The Vote Fraud Movement Needs Heart and Head: A Plea for Unity

[JohnnyCougar]

Some notes from a soon to be social/organizational psychologist. I have noticed two distinct factions popping up here on DU and at Kos. There are people with "heart," who want to make as much noise as they can right away about any evidence of electoral impropriety. There are also ones with "head," who want to scrutinize every fact and supposition until they are 100% sure that the evidence is sound. This divide has been the basis for many arguments here, and threatens to divide and weaken our movement. We must realize that each side has a specific useful purpose, and learn to live with each other on common ground.

The anti-fraud movement is growing and growing. Just the thought of our elections being stolen evokes anger in many, many people. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Independents and Constitutionalists all put faith in our elections to guide our country in the right direction. We, as Americans, have so much trust in this system, that any evidence to show it has been dishonest will certainly cause immense backlash among the entire populace. Our job is to find evidence that there was fraud, and create this backlash when we do. If large enough, this backlash will be a tidal wave upon the shores of corrupt, cronyistic government, and bring the day that all progressives, libertarians, independents, and even a lot of conservatives dream of. To allow this backlash to occur, we must be strong, and we must stand unified. But we must have a strategy.

For the hearts (you know who you are)
People who are skeptical of claims of voter fraud are only skeptical because they want us to succeed, too. They realize that if we overexpose ourselves without sound evidence to back up our position, it will drastically hurt our credibility in this matter. The heads want to be sure of a move before they make it to avoid political injury. And they do serve an important purpose.

Once facts check out, though, it is your job to be the lungs of our movement. There have been enough facts that have checked out in the past month to raise hell. It is your job to give our voice strength, and to make it be heard all around the world. DO NOT SHUT UP ABOUT VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND THE HACKABILITY OF THE MACHINES EVER!!! There is no denying that voters were suppressed, and that the voting machines are flawed on so many levels that I wouldn't hold a high school class presidential election on them. You also may want holler out about the statistical irregularities. Some pretty reputable organizations have put their name behind analyses indicating fraud. As for the rest of the stories, it may be best to hold your breath until the facts check out.

For the heads (you also know who you are)
The hearts are only making noise because they are afraid our movement will lose strength if they don't. And they are right. In 2000, the recounts lost strength because we didn't have a loud enough voice. We should not have accepted the Supreme Court's election of George W. Bush. When the recounts favored Gore, we should have had millions of protesters clog up Washington until the election was overturned. So the hearts serve a purpose, too.

Your job is to be the mouth of our movement. You must articulate the hearts' energy into a message that is appealing to all people, and one that will withstand the wrath of Republicans. You must focus the raw energy from the hearts screams into a message that is irrefutable, understandable, and concrete. You must explain that everyone should be interested in fair elections, and that the reasons why people are concerned are because this election simply wasn't credible. Cite the investigations going on, the facts about vote suppression, and so on. But do not discredit the entire story. There is definitely enough irregularities going on to warrant a re-vote.

***************************************************************

If the lungs and the mouth work together, we can formulate a voice that will be unstoppable. We will never accept any compromise of our democratic right to vote. This time, we will not stop because the Supreme Court says we should stop. We will not stop because the Republicans say they won or the Democrats say they lost. We will not stop until every question is thoroughly answered about this election. And if Bush is still president after that, we must not stop until our government takes responsibility for its war crimes, for its neglect of morals, and for it's blatant lying and corruption.

If we want our movement to succeed, though, we must stand together with one voice!

[JohnnyCougar]

1. This is the repost for all those who wanted to nominate but couldn't

[Laughing Mirror]

2. Excellent Excellent Post

We will not stop, and we will stand together with one voice, the voice that says here's the facts, honor our laws, we're right.

[zann725]

43. Agreed! Kick!

n/t :kick:

[alaintex]

50. kick

[alittlelark]

3. excellant suggestions!!

Should be read by all!!

nominated for homepage

[IAMREALITY]

4. Nominated

And I encourage all fellow DU'rs to do the same. It is a great message that is very well written and thought out.

[hippiechick]

5. kick

:yourock:


:hippie:

[alaintex]

51. kick

[Vidar]

6. nominated--bump

[marions ghost]

7. Our anxieties revealed....

Thank you ! for putting this underground disparity in perspective johnnycougar. Your call for unity is right on target. Both personality types gotta come together, especially as the situation is well...critical.

[dmac]

8. Excellent but I don't know how to nominate something

Someone let me know and I will cast my vote for this piece.

