to you!

[WilliamPitt]

My response

Good. Once we get Bush out, our work will be two-fold:

1. Pushing Kerry hard to do the right thing;

2. Organizing the ability to nationally address important issues the Democrats will avoid because of their donors, etc.

#2 will involve the development of a National Green Party. Think about it in terms of Germany. Schroeder's power comes from his alliance with the German Greens; they are the reason he balked at Iraq. Had he gone into Iraq, the Greens would have bolted the coalition, and his government would have fallen.

Ours is not a parliamentary government, but the Greens still must position themselves as a force to be reckoned with if they truly want to move the pile.

THAT IS WHY PRIORITY #1 FOR THE GREENS *MUST* BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GEOGRAPHIC BASE. Pulling 2% in national elections won't get it done. Were I running the Green Party, I would run no Presidential candidates until 2012. I would use those resources to run local candidates for smaller ofices - state legislatures, eventualy the House and Senate, mayors, governors, etc.

Build a geographic base where you can actually swing Electoral College votes. Build a proven national record of excellent local governance.

As for defending the Democrats, I spurn the notion that there is no diference between them and the GOP. The Democrats still stand for choice, for environmental protections, for many of the things I believe in. Are they all good? Clearly not.

The healthiest thing for the Democrats would be an alliance with a strong, vibrant, weight-throwing Green Party. But until the Greens can win one - one - Electoral College vote, they will forever labor at the fringes.

Geographic base. Get to work after the first week of November.

[Kellanved]

44. Green Hubris

#2 will involve the development of a National Green Party. Think about it in terms of Germany. Schroeder's power comes from his alliance with the German Greens; they are the reason he balked at Iraq. Had he gone into Iraq, the Greens would have bolted the coalition, and his government would have fallen.

That is largely wishful thinking . So far the German Greens can make no claims about being any more pacifist than Schroeder would be on his own. They went along in Afghanistan and Kosovo; opposed Iraq. Exact the same record as the SPD's.
Besides: Coalition-breaking issues do not occur before elections.

[bullimiami]

12. the best case for the dem party is kucinich

he has all of the values with more than a extra helping of pragmatism.


actually I agree with you. the bulk of the democratic party has moved too far right for me as well and I have contemplated switching to the greens in fact tried to in 02 but had problems with the paperwork and then came Dr Dean. Not as liberal as I prefer but honest and straight talking no bullshit in my opinion and that went a long way for me.

so I think I will probably be switching to the greens as well.

[welshTerrier2]

15. i voted for Kucinich

i would love to discuss this issue with him ... maybe I'll drop him an email with my post included or perhaps we could have him as a guest on DU ...

[Beam Me Up]

19. That would be great

I support Kucinich and am appalled that the media will not give him the attention he rightfully deserves.

[Walt Starr]

14. If Kerry doesn't get us out of Iraq but quick

I'll vote Republican come 2008.

sorry folks, but I now understand the two party system. If you're pissed at the incumbent, you have to take whomsoever the other party throws at you.

That means I have a choice. If the Democrat does not live up to my expectations, my only choice is to take the Republican at the next election and vice versa.

I learned that here.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yeah, and it does suck. So keep pushing for preferential voting.

[Walt Starr]

21. you'll never get it. The Duopoly has too much invested

They will never give up this level of power, ergo, If I don't like the Democrat I will pick the Republican regardless of how bad they are.

It's the only way for me to fight back any more.

Used to be being a Democrat MEANED something. today it simply means an unevolved pre-chordate state.

[welshTerrier2]

22. Try this lesson, Walt ...

i think you've learned a bad lesson if that's what you plan to do ...

