We’re Screwed and I think you know it.

[rhett o rick]

Skinner, admins, my criticism here of the Democratic Party is aimed at the corporatists that control the Party and not all Democrats. There are a lot of great Democrats in this country, they just aren’t in control. I am a strong Democrat and will continue to work to throw out the corporatists that control our party.

And if I am off base here, I am sure you will let me know.

I appreciate the optimists among us that say things like “let’s vote the Dino’s out in the primaries”. Oh that sounds so nice. I bet they feel sooo much better saying that. But unless things change radically, there isn’t a chance in hell that any Democrat is going to be voted out in a primary, at least Senators. This is delusional. Yes they did manage it once that I know of in CT. It took a lot of personal wealth and hard work but the grass roots Democrats did manage to oust one of the worst Senators, Lieberman. But the Democratic ole boys club spit on the people and came to the rescue of good ole joe, one of the group (group? Clearly not a Democratic group. No, the ruling class group, Democrat, Republican, it don’t matter).

It is swell thinking we have a legitimate two party system. IMO it is only an illusion. Let’s just get in there and take the Democratic Party away from the corporate powers (read DLC). Yes, Howard Dean showed em. He rallied the grass roots Dems into electing Pres Obama. What did the Democratic machine think about that. With no apologizes, they once again spit in the faces of the grass roots Democrats and fired Dean. The DLC corporatists are in control and don’t forget it.

Did you notice that during the bush first 6 years the Democrats did very little slow the march toward fascism? Some even sided with the fascists. They supported the illegal invasion of Iraq etc etc (you know the list). They didn’t even dare to filibuster. But in 2006 when they took control (so to speak) they allowed the republiCons to filibuster (95 times in 2008) with out as much as a whimper.

So the American people think “we need more Democrats in Congress, yeah that’ll do it.” Maybe not Martha. Now that we have close to 60 Democratic Senators (60 because the republiCons are guaranteed to filibuster everything, something the Democrats should have done between 2000 and 2006), now this group of blue dog Democrat bastards emerge. You see they weren’t needed in the last eight years because the republiCons had control and the Democrats wouldn’t filibuster. But now when the corporatists get their way (e.g. the Kyl-Lincoln estate tax amendment), the blue dogs can be blamed and the rest can pretend their hands are tied. Sen Reid even comes to the defense of the blue dogs.

But this all makes sense if you realize that there are two basic classes in this Country, the ruling class and the rest of us. These two classes and the two political parties don’t align. And why would one even think they would? Most of the Congress-critters are wealthy and card carrying members of the ruling class. Most need to be replaced with honest, hard working Americans from the middle class.

It’s not hopeless, but we got to do a hell of a lot more than we are today. How many trillions of dollars of the future middle class’s money do we let them give to the wealthy before we say E-fucking-nuff .

PS: It was pointed out to me that another Democrat (other than Liarman) was voted out in a primary in 1972. Thanks for the data point. Any others?

[Deja Q]

1. Well, if you want to feel that way, that's your choice.

Life is a state of flux; change doesn't always mean "we're screwed", "we're dooooooooooooomed", or "mint frosting really does taste bad on mincemeat de la skunk pie".

[rhett o rick]

5. Tell that to the people living in cars and tents. Tell that to the millions losing their retirements

Tell that to the next two or three generations that will have to foot the bill for the bank "bailouts".

I guess it depends on the definition of Doooooooomed. Living as a serf to me is dooooooomed.

But no, I don't want to feel this way. But every day is am exposed to those out of work and on food stamps. Please explain to me how this is going to turn out good for the middle class (no sarcasm intended). Show me that we are on the track to recovery and I will truly appreciate it.

[yowzayowzayowza]

19. The "Greatest" generation saddled...

the "Baby Boomers" with an even higher debt ratio. Yet ultimately all prospered quite nicely.

[debbierlus]

108. Yeah - we are all ever so happy to be in this position - The poster said none of those things

None of the people who are upset with policy that people SHOULD be upset about are HAPPY about it.

'kay?

If you equate negativity with confronting realities that you don't like, you are part of the problem. It isn't about you FEELING good, it is about a honest assessment of the situation so that real change is possible.

It isn't our attitude that is problem, it is the POLICIES being enacted by the dem leadership.

Don't ignore it and become just like the Bush sheep.

[rhett o rick]

112. Thank you and well said. We have a major problem right here in Democratic-River City

"it is about a honest assessment of the situation so that real change is possible". Well said.

[MADem]

2. I don't agree with your premise. Legislators represent their constituents.

Ask most people if they think Congress sucks, and they'll say yes. Ask them if THEIR LEGISLATORS suck, and they'll say "No, it's those OTHER guys."

All politics is local.

The fault, dear Brutus, in not in our stars (or our politicians), but in ourselves. Voters return these guys to office. Not all voters belong to the Corporatist Billionaire's Club, either. In fact, most do not.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. But who are their constituents?

That seems to be the fundamental mistake that so many make.

Once you realize that in most cases the legislators' constituents are the people who bankroll them not folks like us who cast the votes, the picture grows clearer. Suddenly their actions are not so inexplicable anymore.

[MADem]

10. Look, you can fiddle with verbiage all day. The point I make, in plain language, is that

someone keeps voting these assholes in. These people, as well as those who don't bother to vote, are the constituents of whom I speak.

I'm not talking about loyalty, or who helps whom. My point remains--these guys would not get reelected if a preponderance of their electorate did not vote for them.

You can play the Diebold game at the national level, but at the legislative level these contests are, Franken - Coleman excepted, very often runaways.

The picture is quite clear--if these guys didn't get the most votes, they wouldn't be warming those seats.

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Sorry, but you're still missing the point

Sure, legislators gets elected by receiving the most votes, but without fat-cat funding they're unlikely to ever show up on the general public's radar.

That severely limits our choices at the outset.

Then, once you're elected, your likelihood of retaining your office is overwhelming. That's not loyalty. That's inertia. (And it can also be the result of strategic redistricting.)

Loyalty to members of Congress is remarkably similar to brand loyalty. It's based more on perception and image than on facts or reality.

[MADem]

17. We agree on something. THAT's INERTIA.

The public does not give a shit. The only time they turn out to vote in large numbers is for "rock stars" or Presidential elections. If there is a huge scandal, that will bring them out too. But Candidate X with this list of ideas, vs. Candidate Y with that list of ideas? That's barely on their radar, because it's, well, BORING.

And who is to blame? The VOTERS? For being lazy bastids who don't care? The schools? Because they don't teach civics any more? You can't throw it all on these corporate assholes with their money--they're just seeing an opening, and taking advantage of it.

We live in a society where no one wants to go out of their way. People who support a candidate don't campaign, they don't canvass, they don't HELP, they don't do anything--at least not at the local level. You always get the few people who are good for a yard sign, but there's very little interest in politics at the local level--and that percolates upward. The "constituents" have, for the most part, tuned out. They sit on their well-fed behinds and wait for information to be fed to them. And then they complain when the menu doesn't have enough choices.

You know, I get off my ass and vote in every election. National, state, local. Last election I voted in (local) maybe twelve percent of the voting public got up off their lazy asses and bothered to come out for it. You have no idea how many people I run into who are griping about the results, too. When I ask them if they voted, I get the "Er, well, I had to work late..." excuses.

[BeFree]

32. The public does not give a shit

So, yes, you agree, we are doomed.

[MADem]

34. Naaah. My glass is half full. We, The People just need to be made sufficiently

UNCOMFORTABLE to motivate a bigass wake up call, is all.

Looks like that's what's happening.

[BeFree]

37. And they'll do what?

Half are gun nuts and they'll start shooting.

The other half will hide.

Are you saying we will vote the bums out and put all new people in Congress? And just like that Global warming, peak oil, and the depression will magically disappear?

[MADem]

39. People got pretty uncomfortable in the 1930's.

We are no where NEAR that situation.

No one started shooting or hiding back then. They buckled down, they did the best they could, and they hung on. Some didn't make it, either. There were no safety nets.

You're being rather dire.

Look, if you enjoy "worst case scenarios," and I suspect you do, knock yourself out.

I don't expect a white knight to ride in with a magic wand, but I don't buy your "Doooomed!!! We're all DOOOOOOOMED!" attitude, either.

I am not saying we will "put all new people in Congress." These things happen incrementally. The "I want it all, I want it now" crowd will simply have to exercise patience, or stew in their own juices, griping all the way.

Obama is on the right trajectory. It's just not quick enough for some people.

[BeFree]

40. Enjoy?

What a terrible mind you must have to think anyone is enjoying any of this.

I am just trying to get you to see reality, because the more who do, the better off we all shall be. Really, tho, it may be a waste of time with you.