[JohnnyCougar]

9. In the frame of the main post....

In the lower let corner, there is a "Nominate for Homepage" link. Click on that.

Edit...next to the "Alert" button on the initial post in this thread.

[IAMREALITY]

10. .

:kick:

[JohnnyCougar]

12. .

..

[seito]

11. Nominated and thanks n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Sorry, this one's not for me

Your post states a false dichotomy of DU factions, or at least ignores all the other factions for two cherry picked ones. I assert there is a faction that is much larger than the two you splinter off; that faction of DU that wants electoral integrity, and wants it proven in every election from now and in perpetuity - in fact that faction is more than the sum of the two you singled out, and even as you noted later, includes a significant bunch of Republicans and Conservatives.

In other words, "unity" is already present when you look at it this way.

Secondly, by labelling two imaginary groups of people "hearts" and "heads", you slander them. As if the people that you claim belong to one cannot belong to the other, in short, that the "hearts" have no "head" and vice versa.

"Where's the slander?", I hear you ask. Well, it's subtle, but it's in your projecting your assertions or conclusions onto them. That's where you pose as a mind-reader and tell us all the "People who are skeptical of claims of voter fraud are only skeptical because..." AND "The hearts are only making noise because..."

As someone working or studying in the field, you would know that everything that comes after the ellipses that I inserted is, in fact, your own projection, your own interpretation, and is a creation of your own mind. And I'm sorry to say, because I only intend to correct, not insult you, these creations of yours are not based on fact or science.

Last but not least, you then take the authoritarian role instead of the analyst, and begin not just offering jobs to the people you just slandered, but assigning jobs of your own choosing to these imaginary groups of people.

I think you would also know that people who are on the left are generally characterised by their unwillingness to bend to authority. They tend to have that trait in common, as is known from scientific testing and experimentation.

Having said all that, I recognise that your "heart" is in the "right" place, since your stated intentions appear to be in support of the unifying cause of proven electoral integrity both now and in the future.

I recommend further reading in psychology before taking such an unqualified public position in future. However, I won't be upset if you don't accept my recommendation, although it is offered with respect and kindness in mind as I too have, many times in the past, made the same mistakes you just made.

Peace.

[JohnnyCougar]

14. Response

I'll have to say that there really are these two polar opposites on this issue. Many a flame war has been started on here concerning these very differences. I'm sorry you're not astute enough to have noticed.

Also, I never said it was a scientific study. It was a parable showing that two polar opposites can find common ground and work together. I don't think anybody thinks that they fall solely into one category. Everybody has a little bit of both sides in them, and the story was meant to not only bring people togehter as a group, but to bring people together within themselves. The message is "fight hard, but also fight carefully." Use your heart and your mind.

Everybody on here falls somewhere within that spectrum. Some are more extreme than others. And no, I am not claiming that is a scientific analysis, but everybody except for you has so far agreed with me. Yes, I have projected my own mental constructs into the categories this post brings up. What is wrong with that? Why wouldn't other people be dealing with the same mental constructs, and the same internal conflict? It seems to me that they are. And even if they're not, they realize that others are, and they applaud my analysis.

You, however, missed the entire purpose and point of my post. It was not a rigorous term paper, or Masters' Thesis. It was a short parable meant to inspire people.

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. Got it.

Here's some feedback. It was less than inspiring for me.

Since you apparently hold the lead in astuteness, I defer to you. I am not worthy of your attention. Sorry I bothered.

[JohnnyCougar]

16. Apology accepted! n/t

[m berst]

17. for what it is worth

Many a flame war has been started on here concerning these very differences.

I agree there have been many flame wars. I respectfully disagree that you are accurately describing the cause of the flame wars.

Everybody on here falls somewhere within that spectrum.

I don't, and I know dozens of DUers who don't.

I am not so sure that unity is a good goal. Unity is different than solidarity. Solidarity encompasses differences of opinion and style within the common cause. The call for unity is totalitarian in it's effect and limits dissent and full and free participation by all potential allies.

I would say that the flame wars here have been between those demanding unity and those suggesting open discussion toward the goal of reaching consensus and solidarity.


on edit - added italics to quited sections

[JohnnyCougar]

18. Response

I agree there have been many flame wars. I respectfully disagree that you are accurately describing the cause of the flame wars.

Since neither of us is in the position to do a scientific analysis of this, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't, and I know dozens of DUers who don't.

