What has the Democratic Party done for you lately?

[Nordic]

and does it represent you in any way?

I'm asking because it is my opinion that the party is dead. Those with power in the party seem completely disinterested in fighting for anything as long as they get to keep their cushy positions. They seem utterly out of touch with, well, everything. They seem completely unaware of the problems facing this country and utterly oblivious to the crimes of this administration.

Yet a whole lot of people on this board seem very loyal.

I'm wondering why anyone should be loyal at this point, when, in my 42 years of life, I have never seen the Democratic Party at such an embarrassingly low point. Alan Colmes seems like a tough passionate guy compared to the "leaders" in our party.

So let's hear it. What has the Democratic Party done for you lately? Why do you think it represents your interests? And how is it doing that?

[anitar1]

1. Dem Party? Nada n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Jack Squat

[jobycom]

3. Defeated the Republicans in at least three of the last four presidential

elections, for starters.

Not every Democrat is a good Democrat, but the only good people in office right now, the only officeholders who say what I want said and who do what I want done, nationally, are Democrats.

And if you're 42, you've seen the party at such a low point. Try 1988-92, just before Clinton was elected. Remember when our candidate was polling third to Bush and Perot, and half the party was turning on him? Politics turns on a dime. In the winner take all system, the opposition always looks further out of it than they are.

[lastliberalintexas]

36. Not quite

I hate to have to point this out jobycom, but that single minded tunnel vision expressed or implied by your post is one of the biggest problems in our party right now. We were in a MUCH better position in 1988 than we are right not, because we controlled Congress and the Supreme Court then!!!! We also held more governors' mansions and state legislatures than we do now.

The presidency is not the end all be all that the myopic party structure seems to believe it is. It is but one of many races to be hard fought and won. I wouldn't care if Bush had been elected legitimately on Nov 2, if we were in the same position as a party that we were in 1988- because then we could stop him and his policies.

I'd gladly trade 1988 for 2004. Just don't ask me to go back to high school! :-)

[jobycom]

60. You should hate to point it out, because it's not true

The "Democratic" majority under Reagan and Bush comprised a few liberals and a lot of southern Democrats, ie Republicans, like Sam Nunn-- the earlier Zell Miller. If by Democrat you just mean a donkey, then you're right. If by Democrat you mean some ideology that is different than what the other side sponsors, we had no majority of anything in 1988 or 92. Reagan got every damn thing he wanted, and the only reason HW Bush didn't was because he pissed both sides off and because even a fool could see that Reagan's plans had failed.

The myopic tunnel-vision I see is the lemming rush over some third party cliff that happens every time supposed liberals don't get their way. You can carry that down to the local level if it warms your conckles, because it's just as true there. The Republicans stick with their party, we jump ship whenever someone says BOO.

I repeat-- everything that's been done right politically in this nation, from the presidency to the local level, has been done by Democrats. That's why I vote for them.

It's a long fight, you never win, you just hope to steer the boat in the right direction for a while, and make it harder for the other guys to turn it back around when they finally kick you out of the captain's chair. All this "let's find another boat" nonsense is the problem, not the answer.

[lastliberalintexas]

67. I agree somewhat

Yes, the Blue Dogs hurt us quite a bit in the 80s. It wasn't a perfect time for Dems, but I still think it was better than now. We still had more control at the state levels, and we still had control of the agenda in Congress by virtue of holding the Committee Chairs. Iran Contra anyone? We don't even have the power to embark on that kind of investigation these days.

So, no it wasn't perfect. But I'd still trade 1988 for 2004. :shrug:

[hfojvt]

4. how can you expect it to?

At least in my case. My congressman is a Republican and so are both of my Senators. In the last four years, I have seen Democrats propose alot of amendments (which were mostly defeated) and probably 80-90% have voted against Bush-legislation. They do not have the power to block it, except for the filibuster, which has been done on some judgeships.
I am quite sure that I would be happier with my government if we had a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President. What do I expect them to do when they are out of power? I would like to see them force more compromises, but that is still not as good an alternative as Republican electoral defeat would be.
Harry Reid has said that "private accounts" for Social Security are not going to happen, and I hope they stick to their guns on that.
As far as the low point for Democrats. In 1984, Mondale only won Minnesota, Massachusetts and DC (or something like that). We still had the House, but I think we were losing ground.
How can you expect elected representatives to fight if the voters do not have their back? You think they poured money into SD because Daschle was such a sop? If he never fought, why did they hate him so much?

[DieboldMustDie]

5. Actually it was just Minnesota and DC.

Even Massachusetts went for Reagan that year. :shrug:

[hfojvt]

12. those damned liberals

another version of SCLM (so-called liberal Massachusetts)?

