Don't Just Blame The Democrats by Keven Zeese

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
March 28, 2005

Don't Just Blame the Democrats
Progressives are Reaping the Harvest They Planted in 2004
By KEVIN ZEESE

Kevin Zeese served as the Press Secretary to the Ralph Nader-Peter Camejo election campaign in 2004 and currently works with the Stop the War campaign at DemocracyRising.US.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, progressives who supported the Democratic Party in 2004 are expressing dissatisfaction with how Democratic elected officials are voting on the funding of the Iraq war, minimizing bankruptcy protections for working families, weakening the right to file class action lawsuits against abusive corporations and shying away from environmental protection as well as how the party leadership is moving away from fully protecting a women's right to choose.

Progressives need to recognize they just can't blame the Democrats for this -- it is the liberal intelligencia that led them down the path of supporting a candidate for president who opposed progressives on many important issues who deserve a large share of the blame. By giving their support to a candidate who openly disagreed with progressives they sent a message that Democrats will get their vote for nothing -- in other words, progressives could be taken for granted.

Does standing up for progressive principles mean that the Democrats will lose? Of course not. The issues progressives stand for are populist issues. Opposition to the war, a living wage for full-time work, health care for all, prosecuting corporate crime, fraud and abuse, a women's right to choose, equal justice for all, protection of constitutional rights, a more vibrant democracy, investment in the necessities of the American people rather than the military industrial complex -- are all popular issues. If we push political leaders to stand for them they will win more often, not less. It is when Democratic politicians mimic Republicans that they lose and lose and lose.

My view is the Democratic Party is not savable, it is time for progressives to leave and start a new Party and a new political movement. Others, are still trying to work within the Party to reform it. While I wish them luck, I urge two things for them. First, recognize that those of us on the outside pushing can help you on the inside by letting Democrats know you have somewhere else to go. Second, and most importantly, do not support Democrats who are wrong on the key issues. You will fail in your reform efforts if you give your support to candidates you seriously disagree with. In fact, you need to oppose those candidates -- not only in primaries but in general elections. Otherwise, the lesson you will be teaching is -- progressives can be taken for granted and ignored.

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese03282005.html

[TexasSissy]

1. What candidate is this person speaking of, who was against

so many progressive positions? Does he mean Kerry? If so, then this article is already in trouble, since that is not the case.

Kerry was firmly AGAINST drilling in the ANWR. He was firmly FOR fast funding of alternative fuels. He was firmly PRO environmental. He was firmly FOR the middle class, and AGAINST the wealthy-leaning tax cuts.

The only truly progressive position I can think of that Kerry was not FOR was gay marriage...he was for civil unions but not for gay marriage, per se....unless the states individually wanted that. He was FOR the states deciding the issue for themselves. Which means he would be AGAINST intervening in the Schiavo matter, since that was a states' rights vs. federalism issue.

Progressives maybe should start their own party, as the Greens did and the Libertarians did. But we forewarned....most of middle America is not progressive.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Kerry also vote

To give Bush* unlimited war making ability...and he voted for the patriot act and homeland gestapo. Kerry's position on Gay marriage was waffling. Equal rights for ALL should be the benchmark. The civil unions vs marriage notion is akin to seperate but equal.

Your assertion that "middle America is not progressive" is again IMHO not correct. Populist ideas WILL get candidates elected and follow through on those promises will keep them in office.

Bush Kerry...six is one half dozen of another.

BTW I voted for Kerry because he was not as bad as Bush...but only slightly so.

[TexasSissy]

62. The Dem Party's position on gay marriage...

is that it's a states' rights issue. It's not for gay marriage or against it. Kerry followed the party platform on that.

Populist ideas are not necessarily the same as progressive ideas, are they? I say that middle America is not predominantly progressive because of their voting patterns for the last 20 or 30 years...they don't seem to have voted primarily for the more progressive candidates.

Bush = destroy environment.
Kerry = save environment.

Those two men are not even close in their positions on the environment, which is a major issue for me. I agree that Kerry was wishy washy in voting for the IW, and then for the $80M funding. But as for the Patriot Act, NONE of them had read it. No one ever does. Those bills are too long. Sad but true.

[sandnsea]

18. And against the bankruptcy bill and class action bill

The only difference Kerry has with progressives is on defense. Well, not really, because when you look at the actual PLANS of progressives on Iraq, they're the SAME. Progressives are just in denial and have somehow convinced themselves that Iraqi security forces, reconstruction, elections and international participation is withdrawing now. And that their actual "withdrawing now" plans would cost money too.

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. I am a progressive and I am for full

immediate and unconditional withdrawl from Iraq. It is the only way.

[sandnsea]

25. Who has that plan?

Show me the plan you support.

[LittleClarkie]

43. Well, that's Counterpunch for ya

So far to the left, Kucinich barely met their standards. They hated Dean, and they really hated Kerry.

For the most part, Nader was their man.

Entirely to ideologically pure and ivory-tower for me.

www.vote-smart.org if you want to see Kerry's record. Quite progressive really. He's just too hawkish for some. But at least I can see how he got there. If the subject was anything but terrorism, I'm not sure it would elicit the same response in him. He was banging that drum when all the Bushies could talk about was missile defense. He practically predicted 9/11.

As I say, I may disagree with him, but at least I can respect that he comes to his views honestly and with some knowledge.

[bvar22]

56. too hawkish,

AND way too CorpoManagement friendly to be considered either progressive or populist.

Kerry was FOR NAFTA and the IDEOLOGICALLY PURE ICON of Free Trade, and while Kerry paid some lip service to LABOR and UNIONS, he offered no real world plan for repairing the damage to LABOR that Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presided over.

Kerry's HealthCare Plan and his plan to address Outsourcing was more Ideologically Pure Corporate Welfare.

Kerry offered NO PLAN for addressing the HUGE PROBLEM of the consolidation of Corporate Power into fewer hands.

So don't peddle that Kerry ran on a progressive platform BS.
Kerry ran on a platform that was Ideologically Pure DLC.

Adding insult to injury, the DLC gloated over the poor showing of progressive candidates, and are using this to justify further movement to the right!!!

Most of my more progressive friends and "Democrat voting Greens" feel betrayed and are swearing NEVER AGAIN !

[LittleClarkie]

59. Not peddlin' nothin' darlin'

Just that he has a progressive voting record, is all.

I don't think he was the DLC's guy. He's too liberal for them except for his foreign policy leanings.

I don't agree with the DLC, but neither do I think organizations like Moveon.org and others necessarily helped with their ABBishness.

Good. Never again indeed. Please don't "Dole" my candidate.