What is your position, then, as to a course of action to be taken?

I am not so sure that unity is a good goal. Unity is different than solidarity. Solidarity encompasses differences of opinion and style within the common cause. The call for unity is totalitarian in it's effect and limits dissent and full and free participation by all potential allies.

Refer to the lungs and mouth analogy of my original post. I do not suggest that we all conform to the same opinion. In fact, the whole point of that analogy was to point out the effectiveness of solidarity. Nowhere does my original post limit dissent and full and free participation.

Do you have a particular point of view to add to this discussion?

I would say that the flame wars here have been between those demanding unity and those suggesting open discussion toward the goal of reaching consensus and solidarity.

I haven't noticed this sort of conflict yet. Maybe it went over my head. I think you have misinterpreted my post, though. The intent is absolutely not to limit open discussion, but to find common ground between two points of view that are present, by my observation, on this board. Again, we can argue forever about the presence of these points of view, but since it is out of the question to do an actual scientific analysis regarding this matter, I suppose we will have to find solidarity between our own points of view, and agree to disagree.

[m berst]

19. unity versus solidarity

I will defer to "A Gilas Girl" at Daily Kos.

<snip>

I was quiet throughout most of the campaign, because so much of the popular opinion accepted this conventional wisdom, and because already established campaign themes can't really (and probably shouldn't) be dislodged during the campaign. But "unity" is the wrong goal. Let me suggest that what we want instead is "solidarity".

Unity in the end isn't democratic, it is fascist, especially if it requires uniting around oppressive or inequitable or unjust positions. The desire to feel strength in the power of numbers is, I'd suggest a cowardly one. To have everyone accept your tenets, your definitions, your values and your policies is a recipe for stagnation.

Solidarity on the other hand, provides support and the possibility for a common cause without requiring the relinqishment of differing interests. It expands the discussion, the process and the possibilities. We don't all need to agree, and we don't even help each other if we do. Solidarity is what politics and what community is about, not forcing single issues, solutions, identities or approaches, but about forging connections.

Solidarity is more than compromise, and shouldn't be mistaken as such. At its core is respect: respect for people and their experiences, respect for possibility, respect for the not-yet-known. It doesn't require assimilation (which must always contain some degree of erasure) and it belies two-dimensional (black and white) thinking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/14456/5254

[JohnnyCougar]

20. I don't understand how this relates to what I just said.

I do understand what you are saying, however, and I agree with it.

[m berst]

21. we already have a push for unity

We have an aggressive and overbearing push for unity that is drowning out the voices of common sense and prudence and discernment.

You call for unity, and in so doing assign everyone to one of two camps and then tell them what their jobs are. That is fascistic, as the article points out, because it is glossing over many details for the sake of the presumed value of unity. You call that strength. The witter in the article calls it cowardice.

If anything I think there is a rush to a false consensus - unity achieved by the force of driving people away by using innuendo and suspicion and creating group pressure against any individuals who won't "get on the bandwagon" and continual insinuations about which members may be "disloyal" to the cause.

So while I agree with your observation that there is dissension here and acrimony, and as you say we agree that solidarity is the more appropriate goal, I am questioning the wisdom of calling for unity and doing it in a way that arbitrarily (under the guise of professionally) describes the dived in terms that I do not think are accurate.

Unity, IMHO, is precisely what we do not need. There is far too much of it.

This is merely my opinion for your consideration and not intended to be a dismissal of your interest nor your many fine contributions to DU. Just give it some thought. Thanks.

[JohnnyCougar]

22. I suppose I could have used the word "synergy" instead

The debate seems to be over the word "Unity." I used it loosely in the thread title, not knowing my post would be deconstructed by other DUers. Nevertheless, "synergy" would have been a better word.

I still do not know your position on this matter, but taking hints from your posts, I am led to believe that you are still undecided on whether to act at all or not. If that is the case, I understand that, as well. However, my post was targeted to the people in this forum who have already decided to act. People have already taken action, and I believe it is a worthy action. I was addressing the problems that I saw.

But since you have not stated your own positin on the matter, I can't really argue with you about the merits of my analysis. I have no idea what your alternative hypothesis is.

The point was to provide a parable like framework for those working on the fraud issue to resolve issues between themselves and within themselves. The object was not to provide an experimentally cross-checked detailed scientific analysis. I hope you understand the difference now.

[m berst]

26. not sure

Were you hoping to analyze and offer remedies for the problems here between members?