[JohnKleeb]

13. to be fair, it was close

[angee_is_mad]

6. Not a Da@# thing

if you are a black female. Which I am!

[Warpy]

10. They haven't done much for us white ones, either

Honestly, if we don't manage to oust the conservative old hacks who have lost us both houses of Congress since 1994, we'll have to hold a funeral. The leadership has just about killed the party, even though the grassroots are alive and well.

If they appoint another DLC milksop to be party chair, I'm done.

[angee_is_mad]

77. But

AA is the biggest voting bloc. If just 50% of this bloc were to leave, where would the party be? If you think things are bad now, baby you ain't seen nothing yet!!!

[slay]

7. Nothing. But here is their chance. Stand up for our votes and

reform the party so that it actually stands for something! I'd suggest looking to a man known as "Howard Dean" for he seems to be one of the few who actually cares about doing what it right and is passionate about it.

[Nordic]

8. do you think they even realize there are millions leaving the party?

I think they are THAT clueless that they have no frikkin' idea.

I have seen no evidence that they deserve my support, but I am looking for reasons, not just blind adherence and loyalty, to stay with the party

[Warpy]

11. The dumb jerks are talking about PURGES

thus proving that they really are Repuglicans. They want to oust most of us. They want to oust Michael Moore (who isn't a Democrat, boys, so you'd better rethink that). Basically, they want to purify the party so that it rivals the GOP in bad policy and worse candidates.

[MessiahRp]

9. You're looking at this the wrong way

WE own the party. Go to your local meetings, run for party officers slots and take your party back.

We did in Oshkosh. The same people ran the party here for a decade or more and in that time we have had Republican domination of local seats.

Last year my friends and I made a commitment to go to meetings and make our voices heard and then this past month we had our meeting and when new party officials were to be elected my friends got their names in, gave good speeches and got elected.

Now ultimately, we control our local party. And with more of us doing this we will run the party all together. We may not run the national DNC but a large collective of local parties working upon our liberal, passionate ideals will force them to listen to us and not those DLC guys.

You make the effort and you will ultimately make the calls...

Rp

[Nordic]

14. that's the DFA approach which I think is great

and I hope it works. But what if it doesn't? Who is our party then?

[m berst]

15. What is the Democratic party?

I can't figure out what the Democratic party is anymore. Is it all of the people who vote Democratic? If so, they would still exist without the party with the same ideas they have now. Is it the label and the memories that go with that label? Is it like always rooting for your favorite sports team no matter who plays for them or how well they do? Is it a collection of leaders? Do those leaders define the party for us no matter who they are or what they do? Is the label Democrat all they need to gain our loyalty and devotion?

Where is this Democratic party? How does one enter it or leave it? How does one know if one is in it?

If the Democratic party - the label and the party apparatus -disappeared tomorrow, would we be better or worse off? The liberals would still exist. The people who have voted Democratic would still exist. The ideals would still exist.

Why "stay in" the party? People say that if we don't, we weaken it and weakening it makes it more likely that horrible things will happen. I then have to ask what could happen that is more horrible than what has already happened? Not to say that it won't get worse, because the nightmare is just starting to play out now, but it is in motion and seems unstoppable.

Do people imagine that if the Democratic party disappeared tomorrow that there would then be no opposition to the Republicans? Would we all say, "oh well, no more Democratic party so I guess I will just go home and give up" and leave the field to the Republicans? Or would we be more likely to be energized and motivated to create something new to fill the vacuum?

How much of our time and energy is now spent wrestling with the cumbersome and moribund structure we call the Democratic party rather then spent in creative and positive new directions?

Is the Democratic party not merely a tool for achieving certain goals? It shouldn't be akin to a religion, should it, that requires our faith and devotion regardless of performance?

If this tool we call the Democratic party is not getting the job done - and 8 years of this corrupt and totalitarian regime is what I call not getting the job done if anything ever can be called not getting the job done - then why are we clinging to it? Because we don't have a choice? Of course we have a choice.

Why not loyalty to the people first and foremost? Why not devotion to the great liberal ideas for which the party once stood? The ideals that Democrats were able to articulate at one time and didn't have to apologize for or compromise on? If the people who currently "own" the label don't want to give it up, then the label goes the way of the Whigs. So what? Let them have the label.

Aren't we really the Democratic party? Didn't Dean show us that we can do it without the party apparatus? Go without corporate money? Create our own grass roots organization? Didn't Clark show us that we can present liberal ideals in a way that resonate with working class Republican voters? Was it not the party apparatus and elite rather than the Republicans that stymied and thwarted us?