If you want ideologically pure DLC, look at Hillary. Kerry is nowhere near that conservative. You want pandering, look at Biden. Kerry's record is much better than his, this year especially.

[bvar22]

63. I don't doubt that Kerry is much...

..more liberal than his Presidential Platform.
I can't prove it, but my suspicion is that he(Kerry) made a deal with the BIG MONEY people of the Democratic Party(DLC)...They give him money and backing, and he lets them write the Democratic Platform for 2004.

Have you read it?


Alot like the DEAL that was made with Gore in 2000. We (DLC) give you money and backing, and you take Lieberman as VP.

Have you noticed the enormous relief in both Gore and Kerry after the losses? They were released from their contracts and could be their own men again.
BOTH shifted WAY back to the LEFT!
How do you explain this?

[LittleClarkie]

66. His campaign manager and strategist had him in a straitjacket

Some of it was bad advice from people like Shrum and Cahill. They should have let their candidate be himself more. When he wanted to counterattack the Smear vets, they sent out the call "restrain the candidate!"

But it seemed when they brought in the Clintonistas, that Kerry didn't necessarily take their policy advice. He esp. didn't take the advice that he should come out in favor of DOMA. He said he couldn't ever do that.

Some of it seemed to be the garden variety movement to the center of any candidate when he's running for office.

That said, I think perhaps the explanation for the move you saw after each one lost the election was that George W. Bush tends to have that effect on people. I think of Kerry's "man in exile" video as Bush signaled that he was going far right. And I think poor Gore was pretty horrified at what was happening after Bush wrestled the presidency away from him.

Even now, after the election, the only thing I've seen progressives really rail against in Kerry's voting and/or press releases was his announcement that he would back further Iraq War funding. Mind you, he seems to be trying to tack on as much of his Military Family Bill of Rights onto it as he can. Plan A didn't work (voting against the 87 million), so this must be plan B -- agree to approve the money but make sure as much of is as possible goes where it's really needed, which is to those who need help at home. Once again, his voting in the 109th has been rather good except for the impending war vote, which has some progressives' teeth on edge.

I wonder if he will indeed vote for the war funding if he can't get the military families taken care of as he wants. Should be interesting. This administration isn't exactly into taking care of anyone but their own, no matter how much lip service they pay to "supporting the troops.)

Kerry is such an odd mix. He does what he does, and alot of the time people don't seem to understand him. But I'm sure the UberWonk has his reasons.

[bvar22]

69. DOMA, abortion, guns, and god.....

...WERE the diversions. The DLC and their Corporate owners INSISTED that Kerry define himself on these issues.

What the DLC insisted was not on the table if Kerry wanted their money:

The War for Corporate Profits
Free Trade
Strengthening Environmental Regulations
re-regulating Corporations
limiting size and power of Corporations
removing Corporate Power from DC
strengthening Labor Unions

Do you remember ANY of the above in the debates?
Any mention beyond vague lip service in ANY of the campaign speeches after the Primaries?
Kerry could have run on the Environment exclusively; why was this issue buried after the Primaries?

The DLC and the Republicans (same thing) were powerful enough to FRAME the election aroung the diversion issues.
What was important was not what Kerry and the Democrats RAN ON!
Its what the Democrats COULDN"T talk about that was important. In that respect, the Democratic Party may well be beyond salvation.

[Itsthetruth]

2. The Nation Magazine March 24th Editorial On Democrats

Please read The Nation Magazine editorial "Democrats: MIA(Missing In Action"
March 24, 2005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3368279

[madfloridian]

3. According to Counterpunch only Nader is good, others are evil.

They even go after the good guys in the party non-stop. Nader is never going to be president, nor should he. I am tired of Counterpunch and their attacks.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. "My view is the Democratic Party is not savable ..."

And who would replace the Democratic Party?

Kevin Zeese thinks that he, and his fellow Progressives, would step right into the void.

History teaches different lessons. When solidarity among the Left breaks down, the result is that Fascism grows unchecked. If that happens, then Mr. Zeese can curse the Democrats all he wants while he waits for that midnight knock on the door.

A better plan: Stop bashing on everyone who does not support hanging Bill Clinton, taxing meat, and elevating Ralph Nader to the papacy -- and re-take the Democratic party.

--p!

[Itsthetruth]

5. Can't Present Good Arguments Against The Message? Bash The Messenger!

"Stop bashing on everyone who does not support hanging Bill Clinton, taxing meat, and elevating Ralph Nader to the papacy --"

That of course is nonsense but it sure sounds good! Now how about us all doing something real instead? How about stopping the bashing of everyone who does not express their undying devotion to every politician called a Democrat? I don't think we should all sit by silently as we watch one Democrat after another votes for Bush's appointments and right-wing policies.

And if someone disagrees with an article written by a progressive just present arguments against their position rather than bashing the messenger!

[Dogmudgeon]

22. "And if someone disagrees with an article written by a progressive ..."

Well, I just did that.

And got bashed for it.

(Actually, I've been bashed far worse and for smaller stakes.)

Progressives have the same bug that the Fundies do -- they are unable to admit that they are, or have been, wrong in any way. When someone does point out the flaw, it's always, "Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed!"

Democrats often admit to being wrong. Conservatives and Progressives then gleefully agree. But observe how Zeese engages in self-criticism: he writes that the Progressives didn't try hard enough to destroy the Democrats.

And more irony: The self-criticisms the Democrats usually make are similar or identical to those made my the Progressives.

"Speaking Truth To Power" also doesn't work very well in the Progressive sphere. When I hung out with Progresives, I learned to keep my mouth shut. For instance, a single positive remark about Bill Clinton would lead to rolled eyes and "ironic" remarks, including the impassioned statements that "Clinton is a murderer!" and "Clinton bombed the (sic) Sudan!" and "Clinton personally killed 5 million Iraqi children!" (Compare with the occasional lit-crit style articles on Lyndon LaRouche's use of hyperbole as a rhetoric of Fascism.)

Disagree with Chomsky? You might as well trot into church and accuse Jesus of child molesting. Not a vegetarian? A legion of radicals in leather jackets would rush to prove to you the error of your ways. And how can anyone hate the corporations so deeply and still smoke two packs of cigarettes a day? (By the way, American Spirit cigarettes are still a product of American Tobacco Company -- the Indian motif is a dodge.)

Proposing action differing from the Progressives brought similar rebukes. Populist ideas like employee investment plans, "Georgist" economics (taxing land, not labor), and speaking out about human rights abuses by leftist governments also earned painful, humiliating responses.

Will Pitt recently learned this lesson, too. He dared say that he didn't think that the occupation should just "bug out" of Iraq -- but offered that he could be wrong. Instead of starting a dialog about our behavior toward the Iraqis, it was off to the ninth circle with him in the eyes of Cockburn and Company.