Try this lesson on for size:

The wealthy shareholders of the largest corporations control the federal government ... if it would fly, they would love to have a one party system ... but they know, of course, that this would never fly ... they would eventually be overthrown by a populist revolution ...

still with me??

so they need to promote the "semblance of democracy" ... a two party system where little people can punch little holes in little pieces of paper and feel that they have their tiny little piece of what goes on in the country ... each citizen takes a turn steering the big ship ... it just gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling doesn't it ??

so we have republicans and we have democrats ... the people are given a real choice to throw the bumbs out ... if one party doesn't serve the people, the other party will win the next election and will get the power to control events ... what could be a better system ??

well, herein lies the rub ... both parties, if they hope to succeed, must accommodate the interests of the super wealthy ... if they don't, their efforts will be thwarted at every turn ... they will be out muscled and out funded on anything they try to accomplish ...

soooo, the voters go merrily along believing they are participating in a democratic process ... don't get me wrong, there are real differences between the parties ... but at the essential core, at the point that tips the scale, at the time when all will be served by those elected or only those who can keep them in power will be served, democracy comes to an end ... those in power know what must be done to stay in power ...

so Walt votes for a democrat this year ... and then he's mad at the democrat for this or for that and he votes republican next time ... and then back to democrat ... and nothing will ever change ... we either have a democracy or we do not ... and ping-pong voting is nothing more than a pretense of democracy ...

the two party system has been bought and paid for ... that's the lesson, Walt ... i'm afraid that change is very, very far away ... but perhaps a small first step will be for more and more of us to walk out of the big two party tents to join with those who seek to have a real voice ... change won't happen anytime soon; it surely will never happen if we continue to play ball on the man's field ...

[Walt Starr]

23. Sorry,your argument doesn't fly.

So long as there is a duopoly, I have but two choices. If the incumbent pisses me off, my only option is the challenger.

That's how it is and that's how I will vote from now on.

[welshTerrier2]

24. the point is

that you seem to have failed to realize that both candidates should be "pissing you off" ...

you said you would vote republican in 2008 is Kerry doesn't get us out of Iraq quickly ... but what if the Republican in 2008 not only thinks we should remain in Iraq, but we should also invade Iran ...

if all power and control eminates from the same source, and it does, your voting strategy is nothing but a game of pretend ...

put your ping-pong paddles away ... find a way to begin eroding the duopoly you've quite correctly acknowledged ...

[Walt Starr]

25. They do, but all that matters is getting rid of the *incumbent* who pisses

me off.

ABB taught me that.

so, come 2008, if I'm pissed at Kerry I will be ABK.

[welshTerrier2]

29. even secret decoder rings

we give you flashlights, maps and even secret decoder rings and you still get lost ...

well, Walt, i still have 4 years to convince you ...

something tells me you won't be pulling a republican lever in 2008 ... only time will tell ...

[Walt Starr]

30. All you have to convince me of is

that the third party candidate is a viable option to the other two.

Show me polls where the third party candidate is polling at 20% or higher, and you can get me.

Not a moment before. Dumping incumbents that piss me off is all I have now.

[Walt Starr]

28. Tell you what, give me a viable third party candidate

that can actually defeat an incumbent who pisses me off, and I'll vote for them.

[welshTerrier2]

32. tell you what ...

why don't YOU GIVE ME a third party candidate ??

if you really want a viable candidate, you have to help make them viable ... and third parties are not going to go from 2% of the vote to a majority vote overnight ...

gains will be made little by little ... don't look for instant gratification ... third parties, like all parties, grow by one voter at a time ...

[Walt Starr]

35. Nope, getting rid of the incumbent who pisses me off is what matters

I'll take the viable option to the one who pisses me off.

We no longer vote FOR anybody in this country, only AGAINST people.

Give me a viable third party candidate, I'll be happy to vote for them. So far all I've seen in the way of third parties are nutcases who stand no chance. Until there's a viable third party, I have two choices.

[Forkboy]

36. I worry about anyone that would willingly vote repub

[Walt Starr]

37. ABB taught me I have but two choices

If Kerry does not live up to my expectations, my only choice is to vote Republican.

I've never voted Republican in my life, but now feel as if I have no other choice when Democrats piss me off.

[Forkboy]

39. I think you know better

And I think you know why ABB is a farce.

[Walt Starr]

47. Nobody but the Republican and the democrat have a chance

if that changes, I'll go for the third party.

I need to see at least 20% in the polls.