If the choice were between continuing to wrestle with the existing party, or having a clear field to try the experiment of forming a new populist progressive party aligning the old Democratic working party and have-not constituency, which would be the more likely to beat the Republicans? What if we moved forward without all of the baggage, the corruption, the conflicts and the labels - how could we possibly do worse than we are doing now?



on edit - typo

[Q]

22. Very well said...

...I vote for forming a New Populist/Progressive party.

[ursacorwin]

42. i would love this to happen, Q

not that parties matter in a totalitarian state, which we will be as soon as the next manufactured crisis sends us off to WWIII....


that said: i think it makes a lot of sense to realize that for the most part, the evil, theofascist element of the rethug party isn't really a majority, not by a long shot. i'm dating a libertarian, and it's been really interesting to chat about issues and realize upon how much we agree. we voted differently, but the fact is that neither of us is happy about the direction bush is taking us, and would happily vote for an alternative who believed in a truly smaller and more efficient gov't, a return to liberty as defined by the constitution, the reduction of the MIC/police state abroad and at home, and end both of our ever present wars (on drugs and terror).

there are ~50% of this country that doesn't vote at all. they know what a lot of us are waking up to with respect to the dems- they don't care about anything other than our money. a party that could address the combined populations of nonvoters, disaffected dems and non theofascist repubs would win in a landslide every time.

[PATRICK]

27. Revitalizing is easier

than the radical conservatives seizing the GOP. First, it's cheaper. Second, it is fecklessly bound to democratic methods and principles. Third, the cliquish opportunists who may even by DINO's for their own advancement are lousier at their jobs whether their arrogance and obstructionism matches their GOP counterparts or not.

I'd say this is one of those nuggets strewn in an open field situation NOT the twenty year extreme dentistry it took for the GOP grass roots to
become the thug army of the rich.

Some would think because of the pathetic(stress pathetic) opposition of the clinging DLC and recent defeats it would be hard to change the party.
It might not be that hard at all, because most of our incompetents are not bad people at heart and share many of our core values.

To take candy from a baby you shouldn't have to beat the baby up. We are talking of ourselves as mature people who know what the country generally wants and needs, not a high crusade for fantastic extremism. It won't be that hard because our only insanity as a party is coddling the insanity of others who tyrannize and destroy the system.

The ONLY thing, as newbies and idealists is that the added dimension of institutional ropes and ladders, knowing how things work politically in the present condition(can't get around it usually) is the real and chief hurdle. Once the current career sages were newbies too.

The worst thing for a newbie is to try and be a third party and totally flounder under the stacked deck. Taking over the local party is not working within the system it is becoming the heart of the system and it IS conducive to sincere new talent unless you are really
scary and stupid.

And yes DFA should be "helping" that situation to make the Democrats, Democracy and America real like it never has been before. Which is why the current leadership should be working with Dean and not sniping him down to the grass roots where they will be completely out maneuvered.

[Nordic]

47. If I saw actual support for Dean from the "leadership" I'd agree with you

but I'm not seeing that.

The Dean, DFA approach is so obviously the right way to go and the only clear alternative to what exists now.

Even if you don't like/agree with Dean you have to admit he's extremely effective.

Yet Pelosi and Reid are trotting out guys like Roehmer because he's from a "red state".

Pandering yet again. We don't need to appeal to the reds! There are plenty of blues, and plenty more who don't vote but who might if they had something they could put some faith into!

[Nordic]

46. those are my sentiments exactly, m berst

thanks for contributing them.

I sorta wish the Democratic Party would just turn in its uniform and quit.

We need to start from scratch.

I would rather do this than deal with all the Pelosis and the Reids and the Harry Ford Jr's and the DNC and the DLC and all the bullshit and connotations.

A new party would have no baggage and the years of the right-wing propaganda barrage on the party (to which the party has responded so poorly) would be gone. Sure, they'd start a new barrage, but we'd have guys like Walter Lakoff (sic?) working for us.

[donheld]

16. ask not what the democratic party can do for you--

ask what you can do for the democratic party.


am i crazy or not? :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. You Nailed It...

I can take care of myself I want the Democratic party to be there to help the little fella, i.e. the poor, the elderly, the infirm, the marginalized....


As Joe Kennedy taught his kids "the rich will always be able to take care of themselves, the government is there to help the little guy."

[Nordic]

48. I'd rather ask what I can do for my country

And for Democracy itself.

I'm stepping away from the party loyalty and looking at the big picture.

Like M Berst said, what if the Democratic Party didn't exist? What would we do?

What would we stand for? Who would we want as our allies?