Deviation from the Progressive line does not necessarily make a person a Fascist. If you want to claim the Big Tent, you can't just pitch a Pup Tent and erect a sign that says "Big".

When I start reading and hearing some honest self-criticism from Progressives, then I may decide to vote for some. But they'll have to EARN my vote.

--p!

[bvar22]

60. Broad Brush AND anecdotal.

My experience with Progressives is different .
I find those who claim to be moderates are rigid and closed minded and offer no criticism of substance beyond some vague accusations of ideological purity.

Most of the progressives I know VOTED FOR and campaigned for A MODERATE, PRO-WAR, PRO MILITARY EXPANSION, PRO CORPORATE MANAGEMENT presidential candidate, and NOW are being slammed for their troubles. Don't insult these MILLIONS by saying they "can't compromise" or "demand ideological purity".
They didn't. You do!

[Dogmudgeon]

77. If you say so

Have you actually read what I've written?

I have "insulted" millions of Progressives? Your accusation doesn't hold water. None of the "millions" of Progressives who voted for John Kerry are the target of my criticisms just because they voted for Kerry.

Here is what I'm arguing, your angry retorts to the contrary: The strident denunciations of the Democratic Party come from a source of personal pique, not reasoned political thought. There's also a lot of playground territorialism involved. There has been little or no action taken by the Radical Left to influence the Democratic Party, and that most of what has been done is dilettantish.

Worst of all, any success that the Left has had at all has been attacked as "corporatist".

And you are attacking the phantoms of other arguments. I have never called for the compromise you describe -- and I have always called for solidarity. You may be as ideologically pure or impure as you wish, just don't strut around like you have the One True Answer and everyone else is fouled with the stench of sin. And if you chose to do it anyway, don't simulate outrage when we call you on it.

I have yet to find a radical-chic Progressive who is able to admit to either being wrong, or that someone else is right. It limits dialog quite a bit. You may claim to take a principled stand, but you do so by putting the Other into the category of "Unprincipled" -- which is another political translation of "Evil". Unlike (modern) Radicals, Liberals are capable of entertaining more than one single thought while putting their effort into progressive action. We're also prone to change our minds from time to time, especially when new information has come to light.

I myself have been wrong often, and have learned quite a lot from those who are more Left than I. Sadly, most of what I've learned from the Counterpunchers over the past decade has been in the form of what things to NOT do while organizing or campaigning.

Not that any of this matters. Every insight or idea that doesn't give the Hard Left its feel-good buzz is declared to be evil. Not just incorrect, not mistaken, but evil. The idea that the bad Liberals are oppressing the poor Radicals is the same victim-posturing that the Radical Right uses. If you would truly be Progressive, abandon the ego gratification and re-commit to the goal of creating a just society and world. There will be plenty of time to figure out who gets what credit later.

--p!

[Old and In the Way]

6. sniff........sniff.........sniff

Anyone else smell that odor? Smell's like Rove, to me.

[Itsthetruth]

7. Say What?

Would you please explain precisely what you mean by that comment?

Thank you.

[blm]

8. I'll say it. David Horowitz.

And those following in his footsteps.

[Itsthetruth]

10. And Your Opinion Is?

That still isn't very clear to me. Who do you think is following in his right-wing footsteps .... perhaps The Nation magazine, CounterPunch and other progressives publications?

Sorry. I don't understand your point. Oh .... and if you have an opinion on the above articles please present it. We don't want to get into simplistic bashing against other progressives we might not agree with .... isn't that right?

Thanks again.

[blm]

15. So, you have no idea that Horowitz started out as a planted "leftist"

who encouraged purity and disdained working with the Democratic party?

GOP has been playing this game for decades. Some of us have a strong command of political history and can see through the rhetoric from today's so-called "leftist agitators" and the sincere activists.

[LittleClarkie]

53. Hmm, I'd never heard that

I just assumed these folks had swung so far to the left that they'd met the freepers on the other side.

Perhaps the lefty freepers and the righty freepers should go bowling.

The idea of agitators had never even occurred to me. I'll have to go look up ol' David Horowitz.

[Old and In the Way]

9. You're welcome.

Let me explain precisely what I meant: Carl Rove couldn't have written a better article.

Do you understand now?

[Itsthetruth]

13. Wow! That's One Helluva Expose!

Yes. I now understand. Thanks for the astonishing expose.

I will no longer read any articles in the Nation, CounterPunch, the Progressive, ZNet or other publications you happen to disagree with.

They are all part of a right-wing plot. Please let me know what other progressive websites and publications are secretly sponsored by the White House.

Again, thanks for your help.

[Old and In the Way]

23. You're welcome, again.

By all means, read and post whatever floats your boat. And I'll feel free to comment as much or as little as I care to...'kay?

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. Kevin Zeese...I know him...

the man has scruples. He has worked tirelessly with truevote Maryland for election reform. He is definately not a Rove plant!

[Itsthetruth]

Wasn't Zeese The Head Of NORML?

Wasn't he also the head of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws a few years back? I might be wrong on this but it rings a bell.

Hardly a Republican organization!!!

And I just did a search and found this biographical information on Mr. Zeese that I was not familiar with at all. Very impressive.

Kevin B. Zeese
Biographical Sketch

Kevin B. Zeese is President of Common Sense for Drug Policy. He is one of the nation's foremost authorities on drug policy issues. Mr. Zeese has worked on a wide array of drug related issues (Curriculum Vitae) since he graduated from George Washington University Law School in 1980.

Kevin Zeese has written for newspapers and journals on a range of drug issues, including an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the Colombian drug war. He has also appeared on every major television network as a commentator. He served as a consultant to Walter Cronkite for the Discovery Channel special: The Drug Dilemma: War or Peace? He has spoken at nationally recognized legal seminars and testified before Congress on drug related issues.

Kevin Zeese has litigated a variety of drug policy-related issues. Among these are the medical use of marijuana, the use of the military and national guard in domestic drug enforcement, the spraying of herbicides in the United States and abroad on marijuana, drug testing of government workers and the right to privacy as it relates to marijuana in the home. He has been a legal advisor to needle exchange workers prosecuted for their anti-AIDS efforts, buyer's clubs who distribute marijuana to the seriously ill and medical marijuana patients prosecuted for the medical use of marijuana.

Mr. Zeese facilitates the Alliance of Reform Organizations, a network of all the major reform organizations in the United States. He serves on the Executive Committee of the Harm Reduction Coalition. He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Drug Policy Forum of Texasand is a Board member emeritus of the DrugSense.