[Forkboy]

53. Then try being part of the 20%

instead of waiting for others to do it :shrug:

[Walt Starr]

56. Nope, that would be wasting my vote

Unless there is a real chance, I have two choices.

:shrug:

Sorry, ABB taught me I have to vote my fears, not my hopes.

[KoKo]

41. GACK, Walt! No!seek out the new Progressive Democratic Movement

where you live. There's a new movement started in NC (of all places).

It's made up of former Kucinich/Dean supporters. Some of them are still supporting Kucinich but will vote Kerry/Edwards. But they agree on what most of the Greens do and are trying to organize the Left.

Maybe you aren't left, but a disillusioned centrist?

But, I can't imagine ever voting for a Repug. There's no one left in that party who could be truly considered a "centrist." And yes, I include John McCain in there.

[Walt Starr]

46. No, I'm "Left" on just about every issue

gun ownership being the only issue that I would probably be considered "Right" on, and the death penalty being more centrist on.

If I don't vote for the Democrat, teh Republican is my only alternative since voting third party is the same as voting Republican anyway. I just won't be a hypocrite about it and will actually vote Republican should Kerry piss me off.

So, in 2008, I would have to choose political pragmatism and the basis for my vote will primarily be his handling of the Iraq war and how he increases the size of the military.

[bullimiami]

57. walt you have it wrong

yes it is a screwed up 2 party only system.

but you need to vote for whomever gets you closer to your position.

If kerry was a total fascist, I would not vote for him against by best interest just to get Bush out. Kerry is to the left of bush, i vote kerry. I only have 2 choices. give me kerry and another choice closer to my liking and im there in a flash.

I dont care what the label says its the actions. Bush aims to be a Feudal Lord over all he surveys and doesnt see anything wrong with it. Plus he is the most amazing liar Ive ever seen in my life.

[Walt Starr]

59. See, my fear is that Kerry will only be

a "kindler and gentler" Bush when it comes to Iraq.

Four years from now, I fully expect us to still be in Iraq.

Four years from now I fully expect American kids in forced servitude to the state.

Four years from now I fully expect Kerry to have followed the example of "pre-emptive war".

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect to be.

[Kanary]

62. Walt, at a gut level, I understand everything you're saying

and I support what you're about here, and appreciate you voicing this (not that you need my approval.)

I've come to some similar things myself, but will no longer give voice to them, because of the ongoing habit of DUers to trash someone with a different view, rather than to try to understand what they're saying. Unless/until we start to HEAR each other, and LISTEN to each other's concerns, we really aren't a force of change....... we're just doing the same things, with a different name, as the opposition.

That said, I've come to somewhat of a different conclusion, and the best way I know how to describe it is to use the words of, of all people -- a librarian-- ^_^ who said to me...... "If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, the frog will jump out. If you put a frog in a pot of room temp water, and gradually turn up the heat, the frog will boil to death."

That describes very well what I think our country is going through. For years, we've been frogs in the room temp pot, and haven't noticed or cared that the temp is gradually increasing. Then we get *, and suddenly we're in a *very* hot, almost boiling pot, and we noice, and want to jump out. Having Kerry in charge will be going back to the pot with the temp we can tolerate, and won't noice little increments of heat ---so, we're more likely to boil to death (lose our country), than with someone like *.

I totally agree with the idea that we have to work to raise the awareness level of those around us. IN the meantime, however, they will be more likely to be open to what we're saying in times like now, with the temperture scalding our collective skins.

It's really sad, and tremendously painful, to realize that our country is at that point. But, there it is.

Good luck to us all.

Kanary

[Walt Starr]

60. Here is why I am not optimistic about Kerry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4318700,00.html

Kerry Backs Much of Pre-Emption Doctrine

Friday July 16, 2004 8:46 PM


AP Photo WVMA102

By KEN GUGGENHEIM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat.

Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush's national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

<snip>

So tell me, how is backing Kerry now because of Bush's crap in Iraq different than me backing a Republican in four years if Kerry continues the crap?

[Forkboy]

20. I'm with you

and I know others are too.