[MsConduct]

17. Uh, let's see.... They've collected their paychecks, retirement bene's,

moss on their asses....Nope, nothing seems to have benefited me or anyone else.

[Julien Sorel]

18. What is the Democratic Party supposed to have done for me?

They are in the minority at every level of government. I know, I know, if they were tough guys they'd be getting some things done, like the Republicans did during their 60+ years of minority status. The list of Republican accomplishments during that time is long and distinguished. I'm sure, for example, that you could name a bunch of them right off the top of your head.


Yet another invitation to bash Democrats on the "Democratic" Underground. On the bright side, you managed to leave the DLC out of it. :toast:

[LittleClarkie]

19. Ask not what your party can do for you...

ask what you can do for your party.

(starting to quote Kennedy... must be time to go to bed... anyone else STILL having "sleep issues." Gee, I thought those would go away on Nov. 3... nope...)

[lastliberalintexas]

37. Well,

the republicans managed to pack the federal courts during their time in the wilderness, so I guess that could be considered a pretty nice accomplishment. But then, I guess most of the credit actually has to go to those "Democrats" who voted to confirm the right wingers to the bench, since the republicans couldn't have done it without their help. So maybe that one doesn't count. :shrug:

[Julien Sorel]

45. The Republicans held the presidency

when they were able to nominate judges. The Democrats hold nothing at all.

[lastliberalintexas]

53. "The Democrats hold nothing at all."

Yep, under the current DNC and DLC leadership, we've made tremendous strides in winning races. No wonder so many here continue to defend them. :eyes:


And actually, some (though not many) of the right wingers even went to the bench during Clinton's tenure in office. He did appoint some rather conservative people to the bench you know.

[Julien Sorel]

54. Yeah yeah yeah.

It's all the DLC's fault. If only the party had been more left wing, none of this would have happened. I keep looking at the success of Dukakis and Mondale and McGovern, and noticing how all the seats Democrats lose are in conservative states and regions, and wonder, "What in the world are they thinking? Liberalism is the way to go!"

Not only does history tell me being more liberal is the way to go, but the smart and sane people at DU say it -- that's better than history in my book.

[lastliberalintexas]

55. Completely misrepresented or misinterpreted

what I wrote. I said the *leadership* of the DNC *and* the DLC are to blame. I did not say the DLC is a boogey man to be blamed for all. If you think that MacAuliffe and From have done a fine job in leading our party organizations, then we probably have nothing more to discuss. If you can admit that there are problems in the party leadership and structure which need to be discussed and remedied, then we're on the same page.

FWIW, I don't think this is a left/right dichotomy, and I don't think making a hard left is any better than making a hard right when it comes to winning races. I don't want to purge the conservative Dems from the party. I just wish they'd stop trying to purge the liberals.

[Julien Sorel]

57. Ahh, I see now.

So it's the leadership that's at fault. And what have the leaders actually done wrong? Well, you never say. Yet it seems like an important detail. At least to me.

[lastliberalintexas]

65. Well, if I really thought you were interested

I'd provide details. But any response I give will be dismissed as party disloyalty- despite the fact that I haven't quit the party, am not planning on quitting the party, and think that the party does a damn good job for the most part. The fact that I can concede that there are *some* problems with our party shouldn't make me (or others like me) a Benedict Arnold of some sort.


But for kicks, how about the Dem party's failure to respond to the Swift Boat idiots? Kerry was blacked out during that month, so the party should have taken to the airwaves and crushed those people for the slime that they are. But they did nothing, and allowed the Swifities to frame that issue for a solid month.

Now, I'm sure you'll find some excuse for them not acting, like saying that isn't their job, they're there to raise money, blah blah. Which would be baloney, since a primary reason for having a party structure is so that they can coordinate our campaigns. So for me, their failure of leadership on that issue alone should be reason enough for them to be standing in the unemployment line.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[m berst]

73. you will probably win

I think that the centrists and the DLC strategy will probably win in the struggle for control of the party, so I don't know why you feel the need to go after leftists all of the time here.

Most people will knuckle under (as they see it, whether you think they are wrong or not) and the leftists will be on the margins. If we leave - whatever that means - we leave. Whatever. The Republicans already see the leftists as the cause of all the problems, and now much of the Democratic party does as well and you are an outspoken and effective proponent of eliminating any influence on the party from the far left.

Your views will probably prevail. Asking people who are in the category of far left in your mind to be happy about that is going a little too far.

Let's say for the sake of argument that your take on this is correct - we are all deluded and destructive. So what does it hurt to have us sound of hear on our little leftist threads? That would seem to be a reasonable bone to throw us to keep us out if your and the party's hair and render us irrelevant and powerless. Is there a danger that left unchecked we would persuade or influence people? That can't be your worry since you are convinced that no one would ever buy our philosophy. Is the worry that we would hijack the party and lead it to catastrophe? A worse catastrophe than we already have? Little chance of that I think.