But just for the hell of it, what do you propose? If the people won't act (and they did 70 years ago, remember WW2?) then what is going to change things? Give me some hope. What about Global Warming? Peak Oil? This depression? You act so smart, give us some answers.

[MADem]

47. My comment was conditional. IF (see that word, if??) that shoe fits, you go on and wear it.

But it's probably easier to get combative and nitpick about verbiage than confront the real issues.

You want change? You'd better get off your ass and BE THE CHANGE. Stop waiting for the Magic Progressive Fairy to come down from the clouds and wave her magic wand and hand it to you. Find the cause or candidate that works for you and put your shoulder to the wheel.

I'm following Obama's lead. I like his general trajectory, as I have said. He wants to transition to greener technology (and sorry about peak oil, there, pal--it will not happen as fast as you'd like. Have you checked gas prices lately?). Global warming is an issue, and we'll have to do these "green" things, as well as silly little simple things (white rooftops) to try and reverse the process. This depression is bad, but it's not as bad as the Great One. Obama hit the RESET button on the Bushco mess abroad, next he'll have to push the RESET button on this economy. Hang on. It's not going to be YEE HAW YIPPIE any time soon. This feels a lot like the Love Canal/Acid Rain Nixon Days, that were followed by the Whip Inflation Now Ford Administration. This isn't the first time we've been in the shits, economically. It's not the first time we've had high employment and credit shortages either. It's significant, but it's not as bad as the Great Depression. While we get through this, people WILL be underemployed, times will be tough, and economies will have to be made by all save the stinking rich. There's nothing to be done about that. The people whining the loudest are the people who made the "easy money" by speculating wildly with stocks, and who believed that "too good to be true" returns were real. Many got too much money for the little work they did (many spent half the "work" day on the internet). These same people also bought homes they could not afford, and used those homes as ATMs instead of places where they lived and raised their families.

If anything good comes out of this, it will hopefully teach the generation coming up that greed is NOT good, and living within one's means IS. Saving is good, speculating is risky. That's how I've played it--and I learned that set of lessons from survivors of the Great Depression.

[BeFree]

63. Ha

This thread is about the members of the democratic party and how they have sold themselves and our future for a few gold coins.

Had they not, and we were going in the right direction as a party and a nation, Carter would have had a second term and we would have been way ahead on all the big problems. It took us a long time to get here and we're a long ass way from turning any corner.

You may suspect that anyone is enjoying this sad reality. But given all the crap we are in up to our eyebrows, with debt and costly wars, bad health care system, and the host of other problems that the party and nation have sat back and allowed to occur, the Magician Obama that you pin all your hopes on will really have to pull off some magic.

And like you said: the people don't give a shit. As a democracy, then, we are doomed to become serfs to the rich. Having worked more than my share of issues and looking around and finding the public lacking any real interest to become involved, has brought about this reality for me. Nothing you've said changes any of that. You may be fine, but the problems coming at the rest of us are like a ton of bricks.

[MADem]

64. Wow, that's some interesting reinvention of very recent history.

Carter didn't lose the election because of "direction." Carter lost the election because of DESERT ONE, and the attendant fallout. The majority of the country at that time liked the idea that Reagan threatened to go postal on the Ayatullah and they were pissed that DESERT ONE was such a debacle.

I didn't call Obama a magician. I said I liked his trajectory.

You have two choices--you can ENJOY your half empty glass of misery, or you can get up and do something about it.

It's on you. And anyone and everyone else who "takes issue."

Griping and whining on the internet about 'evil corproate bassstids' gets pretty tiresome after the thousandth time you see it. Get up and do something about it.

[BeFree]

75. Gross

You are the one reinventing history with that crap about Carter. Carter told us we were gonna get slammed by peak oil and pollution and wars. The PTB knocked Carter down and the Dem party was split by Ted Kennedy who ran against Carter in the primary.

What you are offering is more of the same old politics that got us where we are. You have nothing new. Zip. Just more of the same that got us where we are. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = insane.

I don't have the answer and unlike you don't pretend to have the answer. But we know the people don't give a shit, and even if they did, their shit stinks. Especially the rich elite and the wannabe rich and elite.

Our whole economy is in shambles, we face huge problems that we have neglected for decades staring at us from the dark side, and all you propose is keep doing what we've been doing. Do you really even give a shit or are you just oblivious?

[MADem]

82. I am not "offering" anything. All I am saying is you can run around like a chicken with your

head cut off, crying that the sky is falling, or you can get off your ass and try to FIX the situation.

What are YOU doing to make the situation better? Hmmmm? Or is griping on the internet your sum total contribution?

Give up, bend over....kiss your ass goodbye!!! That's hardly a solution. There have been people like you down through the ages. In the old days they carried a sign or wore a sandwich board.

I propose following Obama's lead. THAT's what I propose. I think he's doing a good job, thus far. If you don't like him, no one's forcing you to--but don't come on here and whine like a baby at me, and then have NO solution yourself.

FWIW, Ted wouldn't have dared run against Carter if Carter's "hostage policy" had been more aggressive. Ted was also coked out, boozing, and full of himself at the time--if he'd had his wits about him, he'd never have pulled that shit.

The DESERT ONE mess happened in April 80. Chappaquiddick happened in July. Ted was toast after that, and the electorate had more than enough time to return to the fold. But all the while, Reagan was pounding on Khomeini like a tight old drum. And the HOSTAGES were still being held--hell, NIGHTLINE started up as a day-by-day wrap up of "What's up with our fifty four prisoners" being held by Iran. THAT was what was on everyone's mind.

And what happened seconds after REAGAN was sworn in? The hostages were released.

I'm not the one "reinventing history." I was THERE. I remember it all clearly. You plainly don't. If Carter has been able to rescue the hostages, instead of leaving a burning mess in the desert south of Teheran, he would have been reelected in a walk.

You know, comments like your last sentence show me that you just want to "fight on the internet." You have no interest in improving the situation or proposing alternative solutions. You won't even give it any thought. All you can do is tell other people how "hopeless" the situation is, and how "bad" and "stupid" they are, because they haven't given up on a President who has less than three months in the job.

So fine--keep crying and complaining--it apparently suits you. Those that can, do. Those that can't, post bullshit Doom and Gloom scenarios on DU, in self-important fashion.

[BeFree]

94. Whoa, nelly!

Got your panties in a twist, there do ya?

And what do you do? Attack me. I'm not alone. You attack nearly everyone on every thread.

And what is your answer? Follow Obama. DUh! F'n, Duh! But that's all got got, isn't it?

Just like the Dems from the last 3 or 4 decades, you just ignore the approaching storm. It's because of mentalities like your's is why we are where we are.

It would be more pleasing to hide my head in the sand and just forget about all this and just pray Obama saves us. And he may. But I have my doubts. Why? Because mentalities like your's have placed in office all the damned idiots that got us here. Yep, you guessed it, I am not happy with the Dems, not at all. No one in their right minds would be. Even you could see what a coked up alcoholic TK is and he's a damned hero to some!!

The answer is a sweeping removal of all the old Dems. And, do what I suggested in this thread earlier: put a thousand representatives in congress and if you had read this whole thread, you'd know that.

As it is, it is Dems like you that really present no hope for us. You just want more of the same old same old. Nothing you have written here suggests otherwise. You got nothing new.

We're screwn.

[MADem]

95. "And what is your answer? Follow Obama."

I don't attack anyone--I tell you what "I" intend to do. You act like it's the crime of the century to give a guy who has been in office less than three months a bit of room to move. I don't demand that you "copy" me, you know.

I point out that there's a shitload of whining and no solutions on this thread.

I ask "What to do?" and the answer I get is "We're fucked." Or "screwn" to use your teen-speak.

Screw that crap. Go dig your bomb shelter if it's that bad in your "DOOMED!" head.

Then, when pushed, you're "answer" is "a sweeping removal of all the old Dems." And then you try to use the old "scorn" tactic, but your comments just come off as whiney, personal and jerky.

Well, that won't happen because not everyone believes, like you do, that "we're screwn," and, as I said, all politics is local. Most people, as I said, LIKE their OWN representatives, they just hate everyone else's. But hey, that's MY fault, according to you??? From whence do you pull this shitty logic?

You keep trying to shoot the messenger, but you can't shoot straight. You're angry, you're unhappy, and you're taking it out on me. Good thing, I suppose, it doesn't worry me what you--or "mentalities like yours"-- think. I will say I don't think much of your ability to discuss a topic without getting petulant.

Good luck with your "plan." Be careful how you wave that broom.