[welshTerrier2]

26. Observation: No One has defended the Democratic Party

I thought I was going to get slaughtered for posting this thread ... I thought all sorts of Democrats would step forward to take me up on my challenge ...

Give me a clear picture that shows the Democrats are not part of the problem that Galbraith has highlighted ... trust me, I'd be far happier believing that there is real movement within the party towards the kind of values and viewpoints I have ...

it pains me to think about changing parties ... it's not something i'll do lightly ...

but so far, not one person has stepped forward to respond to the premise of the base post: Democrats just don't "get it" ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. Well, either the Dems who will vote blue or die have ignored

the post, or they haven't arrived on the board yet. I suspect you'll be hearing from a few before the day is out. (But not as many as you might have since you said you won't switch until after the election.)

[welshTerrier2]

43. promoting Democratic-Green dialog

i have really tried to promote a "non-bashing" dialog between true blue democrats and Greens ..

i am 100% supporting Kerry with time and money and believe Greens should be doing the same thing ... we cannot have 4 more years of bush ... people are suffering; people are dying ... the world is in chaos and our treasury is almost bankrupt ...

putting things in simple terms of life and death, how many hundreds of thousands will die if bush gets another 4 years ??? we're looking at 4 more years of global war ... i see Kerry as a positive step, a necessary step, on the road to progress ...

Greens, i think, see many issues better than the democratic elite ... but progress has a necessary sequence ... skipping a necessary step can lead to failure and devastation ... I see Kerry as that necessary step ... he's not the "lesser of two evils"; he's the first step in a "journey of a thousand miles" ... he's not an ends; he's a means ... bush has got to go ... but once gone, the democratic party must change itself in a significant way ... their current vision is, at its core, bankrupt ... it's time to start being a party of all the people again ... and i hope they do ...

btw, GreenPartyVoter, i read your "open letter" from the link in your sig line ... big kudos to you !!! it was very well written ... i agree with what you said ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. Thank you. I agree, Kerry is a first step. :^D

[Individualist]

33. Not to worry,

the DLCers will be piling on before you know it. I'm with you; government of, by and for the corporations has to go!

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Yep. It's time for separation of coproration and state.

[KoKo]

42. You are correct, Welsh....not seen a good defense yet. REFORM!

Many here are disillusioned and don't bother to post although they still read here.

How can we defend our party? There are still good people who've tried to stop all this, and even voted against the Iraq Resolution.

We have to support those folks but the visible front of the Party is hard to defend...

[info being]

45. I agree with you and plan on doing the same

What issue is more important than the decentralization of political and economic power...well maybe ending the destruction of the world. I'll go Green on both counts.

[LWolf]

49. You've articulated this very well,

in this original post and your follow-ups; it's exactly where I find myself at this point.

I've never before been a member of a party. I've always been an independent "decline to state" voter here in CA, voting for dems & 3rd party candidates. I became a dem 18 months ago for one reason; to support the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich. While I've voted for dems all my life, and definitely prefer them to republicans, this experience has illustrated for me that I don't really belong. At least not with the DLC dems.

I'll be voting Kerry/Edwards; I would vote for a zucchini if it was running against GWB. After that, I'll be looking at my options:

*walk away from politics as a lost cause, allowing the corporate takeover of america to triumph

*work from within the party

*join a 3rd party, probably green

*go back to "decline to state" and work for individual progressives of all stripes at local and state levels

Probably some combination of the above.

[democratreformed]

52. Kudos to all you die-hard Kucinich supporters

It took me a while to work out all that I thought and felt during this political season. In the end, I ended up voting for Dennis in my primary. How I wish that he would have some influence on what is going on now. As I was telling my daughter today, I fully expect the Iraq issue to completely disappear from this political race. Of course it won't actually disappear, but its being a big issue in this presidential race will cease to exist.

I really feel disenfranchised from the Democratic party as well. I keep hoping that something will happen to make me feel a part of it again - any little part of the platform that represents a portion of my views. I'm really about to completely give up hope, though.