Or do you have a need to argue with us? What can be gained do you think by this argument?

[Julien Sorel]

79. It's not about me and "winning."

It's about the constant anti-centrist drone of this place. I suggest you look at the number of threads here daily that say the same thing. I'm sure you know the type: "Why is the DLC/the centrists/the corporatists so stupid? Aren't they tired of losing?"


Leftists? I got no problem with them. Some of the best people here are Kucinich supporters, who support him for principled reasons, and have a pragmatic understanding of his electoral prospects. Everyone has a right to their opinion and ideology. What I have a problem with isn't ideology per se, it's the ignorance and dishonesty that inform so much of the centrist bashing here.

Personally, pointing out for the umpteenth time why the Democrats lost in 1994, or that they won in 1996 and 2000, and lost narrowly in 2002 and this year because no one trusts some of the crazies who infest this place with national security, isn't my idea of fun. Seeing the 1000th "Joe Lieberman is a Republican" thread doesn't send chills down my spine; neither does seeing thread # 582 on how the DLC is destroying the world. Yet it goes on and on. I suggest you take a good look at some of these threads and see who is attacking whom.

[m berst]

80. I see, thanks

You make some good points, and that was what I was hoping to see.

"...no one trusts some of the crazies who infest this place with national security, isn't my idea of fun."

There is truth to that and it is unfortunate, I agree.

I guess my objection is the association of the far left with crazies with anti-DLC and with soft on national security as though they are all the same thing. Certainly all of these attitudes or traits are often found in the same individual. However, I know many Dean supporters who are relatively conservative, but who see a danger not so much in the centrist or moderate political stances of some of the Democratic leadership, but rather are concerned about cronyism and the corrupting influence of corporate money, and an over-eagerness to compromise and cooperate with the opposition. Whether we agree with their view or not, they are not necessarily far left, crazy, nor weak on national security issues.

I consider myself, as I have said before, a middle of the road Democrat who now finds myself called far left. That is not something I went seeking, since given that my views have not changed I would just as soon not be called an extremist. My point is that I didn't start with an opinion about this and then go searching for evidence to buttress it. I don't recall being called a far left extremist 30 years ago, and I am called that today, and I haven't changed my positions on anything. My assumption, then, is that this must mean that the party has moved to the right. But I don't know that with any certainty, that is just a logical guess. I understand that you disagree with the idea that the party has moved to the right, and you make a good case for that. I suspect that we are using different measuring sticks on this, and that arriving at the truth may require each of us to give some consideration to the other person's methodology. The truth could be somewhere between our two positions, or it could be that both are true depending on how you look at the issue.

On national defense, I supported Wes Clark in part because I believed that he had intelligent positions on national defense - as opposed to "strong" and "weak" - and I think intelligence is the quality we are looking for. I also thought that from a practical view, a retired military officer could more safely take an anti-war position without alienating voters. I just read Richard Clarke's book, and he is certainly not weak on defense and is a Republican I believe, but I have no objections to his views and see no incompatibility between his views and my left wing political views. Intelligent defense policy with the use of force as a last resort should not be a left or right position. The defense of the country, building alliances to maintain the peace, anticipating threats, and the avoidance of war are rational bi-partisan interests.

As for the "crazies" label, what I think is truly crazy is the demonization of every Bush voter in the country with - our friends, family, neighbors and co-workers - as the enemy, with all of the name calling and generalizations that go with that. I also am opposed to the stereotyping of all Christians and all Southerners and the hate fests that people get into here toward them. I have been calling for reaching out and communicating with the Republican voters and finding common ground on broad principles and values. I am opposed to the civil war mentality of those who are perhaps in these "far left" or "crazies" categories you see.

So I think that these four qualities don't necessarily go together, but I can see that one could get tired of the Lieberman threads and also resent what you see as irrational or impractical and self-defeating attacks on other Democrats.

My concern with some of the party leadership is not so much what they stand for in terms of left or right positions, but the way they stand for them. The party has an image now - unfairly in part at least - of being unprincipled and merely interested in power and of pandering to voters by telling them what they want to hear. I think there is a "do anything to win" mentality that is dangerous, and a fear of offending or alienating undecided voters that can reinforce this image of being the party of no principles. We also fail to transmit liberal values to the next generation and fail to give potential converts a strong sense of who we are if we try to appear or act too centrist.