Mr. Zeese is a co-founder of the Drug Policy Foundation (now renamed the Drug Policy Alliance), where he served as Vice President and Counsel, and is a former Executive Director and Chief Counsel of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Zeese served on Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke's Mayor's Working Group on Drug Policy Reform and serves on San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan's Harm Reduction Council. Both are efforts to implement a model urban drug policy. More recently, Zeese has been involved with advocacy related to: the fatal shooting of Esequiel Hernandez,the legal rights of patients, doctors and their caregivers in California and the UN special session on drugs.

In 2000, Kevin Zeese was the recipient of the Richard J. Dennis DrugPeace Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Field of Drug Policy Reform from the Drug Policy Foundation at their 13th Annual International Conference on Drug Policy Reform.

[LittleClarkie]

54. I could believe that

and still be annoyed at those in ivory towers who seek ideological purity. They'll not get it. It's not productive in my eyes.

Let them be forever fringe if that floats their boat.

[LittleClarkie]

44. Operating through the former press secretary of the Nader 04 campaign?

What an odd avenue.

It could happen. Or maybe this person is just painfully ideologically pure.

[Old and In the Way]

51. Hey, Carl was paying Nader's bills in 2004.........

who's to say when the bill came due? Anyway, I think the ideologically pure/naive/cynical ought to consider this simple fact. For a progressive 3rd Party to win, 100% of the Democrats would need to move, en masse, to the new party. Because, if only 90% move,then we are assured of more Republican wins. Hell, they won't even need to game the elections if Mr. Zeese is 90% sucessful in his vision. Of course, if it takes 100% of the Democrats to make it happen, it begs the question...why bother? Instead of asking the mountain to move to Mohammed, perhaps Mohammed ought to move to the mountain.

I personally think we are making progress. Radical RW politics is having an equal and opposite reaction on the Left. When the pendulum does swing, I suspect that we'll see a clear and energized mandate to carry a progressive agenda back into our nation's politic. The social/economic/political experiment of "compassionate conservatism" is a demonstrated total failure and the people will be ready for the antidote.

[LittleClarkie]

58. That was the single most annoying thing about the Nadar campaign

the fact that he got help from Republicans and took Smear vet money. For those who strive to be so pure, it seemed wildly hypocritical. Whatever true message he may have had has been obscured by his methods. Sad, because I used to admire him. Not anymore. He isn't the man he used to be so long ago. There's an ego at work there now.

[Old and In the Way]

70. His 2000 campaign proved he was not a serious contender.

I didn't really blame him for running in 2000....who was to know how the Republicans would steal Florida? But why run in 2004? All his campaign did was fuzzy the contrast between Kerry and Bush....and probably provided a bit of cover for jiggering the result....but his "not a dime's worth of difference" attack might have kept some Republicans from jumping.

Anyway, I really could give a rat's ass about whatever Ralph or his toadies think we Democrats should do. Fact is, they aren't Democrats, so why should I care what they think?

[LittleClarkie]

71. Indeed, and as a brand spankin' new Democrat

I'm interested in helping the party get on its feet, not burying it.

[Old and In the Way]

72. Well, let me be the 1st to welcome you in!

Glad to have you with us, LittleClarkie. :toast: I was sooo looking forward to the General as SecState or UN Ambassador in Kerry's cabinet.....

[LittleClarkie]

73. And if I can't have him as prez

I'm hoping for just the same in whoever's cabinet for Kerry.

Yeah, I'd have liked to have seen the General as SoD or SoS. Dean as Surgeon General and all the rest.

I still mourn what might have been. Which makes me want to fight all the more now, not later. And from what my local Dem Party membership secretary tells me, I'm not alone. They are gearing up now, they don't feel they can wait for another election year. I've already volunteered to help with the newsletter if they'll let me. I figure I could write a mini review of some of the liberal news sites and blogs on the web.

[Old and In the Way]

74. Good attitude.

This is how we're gonna beat these bastards. Not pointing fingers and conducting purity purges.

[K-W]

11. If you have enough votes to have a viable new party,

you have more than enough votes to take massive amounts of power in the democratic party.

Im sick and tired of this debate. IT doesnt matter. There are several different ways we could swing popular support into political clout for progressives, but all the plans in the world will mean nothing to us if we dont start winning the hearts and minds of our fellow americans.

Yes, a progressive party could be a tool to do so, but the important part is educating and disseminating a message, not running politicians. If there is a growing, voting progressive movement in this country, politicians will start coming to us.

All these debates do is distract us from what is important, the fact that those of us with a rational factual approach to politics and society are currently in the minority as our mostly well intentioned neighbors vote and act blind to true nature of thier government.

And all claims like this from progressive organizers do is disguise the fact that we cant yet win elections. That we cant yet march up to the democrats and say "if you arent with us, you are out of a job" They are trying to disguise the fact that Americans wont automatically respond to progressive populism, they are too indocrinated, and nobody on the left knows quite how to battle the powerful forces that feul that indoctrination.

[Itsthetruth]

16. Democratic Party Out Of Touch With American People?

March 25, 2005
ZNet

Democrats Do It Again and Again
by Ted Glick

Ted Glick is the former coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org) and is currently active with the Climate Crisis Coalition (www.climatecrisiscoalition.org).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"But for me the real loser was the Democratic Party. It showed that it's almost totally without leadership. If there is a national figure (other than Frank) who stood up and took on the GOP in this matter, his -- or her -- name does not come to mind. In the Senate, oddly enough, it was Virginia's John Warner who pointed out that he opposed the bill -- and he's a Republican, for goodness' sake. The Democrats were nowhere."
Richard Cohen,
Washington Post, March 23, 2005

Once again the Democratic Party has demonstrated how out of touch it is with the U.S. American people. Polls have shown that about 2/3 are against what the Republican-led Congress did by attempting to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case. If the Democrats were in touch with those they claim to be representing, and if they were willing to speak up clearly in support of their views, this latest example of despicable Republican opportunism could be backfiring on them the same way Bush's sputtering Social Security privatization campaign is.

And how about all those House Democrats who voted for the
$81 billion to continue the Iraq war, not even attempting to put any conditions on it? Back in October of 2002, because of a massive, grassroots pressure campaign, 135 of them voted no to the war authorization vote. 2 ½ years and tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths later, only 43 voted against another huge check for war and occupation.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=7527

[K-W]

21. The democratic party isnt a person, it is a structure.

And the reason politicians are out of touch with the American people is fairly simple, they dont have to be in touch to get elected, in fact it helps them get elected if they arent. The way to solve this problem is not to blame the the party and run from the name "Democratic" as if that is the root of the problem.

Political parties are associations of politicians and thier supporters. The people who make up the Democratic party now make it up for one reason, and one reason only, they won democratic primaries, and elections. Had anyone else won those primaries and elections, they would be running the party.