[GreenPartyVoter]

55. I do wonder how Dennis and Howard and others would have fared

if the DNC used Instant Runoff voting in the primaries.

[LWolf]

58. Depends on how it was structured.

If voters truly ranked the candidates, DK & Dean would have been at the top of the list. I think Dennis would have benefitted even more than Dean; Dean supporters were Dean supporters. Many, many voters who preferred Kucinich voted for someone else because they didn't think he could win.

If it is an option to vote for just one candidate, then it wouldn't be as big a difference. The process can be politicized; vote for just one so that the 2nd place person doesn't get any credit in the runoff. It would have to be structured to allow an actual run-off, with everybody choosing/ranking more than one candidate!

[St. Jarvitude]

51. Amen - unless * is selected again.

In 2008, when I will be registered to vote (I'm underage for this election), unless a Repuke is still in office, I will vote for the DNC candidate - assuming there will even be elections.

The first step in getting the Green Party the recognition it deserves - instead of the terrible reputation it's received lately in the U.S. for Ralph Nader's candidacies - is to get out and vote Green whenever possible in local elections. Vote for the Green candidate for State House, State Senate, Governor, Mayor, County Chairperson - hell, even Dog Catcher (though I'm sure a Green would abolish the post once elected :)).

The only way we can get a Green into office in the next 16 years is to get the fight started on the local level. We can do it :)

[DemBones DemBones]

54. I voted for Kucinich in the primary,

and it was the first vote that was really for a candidate (as opposed to a vote against the opposition) since McCarthy and McGovern. I will vote for Kerry in November even though he's not everything I want. Kerry is miles better than Bush* and, I hope, no worse than Clinton. For years, Democrats have been too much like Republicans, and Kerry follows that pattern.

I'd like to have real change in the Democratic Party and I have doubts it will happen. So I too might change my registration to Green after the election but I expect I'll keep voting for the Democrat in every presidential election. It's like Harry Truman said, "Always vote for the better man. He will be the Democrat." I'll add to that "of the two who actually have a chance of sitting in the Oval Office."

I've always been a Dem, though I've voted for a few Republicans. Back in 1996, after the way the GOP treated Clinton, I swore I'd vote a straight Democratic ticket for the rest of my life. Yellow dog Democrat.

In 2000, I wasn't at all "for" Gore but I remembered what old Harry said and forced myself to go to the poll and vote for the Democrat. I soon learned just how corrupt the GOP is and how determined to seize power. Yet becoming more politically aware since 2000 inevitably led to seeing the huge flaws in my own party. Can the Greens gain power without being corrupted? Or is it true that power always corrupts?

Noam Chomsky has said he doesn't vote in presidential elections and thinks he can only have an impact in local races. More recently, he an Howard Zinn have said they'll vote for Nader since they're in a safe state for Kerry. My state is probably safe for Bush* so my vote likely matters only in my mind, to know that I voted for the better man.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

61. Until we have a parliamentary system - I'll remain a Democrat

I'm with you in spirit, but we live in a winner-take-all system of democracy. I'd love to be in a system where a national election would put members of various parties into a national parliament. As the Greens represent about 1 or 2 percent of the total vote, they might get a couple of representatives in Washington. A Socialist Party might do the same. Their voices would be heard and they would exert some power in forming compromise coalitions on the issues. And hopefully there would be open debate in the parliament as issues arise, such as war. These parties and their platforms would gain more legitimacy in the eyes of the general public as well, once they have formally entered into the US government and contributed to the national debate.

The way it is now, with two main parties, we have to form compromises and coalitions BEFORE the election, hoping we elect one candidate who will represent the most diversity. It's faith-based politics. The candidates must run to the left (for Democrats) in the primaries, and run to the center for the general. That game really, really turns me off. I prefer not to put my "faith" in the fact that a candidate will represent the entire party ahead of the issues. How can we know what issues will be vital to us in the years after the election for events that haven't yet occurred? I prefer a government that is formed of coalitions and that those coalitions deal with and debate the issues as they arise and as events force the issues, not before we even think about them.