I know that on other threads you mentioned the failure of Dean and Kucinich to win primaries in the first case, and to ever poll decent numbers in the second, as evidence that left wing positions are suicidal for the party because they render the party unelectable. There is some truth to that, but it can be overstated. I would introduce to that analysis the idea that the candidate the Democratic party primary voters prefer may not be the most appealing candidate in the general election. I thought that this was especially true this year. I don't claim that to be the truth and certainly not the whole truth, but I think it warrants consideration.

Some of us see a danger in emphasizing the practical too much. I understand that you see the danger of emphasizing the principles too much - or too rigidly or stridently. I hope that I am characterizing your position accurately here.

Reasonable and honest people can disagree both on positions on the issues and tactical and strategic ideas. Somewhere there is a balance between the different ideologies that the party encompasses and the different ideas about tactics and strategy. I don't think that it necessarily breaks down neatly into two polarized camps.

Let me see if I can briefly describe your position and mine so that we have a place to start from when we discuss this in the future.

I think I am hearing you say that there is a danger of idealistic, unrealistic, left-wing purists dragging the party off the cliff by alienating the vast middle of the electorate with unpopular positions and strident rhetoric.

I am saying that there is a danger that an over-emphasis on practicality is weakening the strength of the party as effective opposition, and there is a danger that the party will lose track of the principles it stands for and so ultimately lose popularity, or trade popularity for ideals .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Breyer And Ginsburg Are Center Left Judges...

I'd be surprised if Clinton appointed any right wing judges....


In fact I'd be so surprised I'd ask for documentation.....

[lastliberalintexas]

63. Judge Kazen (?) for one

Clinton appointee in the Southern District of Texas, screwed us in rulings concerning the Delay re-re-districting. And more generally, an article I read recently detailing a study which found that Clinton appointees were much more conservative than those of Carter and Johnson, though not quite as right wing as those of Reagan, Bush I and Jr. You could probably find sources on google if you were really interested.


But you're right, I shouldn't have said right wing. But very conservative nonetheless.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Without Getting Into An Arcane Discussion

good judges show fealty to the law and not the person who appointed them.....


Also, Carter and LBJ had senate majorities....

[Nordic]

49. well they're supposed to represent you. Do they?

that's what I was asking.

They've taken our money, but for what?

So they can pander to the opposition?

Do you feel good about what they're doing, even given the current minority status?

It's easy to say "well, gosh, we're the minority, so what the fuck are we supposed to do?"

Well you're supposed to act like the opposition party for one thing. And fight.

[ever_green]

20. Nothing.

and I agree with you. Consider going Green or something. Next time...

[Sgent]

23. For me, personally?

Nothing.

My neighbors, my patients, and my friends, quite a lot. About 6 months ago they successfully led a colition to defeat Haley Barbor's Medicaid reform bill -- which would have eliminated the poverty level elderly and disabled from Medicaid, leaving some (disabled esp) with no health insurance at all.

The bill had already been signed into law (dead of night legislation), and through obstructionism and hardball tactics, they got the deadline for implementation extended, and finally a federal court through it out. The Govenor is going to try and reintroduce it this session, with corrections to satisfy the court, and it will go exactly nowhere.

[NoPasaran]

29. Which raises the question

What has the Green Party ever done for you?

[Walt Starr]

24. They're about to throw me overboard

by putting Roemer in as the new ABD candidate for the DNC chair.

[PATRICK]

28. in a year

the Chair could be the loneliest man in the party. His sympathizers would be weak and local grass roots could simply grow away from chair control and kick him out at a good moment. Moving into the local party is a natural process in OUR democratic party. That is the necessary step, regardless of the titular leader of the amorphous national organization.

As he goes with his tin cup to the cold shoulders of rich donors and with a screechy violin to a derisive media the real change can be occurring in every county in the nation.

Who, among the current crop of "losers but choosers" is fit to elect a DNC chair anyway? Let's become the choosers first.

[Walt Starr]

31. I don;t really agree

Things operate from the top down. The Democratic Party, at the behest of the DLC, is about to throw the activist base overboard to enhance the Corporatist/PNAC agenda. Basically, the DLC is in bed with the neocons and want nothing more than to advance the Bush agenda.

And they're going to get their way no matter what, hence, the Democratic Party is dead.

[donkeyotay]

34. I'm with you Walt

The grassroots did energize the party. We came on board, minimized our differences, united because of the illegal, immoral war.

I re-registered Democrat. I'll be re-registering back to Independent.

It's a top-down deal, and the people don't matter.

[PATRICK]

61. I understand but there is an alternative

Energizing for electioneering is not necessarily being anything other than a seasonal tool for the leadership. What I mean is becoming the grass roots leadership HOLDING the chairs and duties of the local level.