If in the next election, progressives win a alot of primaries and alot of elections, guess what, the party will swing progressive, and if we do it for a while and there becomes a large progressive bloc in the party, we will get ourselves DLC status and get to run the show.

Since when is the left a bunch of unrealistic dreamers? Have we forgotten the entire philosophy behind voting? If you dont hold leaders accountable, they wont represent you. The democrats dont represent us because we have not shown them that we have the ability to hold them accountible. And all the preaching in the world about doing the right thing isnt going to do any more good than it would do on a king.

SO how about we stop whining and stop ignoring the conservative beast because it scares us and its easier to take on the centrist democrats left in office mainly because the right marginalized progressive thought and progressive politics.

It is us the citizens who are responsible for defending the democratic structures in our government, not the politicians selected and conditioned by those structures

[bvar22]

64. You are making the assumption that...

...primaries are FREE and FAIR.
There is much evidence to the contrary.

[jpgray]

17. Destroy the milquetoasts and allow the radical right to assume power

Great plan. Note that the GOP transformed itself from the whipping boy of the political world to a dominant force by remaking itself from within. It's just easier and more poetic for progressive dilettantes to heart-wrenchingly proclaim their break from the old donkey, and these proclamations have the same search for personal drama and selfish satisfaction that is characteristic of "I'm leaving DU!" threads--they do not have any political sense or strategy. Ask a dumb young progressive dilettante to quit this party for a progressive one, or even for him/her to protest and vote against the party, and he/she will jump at the chance. Ask the same person to work for five or six years within the party to advance his/her views and guess what? You'll get an evasive and ultimately negative response, although that would be the best chance of advancing the views some of these folks apparently hold so dearly.

[candy331]

20. A party held in abject fear, that puts it finger to the wind each vote

to see which way to vote to cover their political a---- is definitely in deep trouble. Why did so many Dems vote with repugs on Schiavo, Bankruptcy bill, Iraq war, Medicare reform, and on and on, and what will be the excuse when they lay down and vote with repugs on SS? And believe you me more and more Black are registering as Independents because they are getting fed up with Dems,as the forum by Tavis Smiley will show when they complete the covenant they are working on. This means a large segment of base voters will be gone so I too see Dems on the road to oblivion. Of course diehards to the party close their eyes and continually support, defend and make utterly outlandish and outrageous excuses for what clearly is evident, the National Dems(local Dems are still fighting) for most part are lock step with the repugs.

"My view is the Democratic Party is not savable, it is time for progressives to leave and start a new Party and a new political movement"

[Old and In the Way]

24. Problem is

You'd need every Democrat and a few more to beat the Republicans (and their built in e-vote advantage). How is this any different than what Nader has been bleating for what seems 20 years?

The problem isn't with Democrats, it's with Republicans who always vote straight Party line. Democrats have a big tent, remember? We are supposed to allow differences of opinion. We are never going to have people who vote straight Party every time because not every Democrat, in every state, thinks the same on every issue.

Sounds like Zeese is positioning himself to become the Ralph Nader of 2008. I wonder if he'll get his funding from the Republican Party?

[Itsthetruth]

26. Less Than Kerry

"Sounds like Zeese is positioning himself to become the Ralph Nader of 2008. I wonder if he'll get his funding from the Republican Party?"

He would probably get a lot less Republican funding than John Kerry.

[Old and In the Way]

46. You might be right.

I think a lot of intelligent, moderate Republicans will not only vote Democrat, but will open their pocketbooks to help see it happen. I hope, for our sake, they also re-register; so Republicans voting for the Democrat won't have their vote appropriated like they had in this election past.

But that won't mean that Carl Rove and the RNC won't try to puff up another Nader-Zeese to the left of any Democrat, in hopes of siphoning enough votes to steal another election. That'll be in the playbook, for sure.

[Itsthetruth]

47. The Tired Old Spin Against Nader/Zeese Bears Repeating

"that won't mean that Carl Rove and the RNC won't try to puff up another Nader-Zeese to the left of any Democrat"

That's an interesting theory or should I say phoney charge?

So Zeese and Nader were a creation of the Republican Party? Sure. I don't think you honestly believe that, but it sure is a good propaganda pitch made up by "moderate" corporate Democrats and designed to fool liberals and progressives! Keep repeating that political rhetoric over and over and over again and some people might actually believe it! That's the Carl Rove proven method of propaganda and lies. Now are you a fooler or simply one of those who was fooled by that propaganda?

[Old and In the Way]

49. Please, let's not resort to personal smears.

I only found a few hundred thousand references to "Nader" and "Republican Money". Hardly an interesting theory or a phoney charge.


Major Bush fund-raiser donates to Nader campaign

DEMOCRATS SEE STRATEGY AS BID TO HURT KERRY

By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff | July 1, 2004
<http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/07/01>

WASHINGTON -- Billionaire Richard J. Egan built his
reputation in politics as a major donor and fund-raiser
for the Bush campaign, steering hundreds of thousands of
dollars into Republican coffers in recent years. But now
it appears Egan and his relatives are bankrolling a new
candidate: independent presidential contender Ralph
Nader.

Egan, cofounder of EMC Corp. in Hopkinton, has given
Nader the maximum $2,000 allowed under the law,
according to federal elections documents that also show
a $4,000 contribution to Nader from Egan's son and
daughter-in-law, John R. and Pamela C. Egan. An
independent campaign finance watchdog group lists the
Egan-Managed Capital company -- another family business
in Massachusetts -- as among the biggest contributors to
the Nader campaign.

Donors often cross party lines to support candidates
based on specific regional or business issues, but the
Egans' sudden interest in Nader seems to reflect a more
sophisticated strategy by Republicans to draw support
away from Democratic challenger John F. Kerry by
bolstering his third-party rival. For months, Democrats
have accused Republicans of conspiring to put Nader on
enough ballots to tip the election -- a theory that
gained credence this week as two conservative groups in
Oregon admitted making phone calls urging supporters to
help win Nader a spot on the ticket in that evenly
divided state.

Yesterday, a watchdog group in Washington filed a
complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing
the Oregon groups of breaking campaign laws with their
efforts on Nader's behalf. The complaint also names the
Bush and Nader campaigns, saying that reports of the
Bush campaign using its resources to help Nader, and
Nader's acceptance of the assistance, would amount to
illegal campaign activity. Both groups and the two
campaigns denied breaking the law, calling the
accusations "frivolous."

The complaint points "to no evidence of us doing
anything wrong in Oregon -- if some Republican-leaning
groups supported our convention it was done independent
of us, and they offer nothing to disprove that," Nader
spokesman Kevin Zeese said.

