The Democratic Party is Dead ... only if YOU let it die.

[mzmolly]

If you're a liberal, the Democratic Party is YOURS.

If you're a progressive, the Democratic Party is YOURS.

The Democratic Party has been co-opted by the /Liberals Progressives, and were not giving it back.

Exhibit (A) being John Kerry's zealous attempt at winning the Presidency in spite of his "most liberal record in the Senate" ranking. Howard Dean's near rise to the top, in spite of his fighting spirit. Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely Braun and the many others who ran for office under the Democratic ticket. The additional message that Democrats don't need corporate money to succeed will only make us stronger in the end.

The Democratic Party is NOT fine with the position that Republicans can steal elections, suppress voters, commit acts of fraud, thus the "House Committee on the Judiciary - Democratic Members" IMMEDIATE PUSH FOR AN INVESTIGATION regarding voter fraud http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11504.pdf

... Thus John Kerry's personal involvement of the investigation behind the scenes, thus the MANY Democrats here and elsewhere fighting each day to see the truth come out about this election (fraud or no fraud.)

Bill Clinton was NO REPUBLICAN. 8 letters ... I-R-A-Q W-A-R. 10 more letters P-A-T-R-I-O-T A-C-T, 14 more C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E T-A-X C-U-T-S, 17 more I-N-C-R-E-A-S-I-N-G P-O-V-E-R-T-Y, 14 more ... F-E-D-E-R-A-L D-E-F-I-C-I-T ... The list goes on.

The best thing for Liberals and Progressives within the Democratic Party to do at this point is to fight like hell, and know when your being played by pseudo progressives claiming we should leave the party.

Who needs republican lite when you can enable the real thing, and get a warm fuzzy at the voting booth all at the same time? Who needs to fight for real progress, when you can pretend to do so by abandoning the only party with a hope of defeating facisim in the US?

I've decided to stay in the county, and in the Democratic Party.

[latteromden]

1. Exactly. THANK you.

It's my party, our party, the progressive party, and I'm not giving that up without a fight.

[VioletLake]

2. I'm with you, mzmolly. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

3. Good Golly, mzmolly!

(sorry, I just wanted to say that) :-)

I'm with you on this. The more reactionary and regressive the Republicans go, there's going to be an opposite and stronger action to the left for us. And more and more people will start feeling the effects of the Republican agenda over the coming months. The Republicans have reached a zenith of sorts....it's all downhill from here.

All we need to do is expose and fix the election process.....that's job 1. We do this and we win. It's that simple.

[mzmolly]

8. Hey, I get alot of that.

:hi:

The facists stick together, the reasonable people must also.

I agree that fixing the process is numero uno. Voter confidence is key.

[Lizzie Borden]

4. Thank-you for this post.

Sometimes I get pretty tired of coming here and seeing statements like,"the democratic party is dead." I know it's hard to keep your spirits up, but I think it's imperative to do so. As far as getting the 'peaceniks out' or the 'left wing' well, we aren't going anywhere and the rest of party will just have to deal with us.

[mike_c]

5. millions of democrats marched and "fought like hell..."

...against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, yet the DNC ejected everyone from the national convention who expressed criticism of the invasion, or criticism of the WOT scam in general. The Democratic Party IGNORES liberals and progressives within the party. Name ONE SINGLE progressive issue the Democratic Party fought for in 2004, despite the support it got from progressives, including a butt load of Greens who lost state ballot access to come to the Democratic Party's aid. The party leadership is debating whether to abandon Roe v. Wade, for christ's sake! Progressives eventually learn that the DP is not going to listen to them-- it will happily absorb our votes, but it will not fight for our causes.

[mzmolly]

6. Define a "progressive issue." Isn't being against the war progressive

enough for you?

There were MANY progressive issues "Democrats" fought for in 2004. One of which, was the desire to defeat Bush. That was the UTMOST progressive ISSUE IMO.

"millions of democrats marched and "fought like hell...against the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

That's right. Millions of what? "DEMOCRATS."

I don't need to wave signs that would hurt our nominees chances of winning in order to feel I'm represented.

Allowing the signs would have distracted from the greater message. As you know, JK voted for inspections and cautioned Bush against rushing to war ... what that boils down to is "a vote for war" now tell me how it's "progressive" to give the media fodder to use against the only man with a shot at defeating *?

Sorry, there's progressive, and there's just plain stupid. I wanted Kerry to WIN, I wasn't as interested in making a statement.

[mike_c]

7. but the PARTY rejected pleas from an overwhelming majority...

...of its own members and turned its back on the anti-war movement. Any other progressive issues the party fought for? Fair trade? Nope. Real health care reform? Nope. Freedom for all Americans to enjoy equal access to the right to marry? Nope. A rollback of corportate power in government and social influence? Nada. How about a living wage? Not for Americans. Can you think of any others?

As for Kerry winning, it no longer matters to me whether my guy or the other guy "win." We all lose when my guy and the other guy are barely distinguishable from one another and the party sells us out for corporate dollars.

[mzmolly]

11. No it didn't.

Conventions ALWAYS set the "tone" for the election.

By the way who's "they" when you say "Any other progressive issues the party fought for?"

Do you require ALL Democrats to fight for X in order to qualify?

Many democrats did fight for the things you mention, but "they" are obviously forgotten?

http://pdamerica.org/newsletter/2004-10/planchange.php

[mike_c]

13. the DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM does more than simply...

..."set the tone" or as you said in another post, "rally the troops." It's a statement of what the party proposes as its voter mandate. The progressive issues I mentioned have been championed by many democrats, including myself, but they are all conspicuously absent from the 2004 party platform, and they were ignored by the party leadership during the 2004 campaign, except in as necessary to exclude them from the national debate.

When the party's own statement of its perceived voter mandate ignores most of the issues that are of overriding importance to those voters, it is bankrupt, and seeks nothing but its own return to power.

[mzmolly]

15. The platform was inclusive.

The Democratic Party has to WIN before we can press any agenda.

I think progress is about taking steps, making strides ...

Here is the GP platform.

http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html

Some of it sounds good in theory, but it's nothing I couldn't put together in an afternoon. Especially if I weren't concerned with actually winning.

Here is the Democratic Party Platform:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

I consider:

REFORMING HEALTHCARE a progressive value
CREATING GOOD JOBS ...
INCREASING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ...
IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ...
FIGHTING FOR THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS ...

etc. all are "progressive values."

[mike_c]

18. no, you need an agenda that people can believe in...

...and that they believe genuinely fights for improving their lot, before you can win.

[mzmolly]

20. I do believe in the agenda of the Democratic Party.

I only wish we were in a position to offer it to Americans.

[tedzbear]

80. You're in that position because you DIDN'T offer it to Americans.

Nobody could tell the difference between the Bush platform and Kerry's so they saw no reason to vote for Kerry.

This is cynically vague bullshit:

REFORMING HEALTHCARE
CREATING GOOD JOBS ...
INCREASING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ...
IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ...
FIGHTING FOR THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS ...


and don't forget: winning the war in Iraq.

Bush has the same shit on his website. At least the Green platform is precise and understandable.

:bounce: Green

[mzmolly]

82. If you can't tell the difference, your uninformed.

Cynically vague bullshit?

Apparently the reason people couldn't tell the difference is because they didn't bother to read the platform?

"Precise and Understandable?" (Pie in the sky, never gonna happen bullshit) generally is.

:kick: Democrat

[peacebird]

129. the DNC rejected the grassroots progressives

and the DLC is actively right of center in promoting business interests over the people.

the democratic party IS dead for me because the leaders of the democratic party are too cowardly to stand up and fight.

the "moral majority" is neither. furthermore - the neocons and the fundamentalists are a very vocal but very small group. far more americans are actually centrist in their views. But the DNC & the DLC choose to ignore that and push the democrats further and further to the right, until the democratic party is indistinguishable from the republican.

i say - the democratic party is dead. the leadership has killed it. and the people will not revive it unless they banish the leaders.

[mzmolly]

132. Define "The Leaders" of the party. All I see from the so called anti-dem

movement is rhetoric, and it all sounds alike.

The DLC does not lead ME.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

147. I'm sorry, you appear to be replying to my post and having a conversation

with someone else?

Who is "little mzmolly?" My username is "mzmolly"

[peacebird]

149. no - i was replying to your post with a post about you.