I know history is kind of short in this country and a political party is not a religion(Americans shop around there too), but take the Church for example. The leadership extending quite a ways down has been corrupt for looong periods and the Church still survives because it is bigger than the distinguished butts sitting in the select chairs. Reforms started mostly from the lower ranks, the saints and the intellectuals and in response to the challenge of social pressures putting a recalcitrant Church hierarchy to shame.

The theory there of course was that, even with Reformist(Third Party) Churches there was no where to go. That does NOT apply to a mere political party, which the DNC should be forced to comprehend as they comprehend little else regarding their survival. It does apply to having hope and belief in the PEOPLE of an organization betrayed by the delegated institutions of power.

The history of the Church also shows that splits can be messy and crippling and self-defeating. Unity is key for a political coalition too. When you can get the coalition behind the current leadership talking seriously about a new party structure or other rational options, then we'll have a disciplined way of kissing off the defeatist situation the failed leadership has grimly locked us in. As we look around the playing field the leadership of the ENTIRE society leaves something to be desired. Namely imagination, courage, effectiveness, vision, strength.

What I am trying to say there are many easy ways out as there are inertial drives locked in to "go with the DNC" self-renewing it's clod plodding ways of collaboration. We should get our other coalitions whether you are part of Rainbow, Labor, senior citizens group(sadly infiltrated) etc. to seriously get moving on. The situation is also alarming there which should make the hairs rise on the back of the neck. Some of the older groups especially look like a bag of rotting all day suckers, glommed together and useless for consumption.

By moving on I mean the on which is in the attack sense. It may come to shaking off DLC dust from our street worn shoes. We should move ON the media, move on the organizations and parties. As working people this is supposed to be too hard. As it was too much to expect we would donate so much time and money. As it was too much to expect we would see through the media lies. Participating in the local party is not easy, but the consolation is that overall it is far easier than what the RW had to do to wedge themselves in with the money lords of the GOP even when they were feckless losers. And what we want platform wise is not insane, obnoxious or far out or a threat to the nation and world. Just stopping the party from being run by ambitious, but second rate bookends in Chamber of Commerce mode would be a great step forward.

Otherwise you have opted out back into victimhood or are reinventing a wheel that is not allowed any privileges in the two-party monopoly.

Twenty years ago with the Reagan debacle and the great DNC rollover(like a beached whale) I wished the destruction of both parties on pure principle. Now I know the people really can benefit from a Real Democratic Party taken out of suicide mode and the people are here to make it work as the DNC never had faith in these past decades. The organization is not divinely established. There are always options, but there the nature of the Democratic party is worth building.

The GOP of course keeps earning condemnation. Overkill.

[lojasmo]

25. 1)Made me miserable 2) No. N/T

[AngryAmish]

26. What should it do?

Crush our enemies.

[Bandit]

30. From now on for me it is third party or none at all

When you choose between the best of two evils you still get evil. I will no longer participate in any manner as long as DLC has any say what-so-ever. I am only one vote but it is one less vote the Democrats will ever get from me unless major change takes place.

[GOPBasher]

32. Well they're in minority status, so there's not much they can do.

[rman]

66. they could not vote for neocon legislation

the effect may be limited, but it's not like they *have* to vote like Repubs on so many issues.

[Cheswick2.0]

33. What have you done for the party lately?

I guess this is the part where we are supposed to get all pissed off and register as Greens or something. So what has the Green, Socialist, Libertarian etc... party done for me lately? A lot less than the democratic party.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. I agree somewhat, Cheswick

But the party leaders have been increasingly hostile to the idea of members having any say in how things go. The best example of this is the insiders' support of Roemer for chair- a conservative, anti-choice, DLCer in charge of the DNC- despite the groundswell of support for another candidate. Pro-war, anti-choice, pro-corporate, anti-gay, and anti-reform. Why do we need a Democratic party if it is simply going to adopt the republican platform?

I'm not registering with another party yet. But if I ever do, it will be because the Democratic party left me, not that I left it.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. I am not as convinced we don't have the power we need

if we chose to use it. I understand your feelings believe me. I just think we have more power than we understand. We have to be willing to use it. IN many ways it is much easier to reregister as a member of some other party, go to the polls and then complain about the democratic party and the unfair system.

[Nordic]

50. Gee. Maybe we should hold a press conference

and announce that we will not tolerate a Roehmer for DLC chair.

Who's gonna hold the press conference. Who's our leader?

[Cheswick2.0]

56. is that really our only choice?