Meanwhile, former Democratic presidential candidate
Howard Dean plans to debate Nader on the very question
of his candidacy in an event sponsored by National
Public Radio's "Justice Talking" show. The 90-minute
debate will take place in front of a live audience. "I
am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about
why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a
statement accompanying the announcement. "This is the
most important election in my lifetime and a third party
candidate could make a difference -- this November and
for years to come."

<snip>



I also see that Counterpounch defended Nader and claimed Kerry received 100X more than Nader. Doesn't surprise me at all. There certainly were Republican rank-and-file people who were motivated to contribute to Kerry's campaign and see him elected. But it was the Republican "Rangers" and bigwigs in the RNC that were contributing to Ralph....big difference.

I might be an old fooler, but I ain't a politically naive virgin.

[Itsthetruth]

76. The Old Descredited B.S. On Nader Bears Constant Repeating

I'm sorry you decided to try and turn this discussion into the usual Nader bashing orgy.

If you'd like to start a new thread on the phoney "Republicans and right-wingers ran and financed the Nader campaign" nonsense please do so. That would be the appropriate place for me and others to respond to the anti-Nader character assasination campaign that was so popular in the DLC and other "moderate" Democratic circles last year.

Are you really looking for real life "Bush enablers"? If you are just leave Nader and Camejo alone. Check out some of the Democratic Party leaders and officeholders that you probably defended and may still support. You can find these very real Democratic Party enablers of Bush by checking out their votes for Bush's appointments and legislation. Nader/Camejo had their number and told the truth about these alleged "oppositionists" to Bush's policies.

Haven't these self-proclaimed "Democratic liberals" just done a wonderful job in stopping Bushism since the election? They talk the liberal game and vote Republican! All they need to do now is collect a few more bucks from corporate America and wave the white flag of surrender to the Republicans.

[Old and In the Way]

82. What's your problem?

My post was in response to you saying I was repeating "theories" about Republican contributions to Nader's campaign. I supplied a link and Google search words that will help you see that it was fact. How does that morph into "smears" and "anti-Nader character assassination"?

Why would I want to join forces with someone who is bought and owned by the Republican Party? Hell, if I want to vote against my best interests, I'll just cut out the middleman and vote directly for Republican Party candidates.

[K-W]

27. Actually I think the problem is the vast right wing conspiricy.

The problem is that at all points in our history, certain groups have had unfair power in our government and culture at large and that those groups, as a response to the "crisis of democracy" of the 60's and 70's have taken overt control over most of the institutions in our nation and have through a massive propagand effort changed the way Americans think about thier society, politics, etc.

So now, the left finds itself without a seat at the table. A seat the left would traditionally never expect to have, but a seat we apparently take for granted in the wake of the progressive movements of past decades that fought tooth and nail for that seat.

The right in this country has been purging and marginalizing the left for longer than any current Americans have been alive. This is the problem, and they are the enemy, not the idiotic politicians who are selected by our current institutionally corrupt society.

[sandnsea]

28. Leftists definitely should

I keep recommending this. It is true, leftist ideas will never become mainstream in the Democratic party. I would much rather there be a very strong leftist party, and clear split, between leftist and pragmatic liberals. Then both ideas could be heard, for a change. People are never going to hear about single payer healthcare without a very strong leftist party. It needs to be done. Once the left has a very strong party of its own, the animosity towards the Democratic Party will be reduced and we'll have two strong points of view to combat the right. Find some strong, SANE, leaders and get going!!!!

[Toucano]

29. I agree in part.

I don't fully agree with the characterization of Kerry, but I do believe if the Democrats would unite around a central populist ideal, they could stop hemmoraging support.

That central populist theme has to create a line in the sand against the corprotocracy. The bankruptcy reform bill violates all the core principles of the democratic party, and the party leadership should not have permitted ANY democrat to vote in favor of it. Win or lose on the vote, if the party could go to voters and say, "See! We're trying to protect you," it would go a long way.

We had one seat in the Ohio statehouse turn Democratic in 2004. The winning candidate had the endorsement of Ohio Right to Life, had an A rating from the NRA, and opposed gay marriage (to the point of being nauseating about it).

She won by a slim margin and the single-issue Right to Life voters clearly made the difference.

Is this state representative going to overturn Roe v. Wade? No. Not a chance. It simply isn't an issue she can have impact on.

Will she have a hand in banning gay marriage? No. The voters already did that (on the record, she opposed the constitutional amendment, but her ads raised the spector of fear again and again since the Republican incumbant had voted against the state's DOMA law in the previous session).

I was a little sick when she won because I didn't want her tactics to be setting a precedent. Everybody hates a DINO, don't they? That's when winning feels like losing, right?

I wanted to believe the idea that Democrats lose when they move to the right. It was wrong, and I was wrong.

You know what? I'm glad as hell she did win because now we have a representative who fights for school funding, against regressive taxes and tax cuts for the rich, and against the consolidation of wealth.

Every week she writes a column in the local papers in her district highlighting her votes, the reasoning behind her votes, and the legislative agenda in general. She has done more to win back the "What's the Matter with Kansas" voters than anyone I know by focusing on the economic issues facing working people in rural Ohio.

Once we've won people back to the Democratic party by standing up for their real needs, we can begin working on helping them understand the highly emotional and divisive social issues. As it was before (when we were losers), we had no voice and no dialogue.

In some cases, neutralizing highly charged non-issues can benefit us in the long run.

[K-W]

31. Isn't it completely unrealistic

to expect politicians to be ideological leaders? Isnt our system specifically designed so that politicians cannot become ideological leaders?

Why are we rejecting the successful tactics of our predecessors in building up non-partisan organizations to unite people and give them a voice and political power which can then control politicians the way they are supposed to be controlled, through the ballot box.

Politicians respond to votes. The problem today is that more votes can be gotten with campaign money than can be gotten by railing against the economic elites. We, not the democrats, are in a position to change that.

[Toucano]

42. That's a very good point.

I don't see campaign money and "railing against the economic elites" as entirely separate issues, however.

The average voter doesn't care if the chairman of the house finance committee accepts thousands of dollars from the banking industry. At least, they don't demonstrate that they care about his campaign finances at the polls. Maybe it's because Democrats often don't want to draw too much attention to the campaign coffers of their opponents lest light be shed on their own unseemly contributions.

If Democrats and the grassroots progressives can draw attention to the chairman's support of legislation that directly impacts the economic opportunities of rank and file wage earners, I think it will impact elections.

"Do you like how that credit card company doubled the interest rate on purchases you already made because you were late on your car payment? The Republicans wrote the law allowing them to do that."