:hi:

[BeFree]

113. You don't attack anyone?

Here is a short list of your attacks on this thread. Quotes:
The fault, dear Brutus,
All I am saying is you can run around like a chicken
is griping on the internet your sum total contribution?
Go dig your bomb shelter
See--you're one of the "passive ones."
But go on, tough guy,
you need to put away the scotch.
And that's "embarrassingly bad" of you
go tell him what a good cheerleader you are (not).
-I'm not buying the crap you're selling.
Sure, Mister Stalin
Why bother hanging around here at a political site

Your credibility is at an all time low, MADem.

I like Obama and hope he does well, but I do not pin all my hopes on him.
And when I look around at the party and who is in DC, I see a whole bunch of people who have royally screwed us time and again. Evidently you don't see that.

But you brag about all the hard work you've done, acting as if no one else here has done anything..... your credibility is at an all time low. You don't know what many here have done yet you attack them. Maybe you are different in person, but if this is how you treat fellow party members face-to-face, which I suspect you do, then it's true that your mentality is a symptom of what got us to where we are.

Plus your sense of history is simply awful. Carter lost because the Dems didn't want to hear the truth, just like you, here. Same shit different day.

In closing I will say that I don't think much of your attacking fellow Dems on DU.

[MADem]

118. You have a problem with comprehension, I see.

I note OBSERVED BEHAVIORS. Noting them is NOT an "attack."

If someone is running down the street on fire, buck nekkid, what, am I supposed to say.... "What a charming warm weather outfit?"

Every quote you note is a direct response to a shot across MY bow, too. But EWWWW--that's an "inconvenient truth" now, isn't it? Because, see, you're such a fucking Pollyanna, and would NEVER say anything sharp, acerbic or rude---yeah, right.

I didn't light this shit off--YOU did.

Get over yourself. Talk about Zero Credibility--you've patented it, it would seem.

And the final dire sentence? You don't convince anyone save yourself. Whoever smelt it, Bub, dealt it.

[BeFree]

120. Note observed behaviors?

That's rich. You are the one whining about being attacked and when presented with facts of your attack behaviors you won't even own up to it? If you can't take it, maybe you shouldn't be dishing it out?

So I note your behavior of showing nothing new and you get your panties in a twist. When are you ever going to face the reality that no matter what one person may do - no matter how hard they work, the corporation will always overcome their efforts?

That the Dem party is more interested in what the corps have to say than what you say? That politics as usual is what got us in this mess?

If you are here to convince anyone of anything but how to attack and get away with it, you're failing.

[MADem]

122. Yes--I note observed behaviors.

For example, I note you're obsessed with "twisted panties" in your commentaries. And I note you're continuing to, because you don't like my approach, whine about the evil corporatists and shop your worst case, abandon hope, gloom and doom, sky is falling scenario.

You knock yourself out, now. And have a nice day.

:hi:

[BeFree]

125. Sweet Dreams, sugarpie.

[Cetacea]

97. Ir wasn't Desert Storm. It was holding the hostages.

And Carter came close a few times but deals "mysteriously" fell apart. 'Course the man who held all of the secrets had his brain explode on his way to testifying...

[MADem]

119. DESERT ONE--not DESERT STORM. DESERT ONE.

Desert ONE was the location south of Teheran in the desert where a couple of US aircraft crashed in a hellish fireball, leaving the scorched corpses of some of our servicmembers on the desert floor.

Don't tell me what I know--I remember.

Here, a little history for you: http://iran.theatlantic.com/interactive_article_page_1.html

THE DESERT ONE DEBACLE

[get the red out]

106. Great post

Thank you. The alternative to giving Obama time is to ham-string him on doing anything by getting Republicans elected to Congress. I think primaries are great, and active primaries are good for the country. But we are lucky to have a Democrat as President at all. We could be looking at an even more complete economic collapse than we have now; combined with social and cultural regression back to the dark ages if McCain/Palin had won. In fact I imagine they would have welcomed a complete collapse in order to make their network of fundy Churches the providers of social safety nets. Those Churches being led by "Pastors" (oh that wonderful sheeple reference) more in league with the corporate devils than any Democrat ever had the connections or cunning to be.

[yy4me]

109. I believe the public does care. We cared enough to believe

that our candidate would give us something to grab onto. Help us get out of the dire situation we are in. It is taking a while and some of us are seeing things in a little different light. I'm trying but if the Obama administration keeps up their wiretapping stand and doesn't do away with some of the prior presidents great blunders, I will probably have voted in my last election.

You may think that is not the right way to go about it. What more could any candidate say to convince us that all the speeches Obama made and anything they might say are not just propaganda?. I know it takes time to change things but I never thought I would see an endorsement of the wiretapping program. This makes me angry.

If we all worked and donated and believed in him enough to elect him and it all is for naught, what is the point of ever believing another politician again?

[BeFree]

114. Yeah

Not only that but look at what our congress critters have been doing.

I think they have been threatened. Do you think Cheney might have threatened them? Would Cheney do such a thing? A coupla of our boys did get anthrax, eh? One or two had planes go down with them in it. And they stole who knows how many elections with the voting machines.

Makes ya wonder, don't it? Just how far would Cheney go?

[Andy823]

24. I understand your point.

It really makes no difference who gets elected if they are in the pockets of the "fat cats" with all the money! I also agree with MADem, if the voters don't get out and vote there is nothing we can do. I see dems trying to take on the current members of congress in a primary, but as you said, they don't get any money from the fat cats, but the incumbent gets millions! The system really does suck big time, and the only way I can see to beat the fat cats money machine, is organizing to get the voters out to vote the incumbents out of office, and get some new blood in congress. Of course the problem with that is once they get to D.C., they have to tow the line the party leaders want them to, or they get nowhere fast. It's all "politics" at their worst, and it will take something really big to break this cycle.

I watch CSPAN and see some damn good democrats in congress trying to make a difference, but I see the party leadership catering to the money, big banks, corporations, oil, etc., and as long as that happens we don't stand a chance. I am with you, I want so see some real change, but until we can get all the big money backers out of the picture, it will always be those who keep doing the will of the corporations that run things in D.C., and that doesn't look like it will change any time soon!

I would love to vote my current reps on congress out of office and get some new blood in there, but every time they come up for election either nobody runs against them in the primaries, or at the last minute the person running in the primaries drops out. I am all for term limits, but those who ran on that issue in the past had a change of heart once "they" got elected. I keep hoping things will change, but getting the people out to vote isn't easy, and like MADem said, people want everyone else's rep voted out, but not theirs!

[RufusTFirefly]

42. Two words: Campaign financing

The very term makes many people roll their eyes, but it's screwing voters in at least two ways.

1. It costs too much for the average person to run for office. There are conspicuous exceptions, of course (R.I.P. Paul Wellstone), but there's a good chance that if you have enough money to run for office that your are already corrupted or compromised.

2. Local media find it far more lucrative to run ads from deep-pocketed candidates than devote some of the space they normally allocate for fires and crime to covering candidates and issues in depth. That makes it doubly difficult for newer, poorer candidates who might otherwise gain valuable exposure. As a result, the public is more aware of the candidate with the loudest, fanciest megaphone rather than the one with the best ideas.

[kenfrequed]

105. yup

Agree on both points.

[bvar22]

36. It is not that simple.

In most elections, the voters are given a choice between 2 candidates, the Democrat and the Republican.
Most elections are really decided in The Primaries where grass roots candidates get steamrolled by the wealth supporting the incumbent, or the wealth behind the Corporate preferred candidate. I personally witnessed a popular grassroots candidate get torpedoed when Rahm Emmanuel and the DCCC inserted their approved candidate and financed him with funds from the DCCC in a local Democratic Primary.

So to say that our representatives are represneting their electorate isn't really true....It is an over simplification.

Look at our own Democratic Presidential Primary.
Obama does NOT come close to representing me on any major issue, and yet, he was the only option in the Presidential election.

Our Two Party system is hopelessly rigged.

[MADem]

43. "The voters ARE GIVEN...." See--you're one of the "passive ones."

You wait for someone to GIVE something to you. If you want change, don't wait to be GIVEN something--get out there, find like-minded people, and ORGANIZE for change. Don't give me the "I'm only one person" line. That's the same as saying "I want it handed to me on a silver platter."

Grass roots candidates get STEAMROLLED because your average voter PREFERS THE FAMILIAR. And grass-roots candidates often don't have deep enough grass roots to grow all over the electoral lawn.

It's not an "over simplification." It is what it is. Those grassroots guys will hear people say "I'll vote for ya" but no one wants to give up their evenings precinct walking, raising money, putting door hangers on doorknobs, holding fundraising soirees, etc., etc., etc....all the shit that TAKES TIME and EFFORT. And the hardest of these is the fundraising. It takes a LOT of time and the "purists" aren't willing to get down in the mud and do that difficult work. It's why so many rich people like Ned Lamont run for office--they can AFFORD to do it.