I don't think so. I don't really understand the defeatist attitude. Like I said we have power if we chose to use it. If your aggenda is to get people to quit the party then I understand where you are coming from. Otherwise saying we don't have power because we can't call a press conference..... that doesn't make much sense to me.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Nordic]

51. I'm not eager. That's why I started this thread

I wanted some real discussion.

It's a serious issue, and it's a big decision for me.

I'm saying "talk me out of leaving the party".

So far I haven't heard many reasons to stay.

The fact that the insiders would even push Roehmer gives me major pause.

I think they are so out of touch they don't even have a clue as to how many people will leave the party if Howard Dean isn't given the leadership job.

And if they're that clueless, they don't represent me, or anyone else I know.

I want to know who feels REPRESENTED by the insiders.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. I'll let you know when something comes to mind.

------------------------------------
Join the NEW Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Briefly raised my hopes, then followed the well worn DLC path to defeat.

Predictably, they're still trying to blame the left for their pathetic campaign of pandering to the right.

[Forkboy]

43. I dont expect them to do anything for me personally

I do expect them to stand for things like helping the poor,the hungry,supporting unions,grasping the concept of seperation of church and state,opposing illegal wars,etc.

You know,all the things they seem to be running from.

[Eloriel]

44. Lately? Hah! It's been decades since I can feel good about

the direction my so-called Party is going in. Decades. And they just keep getting more and MORE worthless.

[Ravenseye]

52. Stopped Hitting Me Up Daily For Money.

What the don't need money anymore?

Barely a peep since the election.

[CityDem]

58. It has screwed me

It nominated a corporate shill for President who failed to fight for all the votes that were cast in Ohio and Florida. The dem party is officially in the crapper.

[ShaneGR]

59. Making good use of the ignore function lately....

Works great!

[freelight]

68. They gave me a damn good Presidential candidate

He may not have been my favorite, but he was a great candidate, and would have made a great President.
I'm tired of all the hating Democrats are throwing at their own party. Yes, it's in a bad condition. Today's Democratic Party sucks. Let's work to change it for the better instead of shooting it down. After all, isn't that exactly what we want to do for America? We have to reform our own party before we can start thinking about reforming the nation.

[tedzbear]

69. It's the same with the unions...

"Those with power in the party seem completely disinterested in fighting for anything as long as they get to keep their cushy positions."

What these unions need to do is stop all of their local strike actions and strike nationally with all the locals going out at the same time. That's the only way we can have any effect on these big multi-national companies.

But the union leaders want it to be business as usual so that they can keep their cushy positions. Meanwhile the rank and file are gradually losing their benefits and jobs.

[eridani]

83. Yes, Dems and unions in the same boat

Unions more interested in defending shrinking benefits packages for a shrinking membership base instead of growing and going out into their communities. Dems at the top more into staying in Beltway jobs than in growing the party.

[shayes51]

71. Ask not what the Democratic Party has done for you.

Ask what you can do for the Democratic Party. It belongs to us!

[robbedvoter]

72. Nothing. I left already. I am not middle class anymore, so it doesn't

represent me (and it will represent less and less people as BFEE is done with the treasury.) But I am finding that purity tests are being instated, so I don't miss it any. The 'pure bloods" can have it for all I care.

[tabasco]

74. Stopped the destruction of ANWR.

At least temporarily.

[Pithy Cherub]

75. "And so I conclude my lengthy DNC remarks

With a big thank you for nothing!"
A sincere Cherub...

[Geek_Girl]

76. I don't see any point in Leaving the party

Even if you wanted the DLC controlled Democratic party to go down in flames why would you leave. Stay and tear it down from the inside. Punish the politicians that don't support the progressive base and support those that do 100%. In order for another party to take hold this party will have to go down. So either we change it or tear it down. Either way it would be easier to do from the inside.

[UpsideDownFlag]

78. well....um, they made me feel righteously indignant. other than that...nt

[NuttyFluffers]

81. rolled over, died, and corpse got in my way.

quite productive... if i was a conservative.

otherwise :shrug:

[Krocksice]

82. I guess I have two responses for that:

One is that relative to what the Republicans would do without the Democrats... I think they have slowed the process down haha. They had semi-ok environmental protection (would have been much better with Gore)... but signed in the first free trade policy... allowed all of the media mergers when we still had congress... so I guess a tiny bit. But they did just basically sit there and allow the sneaky Republicans to transform the country to what it is today.

In relation to what the Democratic party is supposed to do: NOT A DAMN THING!!!

Either we take back the party within the year or I say it's time for third parties... I mean we want to defeat the Republicans, but we have to think ahead to what if we finally win!?

[eridani]

84. Blocked some ot the nastier Rethug initiatives--

--during the Clinton years, but gained no new ground.