[alaintex]

57. kick

[alaintex]

56. kick

[alaintex]

55. kick

[alaintex]

54. kick

[alaintex]

53. kick

[alaintex]

52. kick

[Psyop Samurai]

23. Not a treatise or manifesto...

It was a parable showing that two polar opposites can find common ground and work together. I don't think anybody thinks that they fall solely into one category. Everybody has a little bit of both sides in them, and the story was meant to not only bring people togehter as a group, but to bring people together within themselves. The message is "fight hard, but also fight carefully." Use your heart and your mind.

That's EXACTLY what I understood it to be. And when I read it a few days ago, it DID help me "bring myself together within myself". I thank you for that! :hug:

[JohnnyCougar]

24. Thanks!

:toast:

[marions ghost]

41. Ditto, I didn't take it literally...

...maybe because I'm used to reading about theories in human psychology where you always assume the speaker is describing an imaginary or hypothetical model. I never thought for one sec that johnnycouger meant we actually ! should divide ourselves up into phalanxes of hearts and heads and impose some sort of division of labor. This would smack of "red state/blue state" kind of rigid thinking in the face of our Purple Reality.

No, I read the message as just a "group dynamics" caution--to "think (get your facts straight) before you quack (and now is the time to QUACK allright..)!" This applies to groups as well as individuals.

Worthwhile discussion evolved from this, and I read the objections and johnnycougar explanations with interest. Good points. Our anxieties are showing...could it be because we all care so much about this? And could we all be victims of a serious abuse of power by our authority figures? And now we are literally disenfranchised!?
Makes sane people go crazy (I thought I was on Nov 3).

I'm no psychologist, but I think the message of this whole thread reflects a fervent desire from everyone for the noble ideal of "teamwork" to actually WORK for a change...unlike what we are seeing in our government at this point. It can be harder to do this in a non-heirarchical group and it requires flexibility and diplomacy and creativity.

One thing for sure---
We are ALL needed in this voting rights cause..
NO VOTER LEFT BEHIND--again, ever!

49. to cronus protagnoist

Your analysis is brilliant and kind. Wonderful.

[fshrink]

25. What you ask for is called a "journalist"

That's what they're supposed to do in a democracy. Because the people with "one voice", I have mixed, historical, feelings about...

[m berst]

27. thank you

Because the people with "one voice", I have mixed, historical, feelings about...

As do I. I am resistant to the suggestions that everyone holler the same thing again and again and the resultant echo chamber of inflammatory and aggressive speech, as well as the unfortunate trend toward anyone who urges caution or who expresses anything out of step with the mob being met with hostility, innuendo and insinuations.

I see the drive for unity as the problem, not the solution.

[JohnnyCougar]

28. Well, that was the job of my proposed "Heads"

The heads theoretically (and practically, if you believe my analysis is accurate) are to assume that nothing is what it seems, and moderate the voice when it is appropriate. I though that was clear, but I guess it wasn't.

And believe me, I have been one of those people on here that has expressed opinions that are out of step. Remeber the "Florida Dixiecrat counties" argument that I urged caution with, and subsequently got flamed by a slew of other posters?

I think you are taking something away from my post that I didn't intend for you to take away. Perhaps my analogies weren't specific enough.

I dunno....one thing that is for sure is that I am going to bed right now, and I will be bust studying for a final tomorrow. I wish everyone the best.

Goodnight.

[chomskysright]

31. from licensed psychologist: heads & hearts plz

Its a personal challenge to stay on top of this. You, out of school: me a 50 year old psychologist: its a challenge not just because of all the information....but more so re: my own energy and ability to stomach the information.

Its not dislike seeing clients, on a long day, staying empathic with them.

Its a boundary issue: know where your boundaries are and respect them. Go off and revitalize yourself and get your head and heart back in the fray.

that's what Dr. Hammond has to say. :-)

[rdmccur]

29. Good leadership!

Yes, this gets fatiguing sometimes, but we should persevere to unite in our efforts and continue to supply encouragement to those who weaken and to bring more into this cause. Don't give up!

[electropop]

30. Good discussion but please don't use the Rove term 'voter fraud'

which implies the voters did something fraudulent. The accurate term is 'election fraud'. It's very important that we never let Rove frame the debate by using his deceptive language.

[JohnnyCougar]

40. Good point!

Frame the issue!

[wryter2000]

32. What you said!

:yourock:

[chalky]

33. I want you to know....

That I signed up for DU just for the privilege of nominating this for the home page.