The 'status quo' candidates don't transport themselves to Washington on a White Horse in a dream state, after all. They return, again and again, because people VOTE FOR THEM. And laziness factors into those votes.

Obama wasn't the only primary candidate--you had all sorts, from that whacky Gravel to Joe Biden to John Babydaddy Edwards and Chris Dodd and Kucinich and HRC...the hits just kept on coming. Obama was the guy who WON outta that field, which is why he was one of the Top Two candidates for President. And there were a shitload of candidates on MY Presidential ballot, I don't know about yours. The ones that had the best chance of winning were from the major parties, but my ballot had a whole pile of folk on it.

Your glass will always be half empty, unless YOU do something about it.

[bvar22]

48. I can see you've never been nose-to-nose....

....with a local Party Boss.
Save your preaching for the politically naive.

[MADem]

50. Hahahahahaha!

You have no idea how many campaigns I've worked on.

It's a LOT.

But go on, tough guy, tell us all how a "local Party Boss" can break legs like Tony Soprano...

:rofl:

Gee, in your world, Howard Dean and Paul Wellstone should just stayed home.

[bvar22]

51. Actually, I had the honor of working on Wellstone's last campaign.

Wellstone was killed.

Howard Dean was fired by the Democratic Party.

No Soup for You.
NEXT!

[MADem]

53. Ok, so what are you telling me--party bosses killed Wellstone?

Come off it.

And Howard Dean WAS the "Party Boss" and finished out his term. He wasn't "fired."

Meet the new boss--his name is OBAMA. The VOTERS picked him.

Never mind soup--you need to put away the scotch.

[bvar22]

79. OK . I can understand how those of you....

...who support Well funded, Status Quo, Party Insider Endorsed Candidates would have a different experience than those of us working the grass root trenches. The system works for those who don't want change. Those of us working for real Change have had a very different experience at the local Party level. You can save your Pollyanna lectures for those with less on the ground experience.

Never-the less, your choice of Dean and Wellstone as examples of those who buck the "Party System" was embarrassingly bad. You really proved my point for me. We will never know about Paul's death. The NTSB said "Pilot Error", and it could well be. Before his death, Paul was talking about the conservative pressures from inside the Party, and was starting to call them out.

Dean was Shut Out of the Obama administration.
There is NO way your can spin this.
I am actually glad about this. I believe he will be much more effective outside the tent Pissing In. Dean is currently engaged in another "grassroots" campaign with MoveOn to force the Obama administration to include a Non Profit Public Health Care Option. I'm supporting him.

Stand With Dr. Dean

During the election, President Obama proposed a health care plan that would give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance—if they have any—and choosing a universally available public health insurance option like Medicare.

But for-profit insurance companies and HMOs are already working hard to strip this public health insurance option from any upcoming health care bill. They don't want us to have a choice, and they'll stop at nothing to kill real reform. Trouble is, some in Congress are siding with the insurance companies—and against what's best for the rest of us.

Today, we draw a line in the sand. A public health insurance option is the only way to guarantee health care for all Americans. And to show that we mean business, we all need to tell Congress we won't settle for less.

If 250,000 of us sign this petition, Dr. Howard Dean will personally deliver it to Congress.

http://pol.moveon.org/standwithdrdean/?rc=homepage

I encourage you to work with Dr Dean.
Please sign the petition.


As far as the voters "picking" Obama. You might want to study the Magician's Forced Pick.
The dynamic is pretty much the same.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/344304/how_to_force_anyone_to_pick_the_card_you_want_everytime_magic/

I'm glad Obama won the election.
I voted for him, and the alternative really sucked.
But I voted for him with total awareness that the hard work has just begun.

*I am an advocate for PEACE.

*I m an advocate for Single Payer Universal HealthCare.

*I am an advocate for Equal Rights and Equal Protections for everyone...NO Exceptions.

*I am an advocate for Universal Free Education through graduate levels to anyone who wants it.

*I am a tireless advocate for Organized LABOR.

*I am an advocate for strict regulation/oversight or Nationalization of Banking, Lending, Investing, Energy, Transportation, Trade, Communications.

*I am an advocate for limiting the size and power of Corporations and leveling the playing field so Mom&Pop can compete with the Big Boxes.

*I am an advocate for Local Ownership.

*I am an advocate for Public Financed Elections and Instant Runoff Voting.

*I am an opponent to the concentration of Wealth and Power into fewer hands.

*I am an opponent to Corporate Personhood.

*I am an opponent to the MIC.

*I am an opponent to the occupation of other countries.

*I am an opponent to "Free Trade".

*I am an opponent Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

I am an opponent to the failed ideology of "Centrism".

I WAS ALL these things BEFORE Obama.
I will BE these things after Obama.
It makes little difference which Political Personality occupies the White House.
When our politicians move TOWARD these goals, I will praise them.
When they move AWAY, I will fight.

The hard work has just started.

[MADem]

83. Dean was "shut out" because Obama didn't want him. Winning has consequences.

That's life.

Gee, four years ago, the "grassroots outsider" was a guy named OBAMA. Oh, he'll never be "the one" in 08, maybe in '16--he needs "seasoning." He's too fresh a face. He'll NEVER be able to raise "the big bucks." He's not wired in to all the entrenched DNC donors, the PAC contributors, the movers and shakers.

He was a long shot, he never had a chance. Why, it was HILLARY all the way!!!!!

Now, all of a sudden, in your head, he's the mendacious Boss Tweed. Please.

Sorry, I don't buy your logic or your poetry. You rewrite the script and move the goalposts as the situation changes. And that's "embarrassingly bad" of you.

[bvar22]

85. Obama showed up in Iowa with $100Million, a political machine,

...And an endorsement from the DLC who said "If we can't have Hillary, we'll be very happy with Obama". THAT did NOT come from the "GrassRoots".
Obama certainly played to the grassroots, but he has always been financed by Wall Street & the Chicago Machine.
It is a myth that the Grassroots spawned Obama.

If you read up on the "Forced Choice" I referenced above, and use that of the overlay of the Democratic Primaries, you may become enlightened.

Did you go sign Howard Dean's petition for the Public Non Profit Health Care Option?

[MADem]

86. You're just determined to turn him into Boss Tweed, aren't you?

Gee, he didn't have all that cash when he showed up to give the speech in Boston at the Kerry Convention, now, did he?

See, that's how it works--people like someone, and they give them money. He didn't get any money from me, FWIW. I supported a different primary candidate.

If you don't like this system, work to change it, at least propose an alternative besides "We're Dooooooomed"--stop griping to me and a very tiny audience on this minute corner of the internet about how "awful" it is.

No, I didn't sign Howard's petition--generally, when people who behave rudely ask me to do something, I reject their entreaties.

So gee, ya lost one for Howard--go tell him what a good cheerleader you are (not).

[bvar22]

90. There you go again with the preaching.

I'm not determined to turn Obama into anything.
I am merely posting my observations and experience on an anonymous website.

You are free to post your own opinions, but PLEASE, stop with the Pollyanna lectures to those of us who know better.

[MADem]

91. "Those of us who know better"---and you call me "preaching?"

Keep preaching, Reverend. Don't bother sending the collection plate over this way--I'm not buying the crap you're selling.

:hi:

[kenfrequed]

103. As much...

as I agree with certain points you have made I think we need to be carefull with lumping "Wellstone was killed" when we talk about our own party.

If Wellstone was killed it wasn't likely done by our own party; he was about to beat the ever living crap out of Coleman and was set up to start opposing Bush loudly and publically. I think a small connected group of neo-cons and operators were more likely the culprits IF it was in fact an assassination.

As to local party bosses, yes they can be a pain in the friggin neck. Way too many conventional wisdom-moderate sucking nonsense. Way too little progressive populist Wellstone style taking it to the people. In fact when Wellstone first ran it was the old gaurd party people that gave up when his people stormed the nomination. And surprise! He won.

But the DCCC has been wrecking havoc on state and congressional races by applying pressure to states that have superdelegates and strong arming progressive candidates to step down in favor of supposed moderates. This kills local grass roots organizers and reduces our boots on the ground and youth activism and vote in most states.

[truedelphi]

62. Sometimes I wish Paul had stayed home.

Or at least avoided flying around in planes.

[MADem]

84. So do I. I wish he'd hauled out that old green bus instead. NT

[dflprincess]

98. Exactly Bvar

The national party and its tools in the DFL can pay all the homage it wants to Wellstone's memory, but there is no way they'd let someone like him get the endorsement now. I fear he may have been the last of his kind. They keep making noise about abandoning the caucuses and going to a primary - and you know that's because a caucus can help an underfunded grass roots candidate with a good organization and primaries favor those who can afford the best ad agency.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. And therein lies the crux of the matter

Politicians represent their constituents. The operative definition of "constituent" is "whoever pays the bills and keeps the politician in election money." Large corporations and well-heeled business interests put up the vast majority of money a political candidate raises, so therefore, large corporations and well-heeled business interests are the politicians constituency regardless of geographic boundaries.