[mzmolly]

153. Oh, then your sentence structure was a foul.

"peacebird" :eyes:

[m berst]

128. some of us are questioning this

"The Democratic Party has to WIN before we can press any agenda..."

Many of us are wondering if this might not be backward. Perhaps the party needs to press an agenda before it can win.

"I think progress is about taking steps, making strides ..."

Many of us are wondering which direction those steps are going.

"Some of it sounds good in theory, but it's nothing I couldn't put together in an afternoon. Especially if I weren't concerned with actually winning."

Many of us are wondering if this way of looking at things - that principles and winning are at odds with each other - may not in fact be the cause of not winning. The Democratic party platform ought to be able to be put together in an afternoon and ought to be clearly understandable to the people. There is such a thing as being too tricky and too clever. A common complaint from the electorate is that the Democratic party is trying to fool people and that it is not clear where the party stands. People can sense that the Democrats are carefully crafting positions so that they appeal to people, and they resent the implied condescension and arrogance in that approach.

This means that we have people at both ends of the party - the casual observer who does little except vote, and the engaged grass roots activists, both having serious reservations about the party. So do the most loyal Democratic voting block, African American people. None of this is a good sign.

I believe that the party should be loyal first and foremost to those two groups. Instead the party looks at the left wingers as an irritant, takes the most loyal Democratic party voters for granted, and sees the rest of the public as a bunch of dumb slobs to be talked down to.

The party can dismiss the concerns of the progressive community and the minority community with "we are better than the Republicans" for only so long, and can dismiss the rest of the voters as stupid only at its own peril.

[mzmolly]

131. You misunderstood, one can have an agenda and not do diddly about

it if they are not ELECTED FIRST.

I'd also like to know who YOU define as "The Party" WE ARE THE PARTY!

Now, on the the next reply.

[m berst]

136. you are right

I don't understand. Get elected first, and then develop an agenda? Tailor the agenda to be more electable? Change the agenda? Be happy with the agenda the way it is?

[mzmolly]

137. NO, have an agenda that you can ACTUALLY implement.

Is that so hard to understand? Perhaps that's the problem here?

Read the faux promises in the GP Platform.

Child care free for all!
6 weeks paid vacation! (mandatory)
One year leave for new Moms!
Everyone makes atleast $15.00 per hour!
Free Ice Cream every Sunday!

Sorry, not. gonna. happen.

They can have the most promising agenda in the world, if they hope to garner only 1% of the vote. The problem is it won't pass the smell test of people who might ask "how the hell are they gonna do that?"

[m berst]

139. oh I am Green now I guess

The Green party supports free ice cream? I am so lost.

In any case, starting with a "not gonna happen position" is a self-fulfilling promise.

Voting rights for women? Not gonna happen.

Emancipation of the slaves? Not gonna happen.

40 hour work week? Not gonna happen.

An end to child labor? Not gonna happen.

All progress ever made started as "not gonna happens" and they never would have happened if people had taken the approach you are recommending here.

[mzmolly]

145. Oh C'mon.

Ha ha.

I think the issues you raise above were done "one at at time" no one got elected promising the moon overnight. I only support politicians who make promises they can actually keep.

Here is the position Democrats are in:

"Democrats are losing because they are too far to the left." ~ Zell Miller and his ilk.

"Democrats are losing because they're too far to the right." ~ Ralf Nader and his ilk.

So who's right?

Do tell me the approach I'm recommending, because I don't think you know what that is.

Allow me to clarify my recommendation:

Instead of ceeding the Democratic Party to the likes of Al From support Progressives and Progressive organizations WITHIN the Democratic Party.

List of organizations one can support strengthening the Progressive Movement within the Democratic Party.

www.wellstoneaction.org

www.pdamerica.org

www.democracyforamerica.com/

www.21stcenturydems.org

That's what I'm recommending.

Now, go ahead and have the last word, because I've wasted far too much of my life on this fruitless venture.

:hi:

[m berst]

151. now be nice

Wasted time? Fruitless venture? I was really just trying to get a better picture of what you were saying, which I have now and I agree with you 100% I guess I should be putting smilies in these posts. I was wrestling with the DLC guys earlier and slipped into combative mode. OK - just imagine smilies in all of the other responses. :)

[mzmolly]

155. : )

:)

I guess I'm a bit punchy after wrestling with Limbaugh fans pretending to be progressive on many an occassion.

Peace

[tedzbear]

78. Right on, mike_c !!!!!!!!!!

You're saving me a lotta typing.


:bounce: go Green go!

[tedzbear]

77. Right on, mike_c !!!!!!!!!!

You took the words right outta my mouth.

:bounce: Green

[VioletLake]

10. The best strategy for progressive minded people

is to fight for control of the Democratic Party.

[mzmolly]

28. You are EXACTLY right.

:hi:

[VioletLake]

31. What are the alternatives?

Join the Republican Party and try to change it from within?

Join a fringe party and try to change the nature of the game?

Tune out?

:hi:

[Xipe Totec]

85. Option 1 is not a bad idea

Pollute them and Dilute them. Just don't give them any money. Vote in their primaries and vote for the most liberal candidate.

Loyalty should be to principles, not to party.

[VioletLake]

95. I agree that "loyalty should be to principles, not to party."

That said, my principles don't include settling for the most liberal Republican.

[Xipe Totec]

168. No, don't settle. Of course not.

Vote for the most liberal Republican in the primaries.

Vote for the most liberal candidate in the general election, whether Democratic, Republican, Green, or Independent.

I should have emphasized that point a little more.

[VioletLake]

170. That certainly makes the strategy more interesting. n/t

[whalerider55]

9. i like your passion about the issue...

but i gotta raise a few points

outta nowhere today, reid and pelosi decide to back a new candidate, Tim Roehmer for DC, not a reformer exactly, more like a DLC clone who participated in a very questionable 9/11 investigation that failed to even demand that rice testify under oath, that bush appear alone.

Remember that the "high-rising" doctor dean is one of only two declared candidates for the position.

reid's comment that he could support Scalia as CHief Justice

Pat Leahy thinks the nomination of alberto gonzalez, who actually served as the point man for * in the search to find loopholes in the Geneva Convention (as in we won't torture you and you won't torture us) is "on track".

those of us who are unfortunatley a little less orthordox and a little more skeptical have a number of questions that the dems have not answered. or are avoiding answers.

the party is in need of reform. there is nothing in Roemer's backround that gives aany indication he will support structural reforms, and supprt the astonishing energy the dean/kucinich (and before them Jesse Jackson) activated progressives brought to the party. the roemer nomination, the willingness of Dem chairs from all over the country to acknowledge how muchg money and energy was generated by the internet and yet ban bloggers from the Q and A period with potential Dem party chairs is mind-boggling, and stinks.

so molly, is it ok if some of us feel that the party has left us, but will still be happy to take our checks? Damn, i sound like zell miller, don't?

and anyway, as i've posted earlier, i have seen not a scintilla of evidence that Kerry is in anyway other than minimally involved in the recount, very little of his warchest set aside for recounts has been spent on recounts; conversely, i have it from someone at the highest level of the MA Dem party, and also one of the mgt team from the Dem Nat Con that Kerry has no plan, that a lot of this too little too late is poturing for 2008.

and even if that was completely untrue, even if they or i were lying, i have posted the same thing on DU a hundred times, and have never gotten a response from the pay no attention to those doomsayers behind the curtain folks- so here it is again...

if we (dems, progressives, green- no wait, the greens are actually doing this) do not frame this issue as one of enfranchisement, if our legislators do not stand as a body (let'say January 6th, at the joint meeting of congress) and say "every vote wasn't cast because of supression and intimidation, and even those that were cast were tampered with, and dammit if you can't count on your own vote being counted why bother having elections"... what future is there for democracy.

that is not advocating throwing in the towel. that is simply saying we could, and the dems could do more. so lets say we take your approach. it's all going on behind the scenes. have faith.
do you think if nothing breaks by January 6th, all the dem senators should stand up and support the house petition to throw out the results.

sure, it would flip to the house then, and we know how they'll decide. but then, they'll have to steal the election in broad daylight. on tv. it'll kind of be like impeachment hearing- high constituitional drama. the msm would have to cover it. tand then the reps get to air all of the evidence conyhers is collecting, as futile as that is. then they steal election- except this time its in daylight, not in scalias office or behind locked election board offices.

your thoughts would be appreciated. i have a little time before i need to crawl back into the woodwork.

whalerider55

[mzmolly]

12. The thing that bothers me is that WE are so EASILY discouraged.

I say, F Pelosi and F Reed. Do "they" speak for ALL of US? HELL NO!