"Your son's job was sent overseas, and now he and his family have moved back in with you? Guess who gave his employer a tax incentive to pick up and move to China?"

The progressive purism test will keep us out of the conversation forever.

[madfloridian]

30. The uncompromising "left".. as dangerous as the uncompromising "right"

That is what worries me here. Life is a matter of doing what you can with what you have, fighting to make things better, knowing you can not win all the battles.

I am very concerned when some of the main writers at Counterpunch have a history of being destructive toward the Democratic party.

I am concerned about many in our party, I truly am. I will work with DFA on a continuing basis to oppose in the primaries those who vote like Republicans. It will take a long time to rebuild. Many of those who talk walk and quack like Republicans are hugely funded.

Meanwhile we have those who will never compromise on anything. Counterpunch is often the face of those people.

I have now made a complete journey here at DU. I came aboard being perceived way too moderate, became perceived as a leftist fringe liberal for my support of Howard Dean (never did understand that...must have been the image of him projected by the DLC)....and now because I think it will take a long time to rebuild the party I am getting too moderate again.

Counterpunch may have some good articles, but its goal seems destruction of the Democratic Party.

[K-W]

33. Agreed. Compromise is a vital process and should exist.

The problem isnt that politicians compromise, because that is, in fact thier job. It is that most of the politicians in the system are criminals and liars. We need to get rid of them, not get rid of compromise.

[Itsthetruth]

34. Democratic Party Might Self-Destruct

The Democratic Party doesn't need much or any help from CounterPunch or other progressive journals to self-destruct. In reality, they haven't destroyed the Democratic Party, they have abandoned it.

Many progressives, including writers at CounterPunch, have just lost faith and hope in the Democratic Party. They don't think it's possible for progressives to take over and win control of the Democratic Party. They are very pessimistic about the chances of actually ending corporate financing and control over leaders of the Democratic Party. And in light of how progressives have been marginalized inside the Democratic Party, it's easy to understand their point of view.

So are they trying to "destroy" the Democratic Party? I suppose those who suggest we need a new mass political party that represents the working class majority, for example those who advocate a radical Labor Party, could be accused of that. But that term "destroy" is designed to cast them in a bad light, as if they are somehow opposed to progressive policies and ideals that most of us favor.

The only way the Democratic Party can be "destroyed" and be replaced with something better, a new viable mass party of the people, is if the Democratic Party fails to change and remains under the domination and control of corporate interests. And if the Democratic Party is "destroyed" because of corporate control and adoption of a corporate agenda and a new mass progressive political party emerged, would anybody here shed a tear?

I don't think so. Every progressive and liberal here would abandon the Democratic Party and join the new mass party be it called the Populist Party, Labor Party, etc., I don't know if that will happen. Perhaps it will.

[madfloridian]

36. They are not working to change the party. They are pontificating about it

They are writing articles tearing down everyone in the party, they tore down all the candidates, and they are still after Howard Dean big time.

When you sit in your chair in front of your computer and criticize even the ones who are trying to bring change....then you ARE trying to destroy.

Are they working with groups to elect progressive candidates? DFA, Daily Kos, both help fund candidates....that is what we do. Our local DFA group is active and grew a little again last month. People who really care do something....they don't just criticize.

Josh Frank is the worse. His sources appear to have one goal...get Dean first...then get the others if possible. Watch and see.

[Itsthetruth]

38. Don't Attack Them For Withdrawing, Blame Those Who Are Responsible!

"They are writing articles tearing down everyone in the party, they tore down all the candidates, and they are still after Howard Dean big time.

When you sit in your chair in front of your computer and criticize even the ones who are trying to bring change....then you ARE trying to destroy."

They along with a growing number of progressives who have worked hard inside the Democratic Party are giving up on the idea of taking over and/or influencing the direction of the party. Don't attack them for their withdrawl from the Democratic Party. Try to understand their frustration and blame the Democratic Party for their withdrawl!

Now you don't know me. So I don't think that personal attacks are proper and they certainly contribute nothing to democratic discussion and debate of issues. However, I will say this about my political activity inside the Democratic Party. In the 2002 election, I worked full-time on the election campaign staff for a major state Democratic Party Central Committee.

[madfloridian]

40. The word ARE was emphasized, not the word you.

I consider Counterpunch as being counterproductive. I don't know you, but I know you are always angry at me for whatever I say.

Go figure. I blame them for not staying in the party and working to change it.

[bvar22]

67. You are mistaken.

It isn't the Left that is trying to destroy Dr Dean, it is the republican wing of the Democratic Party (establishment, DLC) that is targeting Dean. The popular support of the Left Wing allowed Dean to gain the chair of the party.

[madfloridian]

75. Not the ones I am referring to in my post.

The ones I refer to in my post never supported Howard Dean or any other Demcrats. As I said it is dangerous when either end of the spectrum refuses to compromise.

The people who write for Counterpunch have no support for Dean. A lot of the people who are left of center did support him. There is a difference.

[eaglenetsupport]

32. Stay the course... Free the people...

Zeese is full of doo doo here.

Now, that we are closer then ever? Even excluding the non-voter we are near majority in the party. To change parties now would be silly. It's taken 30+ plus years getting to the near take over point. It should not be surprising that lesser parties should wish us to abandon the democratic party and throw in with them. He's got ulterior motives.

The final push over the top should be stronger than ever, we should work even harder. The only thing that makes any sense for real and lasting change is to take over one of the major parties and write the platform for that party. That platform will bring in a deluge of new voters sealing our future position in the country for decades. We DO need to buff up our focus and plans but the most important thing is to stay the course. I have faith in our people that we'll figure it out. Our ideas are the future of America and the world.

[Itsthetruth]

35. Progressives Close To Taking Over Democratic Party??!!!!

"Now, that we are closer then ever? It's taken 30+ plus years getting to the near take over point. The final push over the top should be stronger than ever, we should work even harder."

I think progressives are about as close to taking over the Democratic Party as Ralph Nader is to being elected President!

The anti-war votes in Congress keep getting smaller and smaller and you call that getting closer and closer to "the takeover" point? I certainly hope you won't cite the Democratic votes on Bush's appointments and legislation as evidence of how close you are to achieving your lofty goal.

When you get the Democratic Party to challenge the Bush governments appointments and policies let me know. The Democratic "opposition" to the Republican right-wing has never been weaker.

If you succeed in taking over the Democratic Party in the next few months, will it be waving a white flag and offering unconditional surrender to the Republicans?

[madfloridian]

37. It will take years of rebuilding. Counterpunch is Counterproductive.

At a time when they could be helpful, all they do is advocate 3rd party. Actually, wake up. There is a 3rd party movement of sorts going on within the Democratic party right now. It is to change the party, not destroy it.