[Deny and Shred]

139. And they do it on BOTH sides of the aisle.

That way, whoever gets in is still 'their' guy. Sure, the officeholder can vote their mind on a few things, and are allowed various innoccuous pet projects, but far too many votes are bought and paid for when it comes to the major issues of their campaign corporations.

It is difficult to get there (national office) without the bankroll. The few who do are not generally welcomed with open arms by party establishment. Pretty much all who could rock the boat are somehow guilty of some compromising situation, or marginalized. Some are also dead too soon.

[Democracyinkind]

9. I get your point. But I don't agree with your premise.

If your description of a politician's choicemaking is sufficient, how the hell did we end up with legislation to kill Glass-Steagle etc.?
I'd like to see the constituents behind that one. And sure yeah, they represent coroprations too in a sense, but that would really stretch the idea of constituents and their "will".

[MADem]

13. Pull the string, and you SEE the constituents--they're the damned VOTERS.

Look, I sit here and read this POLTICAL message board, and I am often appalled at the vast cluelessness by so many who post here as to how our government functions--and these are the people who are INTERESTED in the process.

We ended up with bad legislation because way too many people vote for a politician because "He's dreamy" or "She reminds me of my mother." They'll also vote for them because they "Saved our jobs" or "Brought the SuchNSuch Factory to the region" or "Fixed the overpass down the road."

Constituents are, quite often, stupid people. And sometimes, they're smart. The bottom line is, they vote for the guy or gal who brings home the bacon. TO THEM.

See, pork for others--that's BAD. Pork for them? It's what's for dinner.

All politics is local.

[Democracyinkind]

25. Agreed, but the fact that their interest goes no further than you have stated

is the cause of the void which special interest is always so quick to nest in. My point was that things like killing Glass-Steagle cannot be explained by the will of the constituents. Granted, that is caused by what you've said in your last post.

But that's what the OP says too, in a way. Replace the "people in washington" with decent men with whom you have more in common than some kind of reward for voting him for.

George Carlin had it all figured out.

[MADem]

28. It all starts with the voters, though. Without them, you're screwed.

And the voters, many of them, don't care. Many of them, too, are stupid. Many don't read. Many are willing to believe actors who call themselves Harry and Louise. Many will wrap themselves around a Swift Boat axle, or a Birth Certificate Imbroglio.

I don't know how to make politics "sexy." If people followed the workings of our government with the same enthusiasm that they follow ALL MY CHILDREN or AMERICAN IDOL, we'd be in better shape.

I think we'd do better if we had a few more of those decent WOMEN in Washington, myself. They work harder, they're less greedy, and they get involved in fewer sex scandals. They also make good law....

[Democracyinkind]

31. Imagine, I'm a man and I totally agree. Although the women that tend to get voted in today

... are in the most cases probably cut of the same wood. There's a Bachmann to every Hatch.

Politics don't have to become "sexy", they just need to become necessary again, and that will be as soon as our current system reaches the breaking point of unsustainability.

There's only that much to rape in a lifetime. We're pretty much there.

[the other one]

73. Its not who votes, its who counts the votes

Work all you want.

Our system is hopelessly broken.

To have hope in this system is to be naive.

Maybe we the people just aren't ready to really be free.

[MADem]

87. Sure, Mister Stalin. Another "hopeless" post.

Why aren't you out digging the bomb shelter, then? Quick, plant the garden and get out the canning supplies. Start filtering water like crazy. Stockpile batteries, generators, fuel.

Come on, we're DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED, after all. There's just no fucking hope. The End Is Near.

Get up off your ass and SAVE YOURSELF!!!!

Why bother hanging around here at a political site, if the politics in our country are "hopelessly broken?" What's the point?

[rhett o rick]

38. Congress-critters represent constituents by definition only.

The actions of Congress members reflect what their lobbyist wish more than their constituents. Most constituents don’t even vote, and a good share of the rest vote for name recognition only. This is easily influenced by big money. How often have you seen a party decide to replace and incumbent? Extremely rare if ever. This means that the Congress-critters can, and do literally whatever they want and still are safe in their own party. The only way to get rid of an incumbent is vote for the other party.

The point in my OP is that IMO the Democrats in Congress struggle against the forces of evil just hard enough to lose. They represent the ruling class not the middle class.

[MADem]

49. Enough of them vote to put the person in the seat, though.

And yes, they do vote for "name recognition"--the familiar. As well as the pork that "their guy" brings home.

You are sticking within the paradigm of the PARTY doing it all--the Party "replacing an incumbent" you said. It's not UP to the Party--if the electorate gets off their asses and works for change.

If you wait for the Party to hand you a candidate, you will get the candidate the Party wants. If you want change, you have to find your hero and BACK him or her. You ...and everyone else who doesn't like the status quo...needs to get proactive. Griping doesn't cut it. So long as complainers are just sitting on their behinds grousing, there will be no change. Why should the Party extend themselves to people who whine on the internet? You've got to get up off of that thing, and work for a candidate you want. And yes, that includes raising lots and lots and lots of EVIL MONEY.

The Supremes have told us that Money Equals Speech, thus money is not going to leave the equation anytime soon. Griping about that is nonproductive...so the poorer candidates will need lots and lots of fast dimes, which, if there are enough of them, are better than slow dollars. And the way they get them is through volunteers, working hard, beating the bushes, and generating some buzz for their preferred person.

Takes work, though. A lot of work. The Wellstone Model applies.

[rhett o rick]

77. "if the electorate gets off their asses and works for a change", is definitely what we

need but seems a lot to expect. And we need them to be better informed than the MSM. In my OP I stated a number of reasons it appears to me that the Party machine is in control and not the people. But my main point is that it seems to me that the real power is in the hands of corporatists. This includes a number of Democrats, IMO enough to control the Party. They came to the rescue of Joe Lieberman in spite of what the grassroots Democrats of CT wanted.

[MADem]

88. The Lieberman example is bullshit. Sorry. Lamont fucked up.

And the GOP helped by putting up a shit-stain of a candidate, so consequently, it became easier for the moderate to conservative Democrats with ties to DOD-related industries and installations to vote for Lieberman, along with MOST of the GOP who couldn't bear the idiot they had on offer.

Lamont could have hung on to the Democratic votes, but he was really stumbling at the finish line, and he made a few gaffes. His commercials were amusing and upbeat, but he couldn't quite deliver "the goods" to the voters.

Also, and the antiwar crowd doesn't like to hear this, but Connecticut makes a good chunk of change off the Military Industrial complex. The voters who benefitted from this relationship weren't about to vote against their personal interests, and they, like it or not, OUTNUMBERED the grassroots types.

Like I said, all politics is local. Do not shoot the messenger.

[rhett o rick]

110. I disagree. Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary, which is extremely rare.

The Democrats clearly didn't want Lieberman. The republiCons did so they ran a weak candidate and most republiCons voted for Lieberman. However, since the republiCon votes were divided between Lieberman and the republiCon candidate, it should have been easy for Lamont. Basically he just needed to carry the Democrats. Now the Senate good ole boys club steps up to the plate (repubs and Dems) and supports Lieberman. That was enough the throw the election to Lieberman. IMHO

[MADem]

121. YES---and Lamont was sitting in the catbird seat. But as the campaign progressed,

HE FUCKED UP. He stumbled on message, he didn't debate well, and he ran out of gas.

The Democrats' issue with Lieberman was his intransigence vis a vis the Iraq War, and his wish to link Bush's misadventures there with the whole Israel-Palestine business. They put aside Lieberman's very socially liberal voting record on other issues, and focused entirely on his war stance--DURING THE PRIMARY.

Then, when Lieberman decided to run as an independent because the GOP candidate was a weak-ass nitwit who had zero chance of being elected or even having a respectable showing, he figured he could split the Dem vote AND pick up some GOP votes.

But subsequent to that, the dynamic amongst Democratic voters CHANGED.

People who voted for Lamont in the primary rethought their stance and voted for Lieberman in the general. It helped him win, and it gave him that margin.

What was "enough" to throw the election to Lieberman is the fact that way more people voted for him. It wasn't evil Good Ole Boys--it was VOTERS that did it--Lieberman bested Lamont by a solid TEN points. That Schlessinger bozo that ran on the GOP ticket didn't even get ten percent of the vote, TOTAL. It was like he wasn't even there. The GOP didn't bother helping him, because they figured, pre-Lamont, that there would be no hope for a GOP win, anyway. If they'd realized Lamont was going to run AND win the primary, they probably would have run a better candidate and challenged Lamont, and Lieberman would have slunk away to an appointment in the Bush Administration.