Why do a handful of Democrats who disagree with progressives on SOME issues represent the party when people are pissed off?!

Further WE have framed the issue as you suggest. As I pointed out to another poster in this thread, on November 5th the House Judiciary DEMOCRATS were on top of the Voter irregularity issue. That's ONE day after the election.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/gaoinvestvote2004ltr11504.pdf

As for your requirement that ALL Senators reject the electors? Why do you require ALL Democrats think like you? Some Democrats believe the election was lost fair and square. So do some Greens/Independents.

I don't KNOW for sure the election was stolen, but I can assure you that Democrats will and are fighting for voter confidence.

Will you require that all X of a given party agree with YOU before giving your time and money? It seems that many of the people here have these unrealistic expections of the Democrats.

[mike_c]

14. more misdirection....

Many of us have supported the democratic party for decades, yet you suggest that we're the ones without gratitude when we eventually come to the conclusion that the party we've supported for so long won't even pay lip service to the issues that are most important to us. You suggest that we are fickle, or that our decades of support somehow translate into unreasonable demands for "purity."

Let me make it clear. The Democratic Party-- the party as institution-- betrayed liberals and progressives among its base in 2004. It has betrayed them at least since Ronald Reagan was elected, and it is openly debating whether to deepen that betrayal in the future.

[mzmolly]

16. Who said you have to have gratitude?

I don't think the attitude is ungrateful, I think it's ignorant.

Do we want to defeat the Right Wing so we can help people, or compete with the Green Party for it's whopping 5% of the vote?

I supported the Democratic party for "decades" as well, and I damn well know the differences between the two parties. I am glad my party is inclusive and intelligent.

I am also happy that some here have the apparent luxury of ignoring those differences. I, and others don't.

[ilovenicepeople]

49. If you step back and look at the bigger picture,

Left wing or Right wing becomes the same corrupt bird.The government gives you two choices who to vote for,and no matter who wins the government is still in power.Nothing will change until democracy is practiced instead of preached.

[VioletLake]

17. I agree with your assesments, although I think you both overstate

your points a little. So far, I have to side with mzmolly because I agree with her solution.

So far, you (mike_c) haven't offered a tenable solution.

[mike_c]

23. I don't have a tenable solution-- I voted with my feet....

I've given up in frustration with the Democratic Party.

[VioletLake]

25. Are you trying to convince others to

vote with their feet? If you've given up on the Democratic Party, why are you posting on DU? Just wondering...

[mike_c]

30. because it's a generally progressive community...

...and because my political identity is still democrat, even if my voter registration isn't. I've been a dem for 30 voting years.

As for your first question, I don't have a ready answer. Frankly I would like to convince more liberals and progressives to abandon the democratic party at least temporarily, because I'm convinced that the party takes us utterly for granted. I'd be willing to bet that if DP voter registration and ballot turnout declined by even five or ten percent with a similar increase in GP voting, the dem leadership would sit up and take notice. I'm convinced that is the only thing that will halt the DNC shift to the right.

Will we (green former dems) then come back? I don't know. Speaking for myself, if the party leadership would condemn the invasion of Iraq and actively embrace the antiwar movement-- in its platform, its rhetoric, and on the floors of the legislative branch-- I would vote dem again. I don't mean to imply that I'm a single issue voter, but I do have thresholds, and that's one of them.

[VioletLake]

39. I understand where you're coming from,

and like I said, I'm pretty much in agreement with your assesment of the DP. But we need people like you to stay and fight. The DP is the only party that can make a difference right now.

The fight is far from over.

[tedzbear]

84. DU membership is NOT only for Democrats, Ms. Violet.

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)

1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.






Notice the "other progressives?" That means Green Party members, among others.


:bounce: Go Green Go!

[VioletLake]

94. Indeed, Mr. Ted,

but the long version of the rules states:

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party."

I'm not sure if that includes encouraging people to retreat from the Democratic Party while cheering the Green Party. Perhaps the rules should be more explicit regarding this issue.

[tedzbear]

166. I am not encouraging people to leave.

And I am NOT organizing activity. I am explaining my position on the failure of the Democratic Party and how I am dealing with it.


:bounce: Greens

[whalerider55]

22. i am not easily disappointed

i've been in politics and around it long enough to have very low expectations.

pelosi and reid are the chosen leaders of the leaders we chose. and it is ok if i think SOME of (SOME of) their choices suck. Why do SOME people generalize what I say into something that I haven't said?
Oh, it's a rhetorical device, i forgot.

please respond to my question about Roemer- you didn't. why am i scrorched about it? because it sends a message, that is why. just like saying scalia is ok by me. it sends a message that even though on a national level we've "missed" the fact that three consecutive elections "may" (i'll grant you that the possibility exists that the last three weren't taken by subterfuge... though there is a lot more evidence for that than the Loch Ness monster, which i also believe in), we're ok, hold tight, we'll come out of this... nothing needs to change.

as for every democrat standing up, i suggest that for the simple reason that it makes the emphatic statement, loud, clear with no equivocation, noi possible misinterpretation, that, heck, the dems ARE the party that is willing to stand up for the right to vote, to get back voter confidence.

I hold elective office as a progressive,and was elected as one and will continue to be one. And one thing I have learned is that you always speak truth to power, always always. Power hates what you have to say, but when you speak truth to power, you are speaking to the community, who also may not agree with you, but they will respect you... and often re-elect you, because they know where you stand, they know what your values are, and because of that, they move beyond single issue agendas. Isn't that what we are all trying to do as a poltical force here in the US today.

And i'm glad the Judiciary was on this November 5th, and think that after Janaury 6th, when the same House Judiciary will have to hold bi-partisan hearings to review what COnyers has discovered as they decide on the presidential election becuase all, or maybe one democratic senator (who may not KNOW but has a suspician that there was way bad joo joo happening on election day)stands and supports the house in their petition, maybe then we'll speak truth to power as a party, and as citizens.

And no, the party doesn't have to agree with ME before I give my money and time. Hell, I don't even agree with me a lot of the time. But the party has to offer me more than don't sweat, we're with you, we're working on it back stage, and ignore what we say, just watch what we do... some day.

Talk to me about the message Roemer as DNC chair sends. I'd really be interested in your thoughts on that. As a progressive.

whalerider55

[mzmolly]

26. As I said, I support Dean for DNC chair, but I don't think he or Roemer

will get the nomination.

I think it's appalling that Roemer is being endorsed by "some" in the Party, and I am certain Ms. Pelosi is hearing from Progressives about her backing.

Serving in Congress from 1990 to 2002, Roemer compiled a strong pro-life voting record during his tenure.

However, Dennis Kucinich was "Pro-Life" most of his career, and most people here didn't hold that against him.

As Howard Dean said, "at least "Pro-Life" Democrats are consistent in their beliefs" and are anti-capital punishment, anti-war etc.

I see Roemer as a statement that the "Pro-Life" mentality is welcome in the Democratic Party, while I'm Pro-Choice, I realize frankly that Roemer would be virtually harmless to my right to choose as head of the DNC. He can't vote on the issue of abortion. I think this is more of a statment, I don't think anyone believes that he'll be the DNC chair.

[whalerider55]

33. I thought we already made that statement

by electing a couple of governors out west, and reelecting a few senators (Reid, for one)who are positioned like roemer on that issue?

i support dean as well, because i think that from the point of view of structural reorganization, Deans ideas are by far the most clearly articulated and compelling. they do also scare the shit out of the party establishment, though; i suspect that we would agree on that.

i don't actually hold the pro-life stuff against roemer. i'm much more concerned about his 9/11 performance and his generally rightish tendency; i also see nothing on his resume that indicates he can manage an organization in transition. At least Dean was a governor, Webb and Kirk were Mayors.

i don't tend to be a one-issue voter, or advocate- unless i really believe that one issue is the key to everything at stake... like enfranchisement.

as for the right to choose, i don't believe that bush will personally affect your right to choose either- but the people he appoints and hires sure as hell will. not that i expect roemer to go that route- i just think that the DLC and that whole route has severly damaged the dems ability to make the case that we are substantively different than the pugs- (and before you jump, i beleive we are... very different.)

and i wish i could be as confident as you about Roemer not getting the job. but if it doesn't go to a reformer, i fear that the dems have reached their high-water mark; they connected with voters as never before this year, they did it i believe because of something that dean started, and in the end, it is that energy, that fire and passion that the dems need to reach out to. and i just don't see it happening.

whalerider55

[mzmolly]

36. Welp this is why the party NEEDS it's Progressives. We need to

voice our desire for a new direction while the iron is still hot.