Unfortunately, the very idea of a parliamentary system in America seems to be anathema to virtually everyone.

[Kanary]

63. Why I think you're right in your decision........

because even on this forum, which is supposed to be sooo "left", there's so much confrontation of those who are actually expressing much that is at all left of center. Given that, one has to come to the conclusion that most Dems aren't yet ready to fully realize just how destitute the party is, and what is at stake.

I'm afraid there's going to have to be a lot of suffering before that "gets it" happens.

:( :cry: :(

We've been told over and over that if we're part of the left "fringe", that we aren't needed, and the party can do just fine without us, so, personally, I'm ready to watch that happen.

Kanary

[welshTerrier2]

64. not just the left fringe is being ignored

democrats have also alienated much of their blue collar base ...

check out this great post by scarletwoman ... it does a very good job expressing what you just said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2007700

I'm ready to watch that happen

glad we're on the same page, my friend ... but don't just watch ... third party reality might indeed be a long, long way off, but we have to start someplace ... get out there and do something ...

[Kanary]

65. blue collar = "left fringe" with different wardrobe

[welshTerrier2]

66. joe six pack

not according to the article ... the blue collar voters discussed in the article haven't quit voting and haven't moved to the left to support more progressive third parties, they've been voting republican ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

67. Ergo, Reagan Democrats

[Kanary]

68. Of course! Because the Dems let the Repubs set the discourse

The *ISSUES* of blue-collars are much the same as the "left"......... the Dems have abandoned both to cater to the big $$$, and left both to flounder.....

So, those who aren't able or ready to frame the issues go to the Repubs, because they're promoting the "cultural" issues. The "lefts" keeps trying to do the Dem thing, then goes 3rd party, then back to the Dems.

That doesn't mean the basic issues of both groups are *different*..........they've just been set against each other.

At root, we have much more in common, and have been splintered, which lets the RW win.

Kanary

[Kanary]

69. Would you please do me a favor?

"get out there and do something ..."

Could we please move out of this habit of exhorting people, who we don't know, to "get out an do something" as if they couldn't possibly be doing enough? Could we please change the focus, and start giving people acknowledgement of what they *ARE* doing? We are constantly beaten up by the RW, and all (or at least most) of us are on the receiving end of that. To then be put on the defensive by our own does nothing to energize us.

It makes me resentful to have to keep explaining that I've been working my butt off, doing everything I possiblly can, and still defending myself against this constant confrontation to do more. Candidates constantly thank their volunteers...... could we take a lesson from that, and thank each other, and recognize each other, rather than this drumbeat of nothing is ever enouhg?

I have been fighting with a horrible and very painful and very scary eye problem. While dealing with that, I've been working for my local candidate, and spending more energy than I probably should spend on his behalf. I have had a certain amount of success in this endeavor, and have changed some minds, and brought in more volunteers, and gotten people registered. Yet, that never seems to be enough on this forum. I keep having to defend what I'm doing, and that is deflating me.

Not that it ever matters here, but my eye has recently gotten worse, and I may very well lose it, and possibly worse. It's *VERY* hard to deal with, and I've been very down, and shed more than a few tears. I've felt horrible today because some candidate events that I had given my word to work I will probably not be able to make. It would really be nice if there was room in other's hearts to care about me, and others, rather than to keep telling me to do more.

Thank you.

Kanary

[welshTerrier2]

70. you got it !! thank you, Kanary ..

was not aware you've been so busy ... i think that's GREAT ... wish more people would get involved ... we need them ...

sorry to hear about your eye ... hope you're able to get whatever medical care you require ...

hang in there ... keep up the good work !!!

[Kanary]

71. thank you

Right now I'm in terrible pain, and my life is hell.

If we actually want to *really* be revolutionary, and *be the change*, we will find ways to acknowledge and support each other, rather than to constantly pick at each other.

I realize that you don't and didn't know what I was doing. That is my point. Making those judgements, and making teh according demands without *knowing* does not help our cause.

Thank you for considering this, and for giving this some thought. If we all can make this one change of direction, we would see a sea change in the Party.

Kanary