2004 may be the last time I vote Democratic...unless changes are made.

[Q]

- It should be the goal of everyone who cares about America to remove Bush* from office in November. That said...I can't see any compelling reason to support the Democratic party after 2005...unless drastic changes take place.

- I can't continue to support a party that refuses or is incapable of organizing and fighting against the most corrupt administration in American history. Their lack of inaction and in some cases actual cooperation and complicity with the Bush* government is unforgivable. Their silence on so many issues important to the survival of democracy has become a betrayal of the people and their Constitution.

- Liberals have been shunned from the party of the 'big tent'...much in the same way the Neocons drove conservatives out of the Republican party in the 90s. Neodems will tell you the reason for this is that the liberal ideology is no longer welcome in a country that has 'moved to the right'. But it's clear to some of us that America hasn't moved to the right...just American politicians and their corporate media.

- Neodems have joined Republicans in ridiculing anyone on the Left who wants direct answers about issues ranging from stolen elections to 9-11 to the (illegal) Iraq invasion. They demanded that we 'move on' when the Congressional Black Caucus stood up and asked for help in investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations in Florida and other places. They told us to 'get over it' when we challenged the official version of the events surrounding 9-11. They told us it that it wasn't important that Bush* LIED this nation into war against Iraq and unnecessarily killed literally thousands of innocent civilians.

- There is still a handful of Democrats that refuse to bow to this conservative agenda...but they're silenced and marginalized by RWingers and their Neodem enablers every time they speak out against the injustices and corruption. There simply aren't enough of these brave Democrats left in the party to make it appealing to many Liberals.

- Many of us on the liberal side of the political spectrum have predicted from the very beginning that a 'DLC' politician would be the Democratic nominee. This end result was assisted by conservatives in the Democratic party (and the American media) who labeled anyone to the left of Lieberman as 'conspiracy nuts' and out of touch. Democratic voters really never had a choice.

- I'm not alone in my belief that the Democratic party must make drastic changes in order to survive and differentiate itself from the Bush* banana republic. The Democratic party can count on us to bail them out one more time and help vote out the awful Bush* administration. After that...they'll have to EARN our votes by actually representing The People and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

[truhavoc]

1. I agree, if it wasn't for * I would be voting Nader in the GE

[GreenPartyVoter]

112. I am with you on that!

[mhr]

2. I Expect To See Changes Before The 2004 Election

If not, the Democratic party may not have my vote this election cycle.

Worrying about something past 2004 is rather meaningless.

[connecticut yankee]

4. Where are your priorities?

A vote for anyone but the Dem nominee (or not voting at all) is a vote for Bush.

Do you want another four years of this corruption?

[Guaranteed]

89. Just make the frickin' changes.

Don't gripe. Do it.

[Zero Gravitas]

16. so what are you doing about it?

What are you doing to (and have been doing) to bring about this change? Or are you just expecting to sit back and have the entire party suck up to your viewpoint?

[w4rma]

3. Keep fighting! (n/t)

[bryant69]

5. A Few Points

Many of us on the liberal side of the political spectrum have predicted from the very beginning that a 'DLC' politician would be the Democratic nominee. This end result was assisted by conservatives in the Democratic party (and the American media) who labeled anyone to the left of Lieberman as 'conspiracy nuts' and out of touch. Democratic voters really never had a choice.

* Lieberman didn't get the nomination; so I take it that their plan failed?

* How did Democratic Voters not have a choice? By my reckoning they had a choice, and they made it. The fact that you don't agree with their choice doesn't negate the fact that they made it. (Maybe if Kucinich or Dean (or whoever you think should have gotten the nomination) had run a better campaign they would have the nomination.

* What is a conservative Democrat? I mean other than Zell Miller and his sort, who probably didn't have a lot of influence on the primaries; how do you define one? Free Trade? what?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[trumad]

7. Baby steps Q

work from within.... Remember...in order to change things we need to change Congress.... Get more Dems in and you'll start to see more positive changes.... You simply can't do it over night... Americans are pretty split in ideolgy... You got to work from within and change things gradually.... If you think that this country will embrace left Liberal policies overnight then you're wrong...MHOP

[Q]

24. I've voted Democratic for thirty years...

...and the party has only grown closer to the Right and their special interests. I've heard the 'baby steps' rhetoric many times before...but the baby steps are going in the wrong direction.

- And in retrospect...the Democrats have done little to reverse the trend when they WERE in the majority. Jeffords gave them the most recent chance to make a difference...but they ignored that opportunity and instead maintained the status quo.

- Yes...Americans are 'split'...but only because politicians on both the left and the right use wedge issues to keep them fighting with each other while THEY rob our treasury and forsake our heritage.

[liberalpress]

108. Have you...

... visited loocal Democratic Party Headquarters?

... volunteered to take an active interest in how it is run?

... lobbied for contributions?

... encouraged liberal candidates to run for office?

[terryg11]

10. I thought Kucinich ran a good campaign

he travelled all over and was always making good strong statements yet the media never really seemed to look at him. I kind of got the picture that the DNC didn't want him to get too much play, they didn't really seem to give him much support

[bryant69]

11. So why didn't he go to the DNC

And force them to take a better look at him? Why didn't he get better press coverage? It's easy enough to claim a press blockade--but the only proof I've ever seen is of the variety "Well, I really like him, so I don't know why they don't cover every Kucinich event in depth."