Make your voice heard here:

"No More Special Interest Politics at the DNC
This weekend, state Democratic Party leaders will gather to debate who should chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for the next four years. If they vote as a bloc within the DNC, they could well determine who becomes the next national Party leader.

The election for chair is rarely competitive. But this year, with the race wide open, we have the chance to elect a leader who can reconnect the Party with its constituents -- us.

In 2004, something incredible happened: The Kerry campaign and the DNC raised over $300 million in grassroots contributions between them, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now we have an historic opportunity to birth a new Democratic Party -- a Party of the people that's funded by the people and that fights for the people. Democrats: tell your state Party leaders:"

http://www.moveonpac.org/dncchair/?id=5015-4550142-3KvQa44TQRQhgGyrDGq..g

I agree with every word you said BTW. Heck, perhaps Roemer is the perfect catalist for Dean to get the DNC nomination? :evilgrin: Afterall, I highly doubt Democrats will abandon the issue of choice.

[whalerider55]

42. molly

unless i'm wrong, which i often am, this posting (from moveon) refers to an event that happened this past weekend- at which bloggers were banned from the session set up to allow audience q and a with DNC chair candidates. literally escorted from the room during a speech in which their value to the party was being extolled.

wish i had the link- KOS, i think.

if true, its another one of those little disconcerting events that taken in a totality bode badly.

for all my reality testing, i'm always trying to see a larger picture and place signals and signs and sybols into some sort of balance so that i can better understand and act on an issue. and i always try to hold two very dissonant ideas in my mind at one time- the first, is the old freud chestnut, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. the other is the truism that even paranoid people get followed... sometime.

gotta go consult the tea leaves.

whalerider55

[mzmolly]

43. I think your right.

I was thinking it would still send a message but perhaps not?

Have a good night.

:hi:

[m berst]

138. easily discouraged?

Unrealistic expectations?

I only have one lifetime here and it is running out. I don't call giving 40 years of loyalty and being alarmed to be living under one party rule by an extremist reactionary regime being impatient or having high expectations. I think the expectations are as low as they can get and the patience is stretched as far as it can go.

[mzmolly]

148. You've lost me with the "one party rule and extremist reactionary regime"

shit, so the last word is yours.

:hi:

[m berst]

154. this is not the last word

"One party rule and extremist reactionary regime" = the Bush administration and the Republican party.

[mzmolly]

156. Gotcha.

:hi:

Cheers, I'm off to life .. I think ;)

[Forkboy]

19. Dont tempt me

:evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

21. *pffft*

:P

Edited to add: :loveya: :spank: :hi: :pals:

[Forkboy]

24. aw,I knew that even without the edit

:hug:

[mzmolly]

27. *mwah*

:*

[enigmatic]

29. I'm not leaving....

And I'm not going to whine when every issue I value isn't perfectly mirrored by the Democratic Party, either. And I've been a Democrat since 1982.

If people want to leave, let them leave. I'm not losing sleep over them; I'm tired of the unrelenting bicthing by those who see every Democrat not to the left of Kucinich as a Republican-Lite. Ebven living up here in Canada I'll fight to the best of my ability to for the Democratic Party to gain the majority again in Congress and win the White House.

edited for typos

[JohnKleeb]

32. But the party is dead

I am just kidding, of course, we gotta fight for it, and regain seats in 2006.

[whalerider55]

35. legendary Johnkleeb

but there's a hole in the bucket. How do we fix it?
how do we regain seats in 2006, if as the mounting evidence suggest, 2004, like 2002 and 2000 was stolen, hijacked, pilfered, rerouted, and magicked? and aside from some very impressive hearings by Reps with guts, NOT A SINGLE US SENATOR HAS PUBLICALLY WHISPERED THAT SOMETHING MIGHT BE AMISS- in fact, some have gone on record as saying, piffle?

sigh
whalerider55

[JohnKleeb]

41. Anything can happen

Hell I think its a fundementally flawed idea to believe that liberals are being denied power in the democratic party, our party leader in the house is a liberal democrat, our second highest dem in the senate is one too. We gotta work to get proof of this fraud, I really think as Bush shoves his mandate around, they may fall. Were we the democratic party dead after Mondale's landslide defeat or McGovern's? no, in fact we won two elections after Mondale and came back to win the next election after McGovern. I would prefer a liberal democrat as president but even a moderate would be great in comparsion to these bastids that run the white house now.

[mzmolly]

37. Ya Bastid!

;)

[JohnKleeb]

40. hah

thanks. I am indeed.

[yellowdogintexas]

34. ROCK ON!!

[Chicago Democrat]

38. Yup,

Bill sucked in many ways, but he is a Democrat. Nafta sucks. His DontAskDontTell and harrass anyway sucked. But, he is a Democrat and I love his bubba ass.

[nickshepDEM]

44. Molly, I dont know ya but, you fuckin rock.... period.

[mzmolly]

46. : )

Hey thanks. :hi:

We just met. ;)

[m berst]

45. how?

Great post mzmolly, very passionate and well explained.

I have been a Democrat for 40 years. 40 years ago my positions were not considered too radical nor "far left" nor was I derided and ridiculed as being on the fringe. My positions haven't changed, so something else must have. It was not until recently that I have had other Democrats tell me "don't let the door hit you on the way out" when I dared to point out the rightward drift of the party, or told that I was a whiner or a crybaby or a purist.

It was not until recently that I had to defend social security, the progressive income tax, protection for labor from unfair foreign competition, the fallacy of the "free market" concept, and dozens of other issues to fellow Democrats. I can argue the liberal and traditional Democratic party view on these issues well, because I have been arguing with Republicans on these issues for decades. I never thought that I would be arguing with Democrats about them, and now when I do I am accused of being divisive or of preventing unity.

There is no arguing principle in the face of this horrid doctrine of "practicality" though, because the people you are arguing with start with the position that you are wrong. That means that there is more resistance among Democrats to liberal ideas than there is among Republicans. Since I am defined as "far left" and since that automatically means impractical, and therefore delusional, there is no reason for them to listen to me at all. At least Republicans will listen.

People say, well, too bad, you can't have what you want, and the Democratic party is still not the Republicans, and you have no choice in any case. Well, I can be "not Republican" and "not get what I want" without any help from the Democratic party, can't I? If I have no choice, then why choose at all?

It seems to me that the party left me. So be it. I am not whining - God, I am tired of hearing that one - nor arguing.

We may be witnessing the death of liberalism, and there may be nothing we can do to stop that. For me, that makes politics irrelevant and no longer of any interest. The death of liberalism doesn't represent merely "losing" political elections to another political faction. It represents the death of civilization and a return to feudalism. If that is where we are headed, then we can get there without wasting any time on the party. We would better focus our efforts on surviving the slide into the Dark Ages or building a true liberal movement, would we not? Sooner or later, when sewage is running in the streets, people are starving and the population is illiterate - those were the pre-liberal conditions - people will be ready for liberalism again.

I have this unfortunate image now of the Democratic party. They are the ones who hold my arms behind my back while reactionary right wingers pummel me.

During the campaign, there were Democrats saying "we will get to all of those issues after we accomplish mission one - ousting Bush! Right now we need unity and practicality." Well, the campaign is over. Why is the practicality, run-to-the-right, abandon traditional liberal positions, unity talk worse than ever now from those same people? I call that bait and switch and I think we were lied to by many people, while we gave our loyalty, our labor and our money to the effort.


on edit - a word was missing

[mzmolly]

47. You make excellent points.

Though, I will not relent to those holding my arms behind my back. I intend to call out loudly to my "progressive friends" and say ... HEY, I NEED YOUR HELP OVER HERE! I can only hope they haven't all "left" when I do.