It will take a long time, as the corporations have huge money, grassroots would rather argue than donate.

[Itsthetruth]

39. How Much Time Will It Take?

How much time do you think we have to end the corporate grip on the Democratic Party? If you're talking about 10 or 20 years you can forget it. We don't have that much time to turn this nation around and defeat the attacks on our rights and living standards.

I'd really like to know how in the world you and other progressives expect to end corporate contributions and offers of corporate positions to Democratic and Republican politicians.

You certainly know that when someone in Congress "loses" an election or decides to not run, they almost immediately take high paying positions with corporations as lawyers, lobbyists, etc., A "career" in Congress usually leads to high incomes, perks and privileges.

[madfloridian]

41. Then give us your suggestions, please.

How to speed it up? I don't know how.

[Itsthetruth]

45. Wish I Could Help

Sorry. I don't have any useful suggestions to make in that regard. People much more talented, experienced and capable than me have been trying for a very long time to break the corporate grip on the Democratic Party. They have been spinning their wheels. Some have just given up. All I can do is wish good luck to those who are still trying.

[madfloridian]

48. Not true. Many did not realize the intense corporate grip until the war.

And until Dean went after the Republican Wing of the party. The war was the turning point, and people began waking up then. Now we do, and we are working to fix things.

It will take a long time. We are digging in our heels to work with DFA and the DNC to bring what change we can.

I will be critical of those who vote with Republicans. In fact I posted about Bill Nelson's votes this week. Very Republican. He has a lot to answer for.

I am going to be critical of Jim Davis as he runs for governor. His vote for the bankruptcy bill was a critical no for me. We will instead vote for Scott Maddox.

I can be critical because I am working to change things. Counterpunch is simply attacking. They are after a 3rd party right now, and that is just wrong.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Agreed, they were the source of some Dean strife as well

I don't see the productivity in it myself. But then I'm not completely sure their trying to move forward in any meaningful way. I think they'd rather feel pure and superior than to work for any meaningful change.

Could be wrong, but that's my feeling.

[bvar22]

68. It could be done in ONE election cycle.

Newt (may he burn in HELL) gave us the blueprint with his Contract on America. This simple document DEMANDED Ideological Purity from the republican candidates. They swore an oath and signed a document that LISTED SPECIFIC ISSUES that they would enact if elected.

Idiological Purity is what is NEEDED to SAVE the Democratic Party.

A well publicized document, listing 10 SPECIFIC ISSUES in easy to understand language supported by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY organized around:

Labor
Fair Wages
Protections for the Working Class
Corporations and THE RICH pay their FAIR SHARE

[Kevin Spidel]

50. Four words "Progressive Democrats of America"

[Old and In the Way]

52. You're on my hitlist........

for my next political contribution. I agree with your roadmap for change!

:hi:

[Kevin Spidel]

57. "hit list" scared me a bit...

we get a lot of threats hehehehe


we must be doign something right!

We are organzing the next call-in day to the senate vote on the $$ for the war in mid april.

also organizing against Bolton for UN Ambassador as well as the next campaign against the bankruptcy bill.

stay tuned!

we are now paired up with 78 partners...

and over 38 state caucuses/chapters now!

[w4rma]

61. Moronic. (nt)

[democracyindanger]

65. Listen to Zeese! He worked for Nader, and look how well that turned out!

[Itsthetruth]

78. And Look At How Well John Kerry And The Democratic Party Did

Many more well-intentioned people worked hard for that great "anti-war", "anti-corporate" and "pro-labor" candidate John Kerry, and look how well that turned out!

He just neglected to mention "labor unions" and the "working class" in the presidential debates. But don't forget, we can't let the right-wing Republicans charge the Democratic Party with being advocates of the working class and "class warfare".

It's starting to look like the only way the Democratic Party will win control of Congress and the White House is if we experience a full-blown economic depression. Perhaps that's what they are counting on. Could the Democratic Party lose under such conditions? If there is a way, the Democratic Party will discover it!

[democracyindanger]

79. Kerry got 50 million votes. What did Ralphie manage?

Yeah, that's what I thought. The ol' narcissist couldn't even get on the ballot in all 50 states. Keep on drinkin' that Naderite snake oil. It'll never be the cure, but it sure feels good, huh?

[Itsthetruth]

80. Should People Have The Right To Vote For The Candidate Of Their Choice?

Some don't believe Americans should have that right. And they spent millions of bucks and other resources to try and deny voters that right. Rather than compete for votes and try to convince potential Nader/Camejo voters to support John Kerry they decided to launch a massive effort to deny ballot status to Nader/Camejo.

That was pretty chicken-shit, don't you think?

I believe that people should have had the right to vote for Nader/Camejo and opposed efforts to deny people the right to vote for them. How could anyone who really believes in democratic elections and the right to vote support such efforts?

Some "Republican" like dirty tricks were employed by people who just don't like free and democratic elections .... efforts designed to deny people their right to vote for them. After all the propaganda and election campaign rhetoric is set aside that's the bottom line.

I really hope you don't agree with those who believe that people should only have the right to vote for Democrats, Republicans or even more extreme right-wing candidates like the Constitution Party one.

I'm not going into all the sordid details of that well financed anti-democratic election operation here, but if you message me I'd be happy to provide them.

[democracyindanger]

81. Sure. And how many write in votes did St. Ralph get?

By the way, before you start mewling about Kerry not saying the words "labor union" during the debates, you really should inform yourself about Ralphie Boy's union-busting endeavors for his own organization.

[Itsthetruth]

83. How Many Write-In Votes Did Kenneth Blackwell Claim Nader Got?

"By the way, before you start mewling about Kerry not saying the words "labor union" during the debates, you really should inform yourself about Ralphie Boy's union-busting endeavors for his own organization."

That of course is pure and universally discredited bunk. Not a single union leader, from any national union in any AFL-CIO affiliate, has lent any credence or credibility to that b.s. In fact, the General President of one of the biggest AFL-CIO affiliates, said Nader has always been one of the biggest true friends of labor we have ever had.

Ralph Nader did not get a single write-in vote in Ohio according to the Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell! That's hard to believe, especially since Nader/Camejo had full-time campaign workers in Ohio who collected thousands of signatures from Ohio voters who wanted to vote for Nader/Camejo. Blackwell refused to accept the valid signatures. Blackwell kept Nader off Ohio's election ballot and did what he could to steal the election for George Bush in 2004.

Blackwell had a hard-time counting votes for Kerry and could not find a single vote cast for Ralph Nader but he did count all the votes cast for Bush. Perhaps more. Do you think Ohio was a good example of "counting every vote that was cast"?