And the reason those Lamont voters shifted back to Lieberman is because they thought it over, told themselves "Well, he brings home the bacon" and they decided to stick with him.

[rhett o rick]

126. I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument.

I believe that there is a lot of evidence that shows there is a very strong corporatist influence in the top echelons of the Democratic Party. You take exception to one of my examples. Does this mean you don’t believe that the Democratic Party has strong corporate controls?? Or does it mean that you recognize the strong corporate controls but think it is ok?

It is popular for Democrats to say, “Let’s vote out the Dino’s.” And I say that our current system won’t permit it. I have tried. In my state, Sen Cantwell has IMHO not been consistently progressive. On more than one occasion she supported GW bush. I can’t forgive that. But when I approach my county Democratic Party and the State Party about replacing her, they laugh at me. Vote out an incumbent, never. No help from the Party structure.

In a representative government the representatives are elected to use their better knowledge and judgment to do the right thing for the people they represent. This may not always be popular with the constituents. The Iraq war resolution for example, a good representative should have voted no and taken their chances on reelection, not capitulate to popular (corporate MSM propaganda) opinion. If they do nothing but directly reflect popular opinion (a pure democracy), then they wouldn’t be needed.

[MADem]

127. Where I am going is this-- "It CAN be done."

The sky is not falling.

We are not doomed.

Or "screwn" in the teen vernacular.

Sure, there is a corporatist influence. Really--do bears shit in the woods?

Can it be overcome? YES. With EFFORT. LOTS of effort. WELLSTONIAN effort.

You don't think the "Democratic Party" responds when enough people get pissed? How do you think the very unpopular (to the 'status quo' types that everyone here excoriates) Howard Dean managed to get the DNC chair slot? He gathered up his little army and they bullied him into the job. Squeaky wheels can get greased. He wasn't the first choice, hell, he wasn't the tenth choice.

How do you think Obama (Oh, it'll be nice if he runs, maybe Hillary will pick him for her VP...) got his shit working? It started out with PEOPLE. The corporations hopped on board in a big way when they saw him gathering steam but his initial push came from the YES WE CAN crowd.

If you want to take a different tack, don't rely on the entrenched party organization. Go around them. Look at Lamont. He did that, and he did it easily because he is rich. You will not have it so easy, so what you have to do is gather up a shitload of like-minded people and work it from the ground up. And don't go picking a candidate with "good ideas" who looks like a big fat pudding or who can't string a sentence together. Like it or not "progressive ideals" don't work all by themselves. You need to pick a candidate that looks good (and that's not always handsome--sometimes "sweetly ugly" works, too) and who can TALK TALK TALK, and think on his/her feet, and LISTEN. Oh, and CARE. And CONNECT. If the candidate does not identify with the constituency, you haven't a prayer.

None of this is simple. It is very hard. It takes a lot of work. Money has to be raised, constantly. You need a small--or better still, LARGE-- army of true believers who will not give up, not just an exclusive cadre of elitists who think that right is might and insist that they know better than the Party hacks. You need to be ready to rebuff the hacks who try to co-opt you or your candidate.

But the trick to winning an election, plain and simple, is to get more people to vote for your guy. To WANT to vote for your guy. To show up at the polls on election day and VOTE for your guy. If you want to be sure no one DIEBOLDS you, you need to win outside the margins, too.

Like I said, it's hard work.

[leftofthedial]

61. "Legislators represent their constituents."

Only in ninth-grade civics class, circa 1970.

[MADem]

65. Who votes them in, then, Santy Claus?

I suspect they weren't even teaching civics in ninteen seventy--if they were, the kids must have slept through class.

What are you saying, that the electorate votes against their interests? And if that is what you're saying, why don't you tell us why they would do such a thing?

[leftofthedial]

66. we "vote" them in,

but they don't seem to represent us anymore. And, yes, the electorate votes against their interests quite frequently.

I can attest to the fact that they taught civics in 1970.

[MADem]

67. That's all I'm saying. WE are "the problem."

If there is a problem with our government representatives and their loyalties (or lack of same), it's the fault of the people who cast the ballots. No one wants to get off their ass and work for candidates anymore. Even the people who will get up and go every four years for the Presidential run are no where to be found if it's a crappy congressional race.

Congressmen who are challenged tend to not take their constituents for granted.

It's way too easy to blame "them"--"them" being these anonymous evil corporatists, fatcats, lobbyists, etc. And let's not forget those evil party bosses!

But "they" get away with it because they're allowed to...by US. The voters.

[Dr.Phool]

100. I think you're dead wrong on this.

Most representatives represent the money they got. Most Americans don't even know who their representative is, how they voted, who their donors are, or what they actually stand for.

I managed a congressional campaign a couple of years ago, where an incumbent repuke was running on her support for veterans, and senior citizens. Even though she voted against veterans on every single vote, a couple of times a year, she'd have a dog and pony show, and present a couple of old veterans with "medals", with her name on them.

She supported privatized Social Security, voted for Medicare "reform", and screwed every one of her constituents.

She won in a landslide against a progressive Dem, who was right on all the issues. The difference is, she had plenty of funding from her corporate sponsors to create an image. Her opponent couldn't get jack shit from the DCCC. In fact, the Florida Democratic Party worked against him, and discouraged donors. He beat their DLC sponsored candidate by 11 points in the primary. And they didn't like it.

Representative democracy is dead. We have one party, that produces the illusion of a democracy, and the two factions fight it out over K-Street goodies.

It's over folks.

[rhett o rick]

111. I agree of course. nm

[MADem]

124. OK Dr. Phool....you ran a campaign. Just supposing you got a whole lotta

people up off their asses, talking to voters, precinct walking, hand delivering flyers, sending out YOUTUBE links, and most importantly--DRIVING PEOPLE TO THE POLLS.

See, that's what I do. The last election I voted in (it was a little local one), I drove almost five percent of all the voters who voted in that election to the polls. Now, sadly, where the national election pulled in eighty percent of the electorate, this shitty local election only pulled in TWELVE percent of that population--the turnout sucked, because not enough people were motivated (by a friend, a neighbor, a local political activist) to go vote.

But .... just supposing you, as a campaign manager, had twenty, thirty, fifty, a HUNDRED, TWO HUNDRED people just like me, scattered around every neighborhood in your candidate's district. Who borrowed the van and loaded it up, and brought people door to door, and spent the whole damn day doing it.

You are telling me that wouldn't make a difference?

VOTERS put people in office. VOTERS. Big money helps get a message out, but there's nothing like PEOPLE POWER. And in this environment, a "poverty campaign" sounds much more authentic than a slick, big money effort.

Wellstone may be dead, but his campaign paradigm does not have to be. But see, what Wellstone had, that many of these underfunded campaigners do not have, is a real MESSAGE and ability to inspire and motivate people to join the cause. That combination of personality AND message that is so strong, so compelling, that people like me will waddle around my neighborhood, and the next neighborhood over, and the next one after that, saying "Hey" to my fellow citizens, handing them flyers, chatting them up, getting their email/phone numbers, and putting them in the loop as to why they need to vote for my preferred choice. AND...asking for their help. You can't just transmit, you have to ask for feedback. Even if it's just a yard sign and a few hours answering the phone, you've gotta motivate people to pitch in. And, on election day, or the day before, you call 'em, remind 'em, and ask them if they need a ride.

You can't manage these things from on high--it really has to happen from the ground up. That's how people win.

And it's only "OVER, folks" if people give up on it. I guess people would rather sit on their butts and complain than get up and move and work. It's a shame. But the fault is in ourselves if we let that happen.

[librechik]

3. I'm pretty sure we're doomed and they're doing all the wrong things to stop it

Nevertheless, I'm not doing anything else, so I might as well start bailing, even though it's hopeless.

[shadowknows69]

4. Yeah, I know. That's why I take Xanax. Best drug to ride out the end of the world with

Next to Tequila and cocaine but I don't do those anymore.

[rhett o rick]

7. Vodka

[Mari333]

8. yep, pretty much agree. nt

[redqueen]

12. Here's what I got from your OP:

"It’s not hopeless,"


So yeah, we need to work hard to change minds in this country... change starts from the bottom. It's already starting. We saw how many independents and even repubs turned to Obama... in order to keep that leftward-motion going, we can't have the party leaders going all radical on those who are only just now gently starting to edge leftward.

I dunno... maybe I'm wrong about this... but it seems like this kind of fundamental change... the kind that has to take place in the electorate in order to get real and lasting results... it happens (again IMO) very, very slowly.

Progress is good. We're making progress.