:hi:

[m berst]

51. in a way it is not a real worry

The "people are leaving the party" thing is a false worry anyway. On the one hand people can't pretend to be fired up about the party, so it is silly to ask them to do that. On the other hand, if people leave, they either will succeed at forming something else or they won't. If the party wants their vote, they can go get it. Both positions - "don't leave" and "good riddance" put the burden on the people to get in line with the party. Isn't it supposed to work the other way around? Then, the centrists will say "be quiet because you are the fringe" but of course we will always be the fringe if we can't speak. There is something rigid and unworkable about the whole debate we are having with the centrists.

Then there is the whole spoiler argument - if people vote third party they are voting for the Republicans. Again the burden is placed back on the people. If people can make no headway within the party, then there will be a danger that they will vote third party. In a close election there is a danger that the election will hinge on that. One then has to wonder why it is that the party cannot simultaneously keep the left in line and also win a majority of the electorate. Beating on the people in the party and imitating the Republicans would be acceptable, maybe, if it worked. If it doesn't work, then wouldn't questioning the strategy be appropriate instead of blaming the people? This seems chronic among Democrats - "we have the right ideas, and we can't help it if the people are too stupid to realize that," is the thinking.

It's a big mess and beating on Nader and Greens and compromising with and imitating the Republicans seem to me to be tantamount to admitting that there is something seriously wrong with the party.

[mzmolly]

57. Both positions "I'm leaving, and your an idiot, don't let the door hit

you in the ass" are indeed putting a burden to tow a certain ideological line.

That's the point of my argument frankly.

Centrists aren't whining that liberals are a part of the Democratic Party, they get the "big picture."

As for questioning the strategy, it's clear to me WHY Democrats are in a position like no other.

I don't see Republicans demanding perfection or bust do you? If Democrats move too far to the center, the Greens are there to scoop up the discouraged, if we move too far left, the Republicans are in the same postion. This is why I find the "my way or else" mentallity so dangerous. I think it's healthy to examine the big picture and realize that Democrats will make progress on issues that are important to us. Republicans won't even hear our concerns because they have a completely different view of the world.

As Bill Clinton said of Republicans, "they fall in line" ... and in order to be an effective opposition party, we must do the same. Call it a demand to "fall in line" and I'll call it a simple reality.

All the "it should be this way" hand wringing in the world doesn't change the fact that progressives are competing with sheep, and in order to defeat the dangerous flock, we have to be smart first and perfect second.

[saracat]

64. The republicans can and do demand lockstep and they get it!

I will not support centrism. It is a losing proposition. I too, have been a dem all my life and I will leave the party before I dumb dowm my support of Rove V Wade , Gay Rights or any of the issues that offend the Repukes. We don't need their votes. They won't give them to us anyway. Repugs are demanding perfection. They have defined themselves as RW and anyone who doesn't tow the line is eliminated. We need to go left to define a party difference. If Centrism worked the repubs would have used it.

[mzmolly]

65. I agree for the most part. And, I find FEW Democrats who would want to

eliminate R V. Wade, and or cede the issue of Gay Rights regardless of their "centrist" label.

There are Republican Moderates, there are Democratic Moderates, neither Party would be strong without them. For example, McCain is a well respected Republican "Centrist" ...

Democrats have CORE values that we can all agree on and work towards.

Further, why suggest WE progressives leave the Democratic Party as the OP in another thread does, simply because a few in the party don't share SOME of my views? It's ludacris and, I'm not going ANYWHERE.

The moderates can form a new party if they wish, I'm takin mine back, and I'm here to stay.

[saracat]

67. Well, I'm staying for now, and am going to do anything I can to kick

the Party's ass left! I had to fight to get a reproductive rights clause(pro choice!) in my state platform. It seems some thought it would be offensive. I guess just being a Dem is offensive to some and I intend to be the worlds biggest pain in the butt. I am not ceding anything and I refuse to be repug lite. Just venting . Thanks mZmolly!:bounce:

[mzmolly]

69. Thank YOU Saracat. I understand the frustration many express, I feel

their pain, but I don't think a mass exodus of progressives from the party is the answer to our problems.

GLAD YOUR STICKING AROUND. :hi:

[Oak2004]

119. The Republican agenda is window dressing: the real agenda is POWER

And, yes, trying to ape Republican positions in order to gain power is just like buying a squirtgun that looks like a Glock and thinking it makes you a bank robber.

No Democrat will ever win anything by aping a Republican. If a Republican candidate faced a Democratic candidate that was as far to the right or farther to the right than himself, the Republicans would just use relentless, even untrue, personal attacks and funny election counting to defeat the Dem. They're all about power, all about winning, and not at all about some kind of right wing ideal (at least the current bunch of extremists: the party wasn't always this way of course).

[itzamirakul]

130. m berst...you exactly mirror

my own voting history and my own feelings about where the party is headed today. I, too, feel that the party has "left me." This accomodationist attitude that is growing and this willingness to "take the blows" cause it will be better "next time" is wearing me out. Hell, at my age, how much longer do I have to wait? I never thought I would see a time when not a single Democratic voice is speaking out loud and strong about the Social Security reforms and about the new tax laws. My god, how our leadership has been "bought off" and how so many of the ground troops are rallying around them.

Those who continue to support this failed DNC/DLC leadership are guilty, IMO of being the very ones who ARE destroying the party.

[mzmolly]

133. Who's accomodating? Not me. I am giving my $$ to DFA and 21st

Century Democrats. The DNC won't get a dime from me until I see who they chose as a leader.

THEY all need US. Money talks, bullshit walks. WE do have the power!

[m berst]

143. here is where I am confused

Not trying to give you a hard time, just not sure what you are saying.

What does "staying in the party" mean? If you are going to withhold your donations depending on what they do and pick and choose which candidates to work for, then being in the party just amounts to saying so and voting Democratic? Can't we skip the "saying so" part since it seems to cause dissension and doesn't contribute anything to the party nor to liberal causes? Obviously, if an election comes around and the Democratic candidate is the only choice, we vote Democratic. Do we also have to say that we always like doing that? It also seems obvious that if we are going to change the party, we can't be taken for granted because we then have no clout.

I love your enthusiasm and I am trying to get on board here.

[mzmolly]

152. I am supporting people and organizations within the Party that I believe

in.

21st Century Dems and DFA support Progressive Candidates around the US.

I won't demand the DNC choose my guy, but I won't contribute while they're discussing the options they are discussing currently.

And, I don't think you want to get on board, because what I'm saying is pretty simple.

Dean says what I'm trying to communicate much better than I, read this speech:

Since we started Dean for America last March, we raised over $5 million, mostly from small donors. That money was given to 748 candidates in 46 states and at every level of government.

We helped a Democratic governor get elected in Montana and a Democratic mayor get elected in Salt Lake County, Utah.

We helped Lori Saldana in San Diego. Lori, a Latina grassroots environmental organizer was outspent in both the primary and the general, won a seat on the state assembly.
We also helped Anita Kelly become the first African-American woman elected to her circuit court in Montgomery Alabama.

Fifteen of the candidates who we helped win last month never ran for elective office before.

And in Texas, a little known candidate who had been written off completely ran the first competitive race against Tom Delay in over a decade."

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/features/2004/12/08/governor_deans_gwu_speech_transcript.php

I'd prefer to build on this amazing movement (happening right now) than turn my party over to the DLC.

Now have the last word because I've spent far too much time regurgitating conversations on this subject now and in the past.

:hi:

[itzamirakul]

141. Aren't you taking my post as

personally attacking you? I don't think I said that YOU were an accomodationist. :) I said that I am tired of that kind of attitude meaning that many Dems seem to continue to support the failed leadership of the DLC which has a stranglehold on the DNC - hence they (DNC/DLC) are one and the same.

Now, if you are in favor of the DLC continuing to be the "guiding light" of the party, then I would rank you with the accomodationists, because that is what they are. They are willing to "fall in line" with ANY Republican agenda because their only interest in the party is personal power - which they can keep - even if we lose the election - as long as we don't call them on it.

The DNC wants to keep their hands in TWO pockets: the pocket of the corporate donors AND the pocket of their newly found money machine, grassroots activists. Just take a look at their "New" homepage at www.democrats.org where they fall all over themselves, giving themselves credit for building a strong grassroots data base. Bullshit! That base was built because the activists encouraged every Democrat they knew to register and support the Party. And we can discourage them from supporting the DNC/DLC the same way.