Oh, and to keep it kicked, too.

[graywarrior]

34. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[JohnnyCougar]

39. Thank you much!

:toast:

[struggle4progress]

35. The underlying dynamic of the black-box fight is NOT simply one of ...

... hearts maintaining public pressure until heads prove fraud.

Correctly understood, this fight essentially involves the fact that fraud, if really committed, is probably unprovable.

Our confidence in national institutions and traditions should be based on verifiable facts, not on mere faith alone.

"Just trust us" is not a satisfactory basis for elections.

Nor is it a satisfactory motto for the government of a free people.

It will be worth shouting about, loudly and constantly, from now until victory, even if no criminal fraud is ever proved.

[JohnnyCougar]

37. I know, I understand.

When talking about humans, no one theory EVER explains all of the variance or accounts for all of the factors at hand. But yes, we do have the obligation for our government to provide a basic confidence level in our election process.

Part of my point (and I have made this clearer in other posts) was kind of parallel to what you mentioned, but vice versa. For example, while it is impossible for the Republicans to prove there was no fraud, it is almost as impossible for us to prove there was fraud, given the condition of the voting process (unless, of course, we get that highly coveted whistleblower, and somehow he escapes the character assassination of Rove).

What we do have proof of, though, is that there certainly was no attempt by either party to make the elections fair. Black Box Voting, minority suppression, and voter intimidation were all widespread. This has been the second election in a row in which the result has been overturned because of these factors alone. Unfortunately, I believe that politicians of both sides and many voters see this as just a "fact of life," and are really apathetic toward the whole situation. Either that, or the ones that care lack the legitimate power to do anything about it.

A movement by the people will do little by itself. What a movement by the people will do, however, is give the politicians that really want to reform this process some credibility and a source of power to draw from. If we are vocal enough, and stay vocal enough, and create enough unease, there will be no choice for our government but to reform the election process. We need to get as many of our progressive politicians behind this issue, and continue to vocally and monetarily back them as much as possible. We, as the people, will be the driving force behind change, as it has always been. Civil rights would never have come without the people standing up and saying "Enough!" The Vietnam War would have continued for much longer had the people not said "Enough!" Women would have never been able to vote had the people not said "Enough!" And we will never have free, fair, and transparent elections until the people have finally had enough.

[struggle4progress]

42. Completely disagree that "A movement by the people will do little ...

... by itself." IMHO, "a movement by the people" is ultimately the ONLY thing that ever effects real and meaningful change.

[JohnnyCougar]

44. I agree pretty much.

While nothing will ever happen without the movement of the people, a movement with a little help from the inside will do a lot more.

I was not trying to discredit the "movement of the people" as the most powerful source of change. I was saying that alone, it will be far less effective unless we have a faction of our government willing to stick up for us. We need to find this faction and use them as a conduit for change, as well as use our own collective economic and social power. Show the politicians that there is a segment of the population that will not be ignored any longer.

The point I was making has an obvious solution that many of us are already doing. I wasn't really breaking new ground with it as I was reinterating. It is to support any congressman that addresses this issue and get behind them. I plan on sending a letter of thanks to all invloved in the investigation in Ohio. I want to encourage all incoming members of Congress to support this issue as well. My congressional district has just elected Gwen Moore as our representative. I will write to her and encourage her to stand up for fair elections. The more we have on board, the better.

But yes, I do agree that nothing will happen WITHOUT a movement from the people.

[pat_k]

36. An action for both

I believe we must ask for a real and concrete consequence. Whether or not the legal system can provide a remedy remains to be seen, but ALL of us can DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW.

Contact members of the Senate and the House and ask them to endorse the Declaration of Intent Regarding Presidential Electors. Send faxes and emails, make calls, follow up with snail mail.

We already have confirmed cases of disparate treatment and systematic barriers to voting. It is time to call on our representatives to declare their intent now and put election officials across the nation on notice that they must prove that their elections were not discriminatory and yielded accurate results if they want their electors to be counted on January 6th.

Side step "intent" and ground your arguments in our founding principles-- simply call on our leaders to stand up for the principle of consent and against discriminatory election practices (whether intended or not).

[Bill Bored]

38. The declaration does not explicitly mention the Senate

Hi Pat,

When I first saw this at thedeanpeople.org, I noticed that it said "Member of Congress." Although technically, both senators and house reps. fall into this category, I think the problem will be to find a Senator or Senators to help out with this on Jan 6.