[cali]

14. I'm walking on air today and not all the "we're doomed" posts in the world

are going to change that. Vermont has great dem politicians both in the state house and in the Congress. All I can do is 'act locally'.

[rhett o rick]

29. I am happy for you (no sarcasm intended). nm

[Boomerang Diddle]

30. Life isn't perfect.

Never had been, never will be.

[leftstreet]

16. The Democratic leaders are in a dangerous position

They've had 8 years (well, really 16) of hiding their corporate allegiance behind the 'evil rightwing.'

Starting in 2006 they got a fair mandate from voters to get out of Iraq. Instead they shoveled more money at the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.

Today they not only have a majority, they have a Democratic President with overwhelming political capital and a massive voter mandate for 'change.'

The voters have rejected Reaganism and Piss Down Economics and they are looking to DC for leadership.

If the Democratic representatives and the party as a whole can't pull this off, THEY are doomed.

[Mari333]

18. good post.

and I wish I could say that the new party leadership is on the right path but its increasingly looking like it isnt.

[wiggs]

20. Agree. Too many examples of astonishing, frustrating, mystifying behavior by

dems over the last 8 years. Election integrity, patriot act, filibustering, bankruptcy act etc etc etc.

It's not right v left, progressive v conservative, freeps v DUrs...it's entrenched power versus the rest of us. There are those who are very interested in concentrating wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer people...and they come in red stripes (mostly) and blue (enough). Our reps, enough of them, either grew up in privileged circles or now travel within them and believe in trickle down, in corporate might, in imperialism, in "ends justify the means" etc.

Dang.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Common ground between right and left

What's fascinating to me is how many on both the right and the left recognize the same symptoms.
Where we part ways is in identifying the causes. For example, I might blame NAFTA while my right-wing office mate blames "illegals."

Ironically, there is some congruence on the opposite ends of the political continuum regarding the role that corporations play in endangering the American dream.

Strange as it may seem, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan usually agree on this one.

Although Buchanan is the closest thing we have in this country to the execrable French neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, I wish the anti-corporate forces on the left and right could join together on this particular issue.

[Democracyinkind]

27. You'll be pretty frustrated with reactions to this view up to the day that the empire comes crashing

. Glad to read your making sense.

[girl gone mad]

21. Dodd will probably be gone..

if it makes you feel any better. He pushed it too far, gave too much to his corporate sponsors, who turned out to be the sleaziest of all. Either he's pushed out by the establishment or a Republican will win his seat. I don't see anyone like Lamont who can challenge him in the primaries.

[dysfunctional press]

22. i'm 48, with no kids, retired due to permanent disability...

i'm just trying to make sure i have a good seat to watch things unfold and crumble over the next few decades.

[LanternWaste]

26. There's a seven year old boy named...

There's a seven year old boy named T'Camai Dubesti... well, he would have been seven, but he died last week at his aunt's hut from malnutrition and slow starvation. He lived in Rwanda. His mother was raped and shot in front of him when he was five. His father died three months later in prison from abuse. He had no idea where his five brothers were, but he did know that his three sisters (all under the age of twelve) were taken to the capital and forced to work in the "entertainment" industry for the local militias.

T'Camai's life was, to me "screwed". 'Hopeless' would be an apt descriptor too. I imagine both are rather subjective and relative terms, all the easier to paint ourselves with when a color television with 100 channels, a bookcase full of CD's and computer games, and a refrigerator with plenty of beer in it is merely an arm's length away from the vast majority of us.

T'Camai's life was not uncommon in his country. It's an aberration in this one.

[rhett o rick]

35. I totally agree that life in these United States is better than a good share of the world.

But don't think that means I am going to stand by while the have's steal us blind. My point in the OP, although badly presented, is that the Democratic Party, in the most part, isn't looking out for the middle class. They have all kinds of excuses but in the last 9 years (actually more) they have not done the middle class right. We need to take actions to remove these impostors from office.

[MADem]

54. Talk about PERSPECTIVE. If I could recommend a post, I'd recommend yours.

:thumbsup:

[BeFree]

33. Yes, we are

No doubt. We are srewed.

One option, really the only option, is a house of representatives that represents the people. Right now one rep reps 600,000 people. It is not possible to rep that many people, so this is what we've got: an impossibility in DC.

GW is said to have come up with a number around 30,000 people to one rep.
That's a good idea.
And why not? Why not one rep for 30,000? We can do that. We must, or we shall remain screwed.

[bvar22]

41. My wife and I decided to quit.

We are doing everything legally possible to deny funding for The Machine.
We are no longer Good Corporate Citizens.

We are registered Democrats and active in the local Party, but that may change shortly if there is no well funded, viable Public Non-Profit Option in Obama's Health Care "reform" package.

[xchrom]

44. 4-11 is start -- and it's just around the corner. nt

[jemma]

45. UR right rhett o rick

It is an illusion, a carefully cultivated one.
The one party plays a game of good cop/bad cop.
This cycle we have the good cop.

Both cops answer to the same authority.

[leftofthedial]

46. There aren't ten actual Democrats in DC.

[TBF]

58. And that is a really good point. n/t

[balantz]

52. Ponies for everyone!

[waiting for hope]

55. Ohh - Pretty pony ...

Timmeh! Can I have one? :spray:

[TBF]

57. You two crack me up... I know you're making those

ponies down at the compound in Belize.

[balantz]

59. A spy in our Belize compound!

:hi: Hi TBF! How's it goin'?

[waiting for hope]

60. Production is a bitch - let me tell you.

They can't make enough ice tea to quench the thirst, but the beaches are great!



We decided to ditch the temple underwear, now we are sporting these:



Figure it would be better since we are all serfs ... ;)

Good to see you! :hi:

[TBF]

56. The ruling class... and the rest of us -

one of the main problems on DU is that so many identify with the ruling class. They don't realize they are "the rest of us" yet.

[FiveGoodMen]

96. As Michael Moore put it: Face It, You'll Never Be Rich

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9723

[TBF]

132. And he wrote that in 2003 - a very good article.

Horatio Alger was evil, and people are still clinging to the fairy tale.

[dreamnightwind]

68. campaign finance reform

Agreed. Let me add my voice to the "campaign finance reform" chorus (actually a very small chorus here, come on people, what's so hard to see about this?)

It'll have to be entirely radical reform, no corporate money of any sort. I'd give in to the right and say no labor money either, just small individual contributions. No bundlers. No paid political ads either (require those receiving public bandwidth to cover the candidates). It'll never be perfect but it doesn't have to be, it only has to perfect enough to restore the balance of power back to actual individual citizens and their interests.

I seriously can't think of anything more important.

You have to fight with leverage. We're constantly struggling on issue after issue, trying to raise enough of a fuss that the traitorous reps will throw us a bone. If we reform campaign financing for real, that all changes. The reps will be looking for ways to do right by us, instead of being corporate shills who only pretend to represent our interests.

I'd also suggest paying our reps a ton of money, huge salaries. Wouldn't be nearly as expensive as having them look in other places (corporate) for compensation.

[Hannah Bell]

70. free cable & network time.

mmm, i kind of disagree with the "huge salaries". when did making lots of money ever stop crooks from looking to get more?

[dreamnightwind]

71. it should help, not a complete fix though

re large salaries, I agree that alone won't stop them from looking for more, but it could help. As it is now, congressional salaries are so low that you can be pretty certain they're not taking the job for the legitimate money. Maybe they're just altruistic public servants eager to leave their families and live in DC for a few years, and maybe I'm a cucumber.

The real cost of congress critters isn't salary, it's the legislation they write on behalf of corporate lobbyists, which ends up costing the public orders of magnitude greater money than the rep's salary. I know I'm stating the obvious, still it seems like needed perspective.

Also, it's an extremely important job, seems like they ought to be compensated accordingly.

The main issue, though, is we have to muscle up and rid the system of corporate money. It's essential to our future, more so than any other issue, since it enables getting on the right track for everything else that needs to be done. I don't know why it's so hard to get people focused on this, it trumps everything.

"What's the point of calling shots,
This cue ain't straight in line
Cue ball's made of styrofoam
and no-one's got the time"

[TBF]

72. "paying our reps a ton of money, huge salaries" ... have we learned

nothing the last 6 months? You do not reform by encouraging greed. In fact I'd start by lowering their salaries to about 50K/per year and taking away their health insurance. Maybe if they knew what it was like not to have it they'd have a little more sympathy for average folks as opposed to insurance reps.

That's where our teachers start in salary, if they're lucky. We eloquently state that people must have a "calling" to go into teaching, that money isn't the answer. So it should be for those "serving" in Congress.