Well, truth be told...they were not getting ANY support from the grassroots because most of us were supporting MoveOn and various bloggers, etc. And even AFTER the DNC worked to get rid of Dean and forced Kerry on us, because, in their words, "Kerry was more electable" we stayed with the party and then AND ONLY THEN, did we begin to send our financial support in to the DNC. I registered with them to show my support for the party and from that point on, my disillusion with them grew at a rapid rate.

The only thing the DNC/DLC and their clones will understand is a shut-off of their activist atm's. I, personally have stopped donating to them and will not do so again.

[ChiciB1]

48. I'm In With All Fours!

Stand Tall and Stick Together! Remember that bumper sticker!
BETTER A BLEEDING HEART THAN NONE AT ALL!
Go Blue!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. The Democratic Party is being coopted by the right.

It is little more than a shell of an opposition party that is quietly committing suicide by abandoning it's principles in favor of "compromise" under the delusion of "electability".

It's time for action to build a true progressive party. That's why I'm switching to the Greens. They fight.

[enigmatic]

53. Fabulous!

See ya later!

[nickshepDEM]

56. They fight because they do not have to worry about winning elections.

When you cant win elections you cant be held respobsible for your policies. I could dream up a hell of a platform for a party and preach it all day. But, to actually carry it out when I get in office, thats a different story. The minute they start winning considerably (which will probably never happen) they will switch shit up, real quick.

[mzmolly]

58. That's right.

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Hopefully, we'll find out.

Now that the Democrats have become the moderate wing of the Republican party.

[mzmolly]

70. "Democrats" have become NO such thing.

"The most LIBERAL Senator in the Senate" ring a bell?

I suggest we resist the temptation to lump all Democrats in the proverbial shit pile we call selling out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. "The most LIBERAL senator in the Senate" voted for the war.

If the "most liberal.." votes to kill people, what does that make the 23 who voted against doing so? Moderates?

[mzmolly]

97. Strawman...

Pardon me whilst I snore. If only the world were black and white.

Single issue voter?

I am glad you mentioned the DEMOCRATS in the Senate alone who voted against the war, YOU tell ME what that makes them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. In this case yes. A single issue voter.

Strawman? What do you base being a "liberal" on? It seems like advocating the murder of people as being particularly un-liberal.

I find the destruction of Iraq and it's people a pretty important issue.

As to your final sentence, "...what makes them". What makes them what?
Liberal? Ethical? Courageous? As differntiated from the likes of Kerry, Bayh, Lieberman, Biden, Clinton, and the rest of the opportunists who abandoned their ethics for "electability"?

You want to save the Democratic Party? From what? The liberals? The Left? The DLC and it's apologists are doing a fine job of that.

As for me, I see it as beyond redemption. It has sold whatever prinicples it once had to the proposal that becoming soft core Republicans is the only way to win.

[mzmolly]

122. I find Iraq an important issue as well, and I find Kerry's statements on

the floor of the Senate "when he voted for inspections" to be important in addition. I find it such an important issue that I refuse to abandon the many DEMOCRATS who rallied, voted and worked hard to fight against this war.

I enjoy watching the so called anti-war progressives enable more PNAC led wars via their dislike of the actions of a few Democrats. 70% of Democrats opposed the war in Iraq before the war.

Allow me to break down the Anti-War vote for you.

133 House members voted AGAINST THE WAR, 126 of which were Democrats.

23 Senators opposed the authorization for war ... 21 of those were DEMOCRATS.

Of the 155 total votes against the war, 147 NO VOTES came from Democrats, 8 no votes came from Republicans. The Democrats I noted, were lied to. They were told Saddam had nukes, that he was about to use them, that he was linked to 911, that he was an *imminent* danger and ... that we'd only go to war if we had to. In spite of the post 911 era, and the many lies by the * administration, they held to their convictions and voted NO.

Your Naderesque statements about Dems being soft core Republicans are quite predictable. :eyes: Been there, done that and not only is it a bore, I think I've demonstrated otherwise. :boring:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. So, what's your plan to move the party to the left?

How's it working? You want to move the party to the left? Make your vote costly. Make them work for it rather than take it for granted because the Democrat isn't "as bad as" the Republican.

Your defense of the Democrats who voted for the war is naive at best. What did they think all those troops were doing in Iraq? Picking their noses and getting a tan? Kerry offered more of the same in Iraq. The Democratic "leaders" backed him in his "plan" for more troops.

Now they talk about the necessity of "reaching out to the middle" by watering down abortion rights, gun control, environmental protection, separation of church and state, globalization, social security, and every other thing that the people forced them to put into place.

Just look at the new minority leader in the senate. Harry Reid is "pro life", against gun control, voted for the war.

I call it appeasement.

But, get back to me when reforming the party by complaining to the bigshots has some effect. Been there done that, for decades.

[mzmolly]

140. One simple word MONEY!

Get it? I don't support the DLC, I support DFA, PDA and 21st Century Democrats.

As Dean says, it's foolish to try and start a new party and a new movement when we have one we can fight for already.

Daschle wasn't "pure" enough either, now were bitching about Reid.

This year Democrats raised MORE money than Republicans and we did it without much help from Corporations. Were in PRIME position to take back the party.

Join the 1%-ers if you wish, I'm sticking with the opposition party

"And I believe that over the next two... four... ten years...

Election by election...

State by state...

Precinct by precinct...

Door by door...

Vote by vote...

We're going to lift our Party up...

And we're going to take this country back for the people who built it." ~ Howard Dean

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

146. When does it start opposing?

As for the rest of your plan. The left has been trying to take over the party as long as I can remember with the very tactics that you propose. With the exception of '72, we have failed.

Daschle was a lap dog. Reid is showing signs of replacing him on Bush's lap.

After the last 3 defeats of "electable" moderate candidates, how much money do you think you can raise from the followers of Dean? As compared to how much the DLC can bring to the table from their corporate supporters?

I admire your tenacity, if not your naivete, in believing that the diminishing left wing of the party can overcome the combined forces of the RNC and their pals the DLC who are both out to destroy the left.

Methinks you are whistling past the graveyard, the one that contains the not yet buried corpse of the Democratic Party.

[m berst]

150. ok I am getting the picture

What you are really talking about is building an independent movement within the party, just as the religious right did with the Republican party. You are also following Dean's call to "lift our party up" which is fine. Can't we just lift ourselves up and then see if the party goes along with that when the time comes?

Now, where is this whining and bitching people keep talking about? I hunt and hunt through these threads looking for it. The complaints about the party are very rarely petulant or childish. Calling the statements whining really diminishes them and they are quite serious.

This 1% stuff is irksome as well. No one is going to be doing anything any differently one way or another. If the Democratic party changes all the Greens would come flocking back. If it doesn't all of the progressives will flock to the Greens. In either case we promote progressive ideas and candidates.

Asking everyone to "make the pledge" and declare themselves in or out isn't gaining us anything here. What if we changed the critics statement to this - "I am not going to support the Democratic party with its current leadership." Then we are all on the same page and pulling in the same direction, yes? And it makes for a wider path with more options.

Telling people they can't or shouldn't leave or are foolish to leave just makes them upset. The threat of leaving is the only leverage we have on the entrenched party leadership. It has happened all through history with all of the parties.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

158. Oh, don't make sense! It upsets the true believers.

I've been saying, all along, that the leverage we have against the DLC and the right, is our votes.

The politicians go where the votes are. If they can take them for granted, why should they bother to move in one direction or another? The DLC has been using the sledgehammer that "your vote won't count if you go third party" to guarantee our votes for their pablum candidates.

Trouble is, it isn't working. Their candidates keep losing. Perhaps voting Green won't win any elections, but the politicians may finally get the message that there are a bunch of votes out there that they can get if they move left.

[mzmolly]

160. You and Zell Miller...

"I've been saying, all along, that the leverage we have against the Liberals and the left, is our votes.

The politicians go where the votes are. If they can take them for granted, why should they bother to move in one direction or another? The lefty liberals has been using the sledgehammer that "were gonna run to another party if you don't please us" to guarantee our loss in the general election.

Trouble is, it isn't working. Their candidates keep losing. Perhaps supporting the President won't win us elections, but the politicians may finally get the message that there are a bunch of votes out there that they can get if they move to the right." ~ Zell Miller

The Democrats are in an interesting position aren't they?

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

162. The trouble for you is that Zell and his clones are still Dems.

And, those that run the party are of like mind to Zell. And, Zell's message, as you frame it, is the one that the party is listening to.