Do you think it's clear enough, that we expect not just House members to participate this time?

That said, I love it!

[moesse]

45. A suggested triangulation of message between troops fighting in Iraq

to ensure free and fair elections there to our vigilant battle here in the states to ensure same and honor our military's valor and efforts there.

Just a thought.

[The Doctor.]

46. The crux, Johnny Cougar, is this...

Question:

Have you heard people on this site going 'willy-nilly' about how the Democratic party needs to Voice, adopt, and embrace some strategy of 'this, that, or the other thing'?

I have - Lot's of it.

Then I must ask you this;

If John Kerry won this election in the suppposed land-slide that many of these 'hearts and minds' believe he should have, do you think so many people would be talking about "What we should have done differently..."?

No.

If Kerry won these guys would all be patting themselves on the back with, 'our message was unified', 'America loves JK', 'What a great Democracy!'.

But instead I keep hearing, "The Democratic party needs to reach out to the white supremicists, the fundamentalists, the 'Red' states."

:puke:

My party already did that.
And they did not exclude the manufacturers of the electronic voting machines from their list.
The notion that any other party should take such a tact is asinine.
(My opinion of course...)

So I suppose my question has to be, "Who comprises the third group?"

The Democrats have not adopted the 'unifying voice' you laud. Many have come to understand this truly dire issue, but unless the leadership of the Democratic party REALIZES they did not lose by ideals alone, until they become a force to remove these machines, they will continue to drift to the right... the FAR right, into obselescence.
And they will say, "What more can we do to appeal to the American people." While drifting farther from what Americans really want EVERY time they ask themselves that question.

I know where this leads and it cannot be allowed.
You are the last hope for a Democratic America.
Unless Democrats are willing to demonstrate to the leaders of their OWN party, Unless you are willing to put savage pressure on the Democratic leadership to address the electoral Hegemony of the Republicans, the Democratic party will implode.

I heard Rush talking about the implosion on Friday. He's all giddy about it.

What do YOU think?

[JohnnyCougar]

47. The third group meaning the "focus on the future" group?

They have a legitimate place as well, but it makes no difference what we say if we are not sure our vote is counted properly. The truth is, this election should NOT have been close. Rove is a master propagandist, but people in America really aren't that stupid. The Democrats lost their message completely after 9/11, and barely got it back by mid-September of this year. So we do have to work on getting our message back. and better articulating what we stand for.

I think the "implosion" has to do alot with the fissure between corporate and progressive Democrats. Dean's method of raising money gives power to the progressive voice of the party. The DLC's method gives power to corporations. Where your money comes from is where your power is, and that is who your message is tailored to. So basically, it is a struggle to control the party.

What both sides of the mainstream party are doing is trying to save their political asses. Everybody is scared to take a public stand against election irregularities. The more powerful the figure, the more he/she has to lose. I believe they all have their own suspicions too, but they think it is better to shake it off and look ahead instead of get dirty and fight now.

I don't disagree with Kerry's stance right now. He would be absolutely MAIMED by Rove and his media lap dogs if he were to do anything on a large scale. They know enough that the exit polls are good enough indicators of fraud to warrant an investigation, but because the power in this country lies where it does, they are not even able to ask for elections to be fair.

But alas, this is only my speculation. I am not an insider, and I cannot say what exactly is going on. I am interested in how this plays out, though. The progressives and the bloggers truly did show how powerful their group is as fundraisers. I wonder if that will cary any weight with the Dean side of the Democratic party when selecting the chair.

[The Doctor.]

48. Your understanding does encompass the issue indeed....

No one will seek to engage when the price of that engagement will be political suicide.
Everyone is CERTAINLY hoping that someone will, but no one wants to take those first tenuous and hazzardous steps. (spelling deliberate)

This is the 'Gravity Check' that will doom the Democrats.

I hope nature pervades and prevails in creating equilibrium once again.

So what do you think the solution is if no party leader will stand up to this?

You guys Need a tip for your spear in a desperate way... or we can look forward to more bombastic policy for everyone... even the sheeple.

[Wordie]

58. Just like a moving vehicle needs both an accelerator AND brakes or it will

crash and burn, so the discussion here needs both the hyper-enthusiastic and the skeptical. All accelerator and the car goes careening out of control, all brakes and it doesn't go anywhere. It is in the interaction of both sides that the honing of the message gets done. We need both sides.