[dreamnightwind]

128. sounds like we've learned different things

We currently have a system that requires huge amounts of money to win an election. Also "connections" to get favorably covered by the corporate media. Once in office, we pay our reps far less than the importance of their position would indicate. We assume that they find other ways to use their position to gain compensation, and of course they do.

They pay lip service to the people who vote, while they outsource their jobs of legislating to the lobbyists of the organizations who got them the big money. They immediately start seeking more big money to fill their campaign coffers for the next election.

I don't think they're all greedy pigs (many of them, sure), I think we have a system that makes it nearly impossible for them to represent the people.

I don't find the teacher analogy very useful. Teachers represent far fewer people, and though very important, the skill level required isn't nearly the skill level of what would be required of a truly happening congressperson. I love teachers and am married to one, so don't mistake what I'm saying, it's just not very similar in any way to being a congressperson and their pay scales don't relate in my mind. Anyways I'm all for paying teachers well and I would laugh at anyone who suggests that good ones should do it for pennies because it's their calling.

To me it does indeed make sense to structure a system so that competent and honest people, the best and the brightest, will serve in our congress. The most important reform to enable this is to completely remove corporate money. Of lesser, though in my mind still significant, importance, is to make sure they can't leverage their positions for their financial gain, and to pay them enough that they don't feel they need to.

[truedelphi]

89. Campaign finance reform, Universal Single Payer Health Care, all the big issues

That do not come to fruition. Will keep hoping and praying for these issues to occur, but will it be in my lifetime?

I have yet to encounter a reporter who asked one of the Clintons why it was that they took the staff they had working on Campaign Fiannce Reform, and made them work on bringing NAFTA to fruition instead.

[dreamnightwind]

129. the way things are currently structured it will never happen

That would be an interesting question, I'd love to hear such a discussion. Since the same, or similar, people are paying the reporters that are buying our politicians and writing our legislation, I won't hold my breath.

And I don't think we'll ever get something like universal single-payer health care out of our corporate reps. In fact they'll go to any extreme to bait-and-switch us so that it never happens. The insurance companies are huge and powerful interests. They do the people absolutely no good, nothing but parasites, but they've got us by the balls.

We should keep screaming at our current reps and trying to elect better ones, but most of the energy needs to go to removing corporate money from the process, any way we can do it. An epic struggle to be sure, but basically I see it as life or death for the future of our nation.

By the way I've read many of your excellent posts, good stuff!

[truedelphi]

137. Thank you for the compliment. I fear that I am far too

Shrill at times, but I do want people to understand that just because we have a charismatic "fun" guy in the WH,it won't mean Shit unless he backs away from the same policies as the Bush-ters

[twitomy]

102. Here's my take on reform..

Keep the Senate as is...

Make the House truly the house of the people...Anyone who wants to serve his/her district and can pass a literacy and civic test put their name in the bowl. Draw the name. Serve ONE three year term. Stagger the "drawing" so that 1/2 to 1/3 are replaced every three years.

There you go. No longer can a seat be bought by the monied.

[dreamnightwind]

130. Easy pickings

Sounds to me like an excellent way to insure that things are run by shadowy, behind-the-scenes forces, with the elected reps becoming mostly irrelevant.

It's a really complex world out there. Your suggestion would accomplish getting people in positions of power that have no ulterior agendas to serve, but it wouldn't put skilled and competent people in place.

If the reps are a bunch of ignorant average joes, I think the more savvy and diabolically brilliant career corporate goons will have a field day with them. Easy pickings.

I think this is really high-level work, requiring immense understanding and intelligence.

We could just say to hell with all of the complexity, seems to me to be what the repugs do since most of them can't get their heads around it anyway, but what happens then is that those that actually can and do master the ins and outs of how things work just do what they want while the reps argue about irrelevant straw men put in place to give them the appearance of relevancy. The repugs think this is fine since most of them are laissez-faire anyway, but we know where that leads, we're there right now!

[orleans]

69. well, i know we're screwed around here:

go fuck yourself "gems election results"
http://www.dupageresults.com/results/2009_04_results/townships-1.htm

not a single stated dem candidate won in this entire diebold machine counting republicon county!

[LWolf]

74. I've known it for a long time, and you are correct. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. The primary concern of politicians is to get re-elected. Serving the country is a slogan.

What's amusing is that the party loyalists call the dissenters purists while demanding loyalty to politicians who vote against the party.

[mike_c]

78. K&R-- I agree with you 100 percent....

The failure of the democratic party to oppose the corporatist and neo-fascist agenda is terribly disheartening.

[Last Stand]

80. ditto

[Jack Sprat]

104. They prostrated themselves before Dubya

Now, with both houses of Congress in our control AND a popular new President barely 2 months in office, they watch helplessly as Rethugs stand in a solidarity of "NO". You could accuse our leadership since 06 as being simply naive. Yet, I don't think Reid or Pelosi are either naive or stupid. I believe they are disingenuous politicians concerned mostly, if not entirely, on gaining power by sacrificing any principle.

What frustrates me is that hardcore Rethugs can count on their elected officials to represent their interests, but hardcore Democrats cannot.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Oh Mr.Nader Your Ignorant Little Wah Wah Rants Never Cease To Be Hilarious!

So silly you are, Mr. Nader.

[nolabels]

92. Some of us have railed against the corporatists for years

The ones with deaf ears will probably only listen after a member their immediate family dies because of it. Chalking this up as the obvious of people are more afraid of change than many other things only makes sense. Most won't be changed but they can always be warned

[amborin]

93. pls read C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite

[rhett o rick]

116. Thanks for the recommendation but, will it make me feel better or worse?

It's cool, I will read it.

[amborin]

117. difficult to say

but he also laments the 'inactionary masses' who allow the 'triangle of power' to maintain its grip

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. Senator B. Everett Jordan lost his Senate seat by being defeated in the primary

The guy who beat him went on to lose to a guy named Jesse Helms.

[rhett o rick]

134. Do you support the blue dog Democrats Freddie?? nm

[rhett o rick]

138. Freddie, please tell us if you support the blue dog Democrats. nm

[Jack Sprat]

101. Honestly, you make a good case.

There are precious few in Congress with a genuine intent to represent the broader middle class, barely middle class, and the growing number of complete "have-nots".

I can think of Dennis Kucinsch and Bernie Sanders, just off the top of my head. Not saying there are others, but I cannot think of any this moment.

We should formulate a list of others of genuine integrity. I bet the list isn't very long.

[bvar22]

107. You could start with a list of those....

...who voted AGAINST Bankruptcy "Reform".

Next, cross reference that with a list of those who voted AGAINST the IWR,

then cross reference with those who voted AGAINST the Patriot Act,

then cross reference with those who voted AGAINST CAFTA,

then cross reference with a list of those who voted AGAINST Immunity for Telecoms,

then cross reference with a list of those who voted AGAINST the Bailout for Failed Bankers.

Those whose names appear on ALL the lists are the ones working for us.

[wundermaus]

115. I rate your post as one of the top 10 ever written here at DU

It isn't Democrat vs Republican - it's a exactly as you stated the ruling class verses the rest of us. We are played against each other and kept off balance by the shell games of party politics. Great post!

[rhett o rick]

123. Thanks very much. The important thing here tho is to understand:

"it is about a honest assessment of the situation so that real change is possible". As someone responded earlier.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. Defeatist Hyperbole

Why don't you just root for dictatorship if you're so pessimistic about what our democracy is today?

Sheesh.
GAC

[rhett o rick]

133. Now that's some strange logic. I should root for a dictatorship because I think

our system is in trouble? I want to fix the problem, but first the problem must be recognized. I say those in control of the Democratic Party are not friendly to the middle class. Do you think that is defeatist? I gave a number of reasons that I think the Democratic Party leadership failed the middle class in the last eight years. If you disagree with these reasons, I would be more than willing to listen.

Bad analogy: In a basketball game with the score 50 to 30, if you are on the trailing team and mention the score are you a defeatist? Maybe you just want to energize the other team members.

I have been involved in politics at the grassroots level and see how difficult it is by today's methods to change out the power structure in the Party. They have big money and the MSM helping them.

[BeFree]

136. Ok rhett

Put together another thread. This one is too large for some to read and now that we've gotten rid of that pile of deadwood it's time to begin anew. Just do it! It's your duty. )- :smile:

[BeFree]

135. If I had to guess...

...what GAC means using just this post of yours, I would have to guess Gobs A Crap.

Root for dictatorship? What a pile!

This whole thread is about the faults and failures not of democracy but of the faults and failures of the people who claim to have the people's best interests and who once elected for that reason then go about actively working against the people's best interests.

President Jimmy Carter likewise tried his best to warn of the coming changes and the democratic party heads actively worked against him allowing Reagan to become president, and we've been going downhill ever since. And here, now, you position yourself in the same mold that defeated us back then. Shameful!