And, what "lefty-liberal" candidates has the party run since '92? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? The "we have to run to the right" to win bunch?

You continue to support a party that has voted for a ban on so called "late term abortions". That has voted for "welfare reform". That has voted for NAFTA. Whose "leadership" supported the invasion of Iraq. That continues to support the subjugation of Palestinians. That actively tried to stop the UN from acting in Rwanda. The list goes drearily on.

At what point do you recognize their complicity in what is going on by their active support for it, or their silence?

How long are you going to accept the likes of Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, Reid, Clinton, as representative of your beliefs just because they have a (D) after their name?

They don't manufacture enough Pepto Bismol for me to stomach that much selling out.

[mzmolly]

163. Zell Miller didn't preach at the REPUBLICAN convention because he's

of like mind with Democrats. He did so because he's a DINO.

Kerry was plenty left, I don't define him by ONE vote in the senate. I listened to his plea for "war as a last resort" and considered his record. As I said "the most liberal record in the Senate" was that of John Kerry. Michael Moore said the same thing, so I guess I'm in good "leftist" company.

However, the last Democrat who WON was Bill Clinton. And, I am proud of Bill Clinton's record as President (for the most part.) That's how life works. I can't think of ONE person who'd serve for 8 years and have my blessing on every decision.

Also, I welcome Bayh and Lieberman to continue to fight for the things we agree on.

I accept that Democrats ARE the moderate party. We have Greens to the left, Republicans to the right. I accept the reality and am thankful that there is a "rational" party (for the most part) that I can claim my own.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

164. Well, stick with the "rational" (or is that "rationalizing" party).

My nose held out for 39 years. With a couple of exceptions when I voted 3rd party (Peace & Freedom in '68) or sat on my hands for a congressional election after the Dem Rep sold her soul to the NRA.

I'll accept that the Dems are the "moderate" party and that you'll accept it as such.

As you said, "We have the Greens on the left..". That's where you'll find me...and I think you'll be finding more leftists as the Democrats continue to sell out the gains the leftists forced them to accept.

[mzmolly]

165. You'll find me fighting the Republicans.

Fair enough? :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

171. Me too. And, their DLC counterparts.

Stock up on noseclamps. I'd also advise blinders, but that would be mean.

[mzmolly]

159. This thread is a continuation of other conversations where whining and

bitching ran amok.

And I'm not talking about building an independent movement, I'm talking about supporting existing progressive independent movements within.

Also, I'm not asking anyone to declare themselves. I said what I intend to do personally. When I was met with resistance to my declaration, I defended my choice. Granted I become impatient because as Gloria Steinem said "Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House." ~ Mz Gloria S.

http://www.designcommunity.com/law/notes/21.html

Clarification: Telling people to LEAVE THE PARTY is foolish and just makes them upset, thus this thread. This thread was a response to a thread suggesting progressives should "leave the party."

Leaving is not leverage, it's foolhardy and selfish. Some people can't afford the political purity movement. We should have seen the effects of this mentality in 2000?

Now, I can't stick around for your last "lecture" because I really must be going.

Please do have the last word ... But, try not to be pius because it's tough to bite my lip under such circumstances. ;)

[m berst]

161. now you're talking

"Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House."

That is a great point.

That helped me clarify my thinking. I go with what is in the best interests of the minority communities, and I think that is also where the best interests lie for the greatest number of people in general.

See? We're getting there. :)

[tedzbear]

86. Bullshit.

That's NOT true and you know it.


:bounce: go Green go!!

[nickshepDEM]

93. Oh, I do believe its true.

[Nordic]

52. "individual cells in the dead organism continue living for some time"

The Democratic Party is dead, worthless, and does not represent me, or anyone I know, any longer.

Call me a parasite, but I'm jumping to a new host.

[mzmolly]

59. Ciao.

I consider the Republican Party parasitic and the Democrats the only remedy.

I think the main difference between progressive who threaten to flock elsewhere and those who don't is one's ability to tolerate Republicans.

[flaminbats]

54. only if Democratic leaders make a tangible impact of public policy..

Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and had the votes to stop Bush's tax-cuts. Even now Democrats could force Republicans to negotiate on some issues..if they don't vote to abolish the filibuster. If Democrats retake the House and Senate, there would be ample grounds to impeach Bush and Cheney. But do Democrats have the will to hold this administration accountable for its crimes? Even if Democrats retake Congress, would the War in Iraq ever end?

If Democrats fail to win a majority in either house in 2006, our party will not be a significant factor by 2008.

[mzmolly]

60. I think in 08 people will be sick to death of the Republicans, and they'll

only have themselves to blame for the failed/dangerous policies.

I'm really not that worried about 08. 06 on the other hand, I'm concerned about.

[orpupilofnature57]

55. remedy, stop seeking conservative approval,LIBERAL not PROGRESSIVE

STOP DILUTING PROCESS.

[lateo]

61. The democratic party is DEAD period. Let it die, then start over.

The people who still are clinging to the idea that the Democrats can be saved by us are really making me scratch my head in wonder. This is the sort of actions seen in the abused spouse cases...just keep returning for more beatings.

It is the height of idoicy to keep repeating an action that doesn't work.

The square peg does not go in the round hole.

[mzmolly]

63. Actually the abuser is the Republican Party, and the family that enables

the abuser, are progressives who think the answer is pretending he's "not that bad."

[lateo]

66. Wait, wait, wait...

Are you saying that "progressives" are enabling the Republicans? What do you mean by "progressives"?

[mzmolly]

68. I mean people who flee the only party with a shot at defeating the

"abuser" in the name of progressive values and suggest others join them.

I don't care what an individual does with his or her party affiliation, but I am suspect of the "join me in mass suicide" mentality.

I'm staying in the party and I hope more Progressives come into the fold so we can select a solid progressive candidate in 08 instead of bitching about it.

[lateo]

72. How many more elections are you prepared to lose...

before you change your mind? Your idealist quest will have one of two outcomes, success or failure. Is there a point where you will admit that the Democratic party is not salvagable?

Is there a point were you will realize that progressives in the party aren't welcome anymore? I mean, what more of a signal did you need than watching Dean (and he is hardly a progressive) get destroyed by the establishment?

[mzmolly]

74. We got 49% of the vote, ON THE RECORD.

I don't know why one has to float in the "doom and gloom" boat when the party they are speaking of fleeing too, got about 1%?

I understand there are different factions of the party and that we will disagree. Dean lost, I'm over it, and so is he.

Now tell me how you think a splintered opposition movement will be stronger?

[Walt Starr]

71. I'm to the point where I'd prefer to just stick it with a needle

and let it die a dignified death.

[lateo]

73. I'm with you there...

The people who still support Kerry and the Democrats are just fooling themselves. Pie in the sky melodrama isn't what we need right now.

[mzmolly]

75. The melodrama began in another thread with a pie in the sky idea

that progressives should all leave the Democratic Party.

My thread is a response to that ridiculous and dangerous notion.

To each his own I say, but don't suggest we all jump ship unless your offering an actual "dingy."

[lateo]

81. There is no "dingy"

If anyone is to leave the party they will need a tank not a "dingy". The idea that if the progressives leave is not a ridiculous notion but it is indeed a dangerous one.

Dangerous because the Democratic party will be without its soul.

Dangerous because the Republicans will have no problem defeating more Democrats in local and federal elections.

Dangerous because the power players inside the beltway will be dropping like flies come election day.

There is always danger in movements that uproot complacency and comfort. The Democrats have gotten fat and lazy on our dime all the while taking the corporations cash and pocketing it.

If they won't change it is time to make them bleed green for a while.

All this fear mongering about leaving the party is for cowards and fools. Someone has to be the one to force the change and forcing the change is the ONLY way it will happen.

[mzmolly]

83. You have revealed your lack of knowledge, yet again.

"The Democrats have gotten fat and lazy on our dime all the while taking the corporations cash and pocketing it."

But I must admit, I never tire of the Nader talking points because they reveal the lack of original thought among pseudo progressives.

However, to answer your greater lack of a point: The Democratic Party raised FAR MORE MONEY FROM AVERAGE CITIZENS than corporations. We don't need Corporate money. The Progressive movement within the party got stronger than ever this past election.

Now tell me how you and the rest of the 1%-ers are forcing change?

[lateo]

88. Ahhh...

When your argument is failing resort to telling the other side they are stupid or emphatically "wrong", and wash that all down with some tastey non-sequitors.

You will have to do better than that.

[mzmolly]

90. Oh please.

I responded to specific "wrong AND ignorant" claims.

And, ya know ... I'm just fine with "how I'm doing" thanks.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the 1% revolution will change things. Thankfully, I'm not holding my breath.

:hi:

What's interesting is that the original post I referred to essentially stated that progressives should leave the Democratic Party. I responded with a similar thread, only noting MY intentions. In spite of that I got defensive replies.

Do you know how Freepers disrupt here at DU? I do, (as I've visited their stomping grounds) and, I must say it's interesting to watch well intentioned progressives support their cause. However, they and/or the mentality they promote, will not go un-challenged by myself or other DEMOCRATIC Party Progressives.

[lateo]

98. You have the same mentality...

of the people who said, "If we break with England we will perish." Obviously we are better off being independant.

[mzmolly]

99. Guess what? There are no continents left to sail off to and exploit

in the name of justice, so I'm fighting for this one here.

You sound like the people in Germany who thought the Nazi's weren't so bad. Remember ... Hitler won with 37% of the vote.

[lateo]

102. Again...

The melodrama...boring...some people were meant for the fight others were meant to follow...

[mzmolly]

104. "Some were meant to fight" is right. I plan to stay and do just that

with a party in a position to fight, it seems you believe in running away.

[mzmolly]

103. Really? Are the Native Americans "better off?"

Sorry, it's not that simple lateo.

And, I don't know that "were" any better off. I much prefer Tony Blair to George Bush, myself. ;)

[lateo]

113. I don't follow...

how would the Native Americans be better off?

[tedzbear]

76. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

I've already re-registered Green Party.

:bounce: Green

[mzmolly]

79. "Re-registered"

For lack of a better quote: "Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn."

The Civil War is an Apt analogy I'd say.

:hi:

[Sterling]

87. Your world is made of cheese.

This thread is some of the cheesiest cheese wiz I have seen i some time.

Unless you have a few million to throw away you have no chance of influencing the party at all. I think it is hilarious you are lecturing people who have been at this for decades on how we just need to stay the course and things will work out.


I almost have less energy to debate this nonsense with you than I do enthusiasm for your naive suggestion.

[lateo]

89. Indeed...

You have to consider the source though...she was one of Kerry's loudest supporters here on DU during the last fiasco. Some people just don't get it.

[mzmolly]

92. Ha. I'm amused.

:hi:

And, most people who've been around here longer than 30 days will be as well.

[lateo]

100. I have been at DU since...

February 2002 when I first found DU via Buzzflash. This is a new ID for me.

[mzmolly]

101. Well, then you should know better ... either that or use that handy

search option.

:hi:

[lateo]

105. .

If you want to keep sticking your head in the sand feel free to do so, but don't critisize the rest of us who don't.

If it were up to Americans like you we would still have a British accent.

[mzmolly]

106. Got a problem with the brits?

No I ol' chap. :hi:

[lateo]

107. Not really but...

that isn't what this conversation is about is it?

[VioletLake]

109. It seems to be about you wanting to quit.

You were fighting Republicans with 60 million other Americans. Now you advocate doing the one thing that will benefit Republicans most: divide the only group capable of defeating them.

The fight isn't over. The verdict on Kerry and the DP isn't in yet.

[mzmolly]

110. I do believe you brought up the subject?

;) So, I guess it is now.

[lateo]

126. Sigh...

I made a comment about people like you being the sort of folk who would have been appeasing England in the 1700's. You translate that into me saying something negative about the "brits". Then I make a comment about you completely missing the point. You then proceed to...completely miss the point...again.

It is no wonder you are still cheerleadering for the Democrats.

[mzmolly]

135. And, I made a comment about you being like people in the 30's who thought

Hitler wasn't so bad.

[lateo]

167. Go figure...

You have completely missed the point of everything else so why not just dig the hole deeper.

[mzmolly]

91. What I find humorous is that my reply to a 'cheesy' thread encouraging

progressives flock to another party "in order to win some ideological battle" :eyes: is seen as uhm ... wisdom?

[flaminbats]

111. So did many Whigs in 1856..

In 1852 Whigs made a final attempt to win the White House by nominating General Winfield Scott. Democrats won the majority, Whigs won 44% of the vote, and the free-soil party..or Republicans won 5%. By 1856 Democrats won 45%, Republicans won 33%, and the Whigs only won 22%. In 1860 Republicans won 40%, Whigs won 18%, Southern Democrats won 18%, and Democrats won 29%.

Former Whigs split their votes for Lincoln and Bell, while Democrats were divided between Douglas and Breckenridge. But clearly former Whigs were wise to ditch their old party in favor of the Republicans.

The Whig party would still exist today if they had taken a firm stand against slavery, instead they made national unity and political compromise the central themes of a dead party. Progressives will not flock to another party just to win "some idealogical battle", this will happen only if Democrats remain a trivial force in shaping public policy.

[mzmolly]

114. Another totally irrelevant morsel of history today.

Thanks I guess. :hi:

However, were sure to become trivial if we splinter into various factions.

[flaminbats]

116. Which was more important..

defeating Hitler or who defeats Hitler?

Who cares which party or candidate we support? All that matters to most voters..what is accomplished and how it helps or hurts them.

FDR wasn't elected just to defeat Hitler or Republicans, he was elected on the New Deal, labor reforms, and ending the depression.

great topic!! :thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

117. Defeating Hitler of course.

That's the point. :hi:

[flaminbats]

118. What qualifies as an "intact opposition party"..

running against an opponent or supporting a set of achievable objectives? You could have run against Hitler, and your message..vote against Hitler he'll murder millions. Would another candidate, one without an ideology, really unite the opposition or only divide it further?

[mzmolly]

121. I'd say were pretty united, we got 49% of the vote, and may have even

Won sans fraud.

Also, why does one have to choose between running against an opponent and achieving objectives? I think we can do both provided progressives fight from within the Party that can defeat said opponent.

And, why are we discussing candidates "without" an ideology? Who suggested we not have an ideology. I suggest merely that we have a reasonable ideology and not tantrum and threaten to leave when we have disagreements.

"Democrats eat their own" so the saying goes ...

[flaminbats]

125. exactly..

I'll support any candidate who has an agreeable vision and the intelligence to lead. Clearly we agree, progressives will not leave the party unless it lacks both of these qualities.

In a world of ideals we have no opponents, in a world of enemies we have no ideals. In a world of realism neither exist, but both are necessary to win elections.

[mzmolly]

115. dupe

[Geek_Girl]

108. I thought about Leaving

But Isn't the best way to take down the status quo is to stay put and fight from the inside? I pretty much came to that conclusion I'm going to fight from the inside even if that makes me a spoiler. If the democratic politicians are hell bent on suicide by attacking their grass roots then I'll push them along to the path of destruction. But I'll do it as a democrat.

[mzmolly]

112. Bravo!

:toast:

[eridani]

123. The trunk is dead--

--but the roots are ready and willing to put out lots of new shoots.

[mzmolly]

124. That's right, and we could use a good pruning too.

:hi:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

134. Let's take it back from the complicit and cowed enablers who run it.

But that mean's the DNC has to hear that we are DEADLY serious about protecting ourselves from the Repub Eugenics Movement and we will DO IT BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY INCLUDING STARTING A NEW PARTY.

[Deja Q]

142. Watch who you're calling 'psuedo-progressives', bucky...

We don't lead the Dem party. The Dem party leaders killed it.

Not us, those who blindly voted for them instead of our ideals.

We need to lead our own party. Because then WE are the leaders and only THEN would WE have a say in how it lives. Or dies.

THEY are the pseudo-progressives. Not us. You're tagging the wrong people. Look at THEIR actions, they are not progressives. They are Progre$$ives. Corporate Progre$$ives. x(

Or hadn't you noticed?

[Selwynn]

157. While I don't agree with all of your rhetoric, I think we should stay

..and fight. I'm more for reclaiming and rebuilding the democratic party into what it should be than for leaving it. But that would require massive and sweeping reform.

[VioletLake]

169. I started a new thread inspired in large part

by the arguments in this thread. I was going to post it here, but decided to start a new thread. I hope it's ok to post the link here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1435018