[terryg11]

12. so when you watched the news local or national

they had Kucinich, Sharpton, Clark, Graham on just as much as Dean, Kerry and Edwards? I saw a lot of the last three and almost nothing of the others except as "oh by the way" type segments. So while a press blockade is hard to prove I still think there is some evidence that maybe certain candidates were considered to "radical" or "small" to waste precious air time on.

[bryant69]

15. Yeah exactly

So why didn't Kucinich make himself a more serious campaign? This is like blaming the refs for losing a football game. Yeah refs can suck and can make bad calls, but the solution is to play well enough that the Ref's don't factor into it.

[terryg11]

19. YIKES!!! That's my old argument being used against me

Used tht same logic more or less when talking about Nader wasn't responsible for Gore's loss in '00.

I agree that Kucinich probbly could have run a better campaign am not totally convinced it would have made much of a difference as far as media coverage.

[LeahMira]

22. Another issue...

when you watched the news local or national

The candidate debates were broadcast on the cable channels. Does everyone in the entire nation pay the extra $40 a month to get cable? I know we don't. Seems to me that right off you're excluding a whole lot of low income people who don't have the extra money to spend on cable. These are the very same people who have so much at stake in the next election!

Please don't let's let this happen with the Presidential debate... if they take place! Can we make sure that these debates are broadcast on the stations that everyone gets for free? And while we're at it, how about rebroadcasting them during the day for the benefit of the poor schlubs that have to work night shift. Surely we can do without the Young and the Restless (or whatever the devil is on during the day) for one or two days so that the American citizens can find out who and what they're voting for! Is that really asking too much?

[Q]

27. Everyone knows who the 'party favorites' are...

...and if they have a chance of winning. Many of us knew a candidate like Dean never had a chance because he bucked the system and told the truth about the need for changes within the party.

- Liberals don't have a chance of gaining any kind of power in the party...not because of lack of popularity...but because the party machine is conservative and the liberal message conflicts with their corporate agenda.

[tom_paine]

35. Your comment on Dean strikes awfully close to the truth

But I don't know that giving up would be the answer.

And it is valid to ask "What have you personally done to move the Dems back to positions that you could support?"

If the answer is "nothing", then you have some soul searching to do.

[Cleita]

33. We knew from the beginning it wouldn't be Lieberman, but we

knew it would be Kerry or Edwards. Even the DLC wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot with Lieberman as a candidate. The way Dean was attacked and to a lesser degree Clark shows that there was more at work than Republicans in their downfall. They knew if they could get Clark and Dean to drop out before super Tuesday that any votes they would have received then would be diverted to Kerry or Edwards. It was all very slickly done IMHO.

[DennisReveni]

76. Maybe this article will clear things up

John Pilger nails the whole shebang with this very accurate article.
Please take the time to read more than the excerpts I post.
http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
2004: Choose Your Favorite Pro-War Candidate
by John Pilger
"What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the leading Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela.

Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat." That's how Bush himself put it.

What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness – its crude honesty, if you like – in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority." New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable.

[SharonAnn]

6. It's hard to get this kind of change quickly. It takes action on

many fronts and over a period of time.

I'm working on several things that would help move this along but we've got to think of the end result we want and find ways to make it happen.

One of them is that I've told the DNC, the DCCC, and the DSCC that my campaign contributions will be going to Progressive candidates directly and not to the central organizations until such time as these organizations start acting on behalf of the people.

I will support any national candidates and gubernatorial candidates anywhere in the country if I think they're the kind of person that would bring Progressive values to the job. I will continue to support Emily's List and the candidates they are supporting in whatever campaign they feel we can make a difference. I may support some of the newer, more progressive organizations, I'm looking at them right now.

Also, I'm forming a local organization with the same goals and we plan to look at starting a PAC or a 527 organization to "bundle" or contributions and get more visibility.

However, the entrenched powers aren't going to give up easily so we're going to have to keep after them.

Remember, the American REvolution was not an "overnight" thing. It will take more and more grass roots work. That means us. And remember, the neo-cons didn't get this power overnight either.

[RandomKoolzip]

13. Thank you so much....

This is EXACTLY what's needed. Local grassroots organizing, voting for Green or more progressive candidates in local elections, getting more Dems in the senate, establishing more liberal/independent think tanks, PACs, etc. We have to shape our effort in the mold of the republican crawling colossus of the mid-70's. What they did to reclaim power was amazing; took patience and a drive to win by increments...and it succeeded.

We cannot expect to change the system overnight or even by November. It's up to we here on this board, and those people willing to get all "uncool" and political in their daily lives. We can't expect a Nader or whoever to come out of the fog with his sword and armor, willing to do battle for the causes of progressivism. WE have to be the ones doing the fighting.

The most valuable tool we have in our arsenal is PATIENCE.

I'm so glad there's other DUers who see the big picture and aren't hung up on Kerry's "enabling" of Bush. Kerry is a symptom, not a root cause. And though Kerry is NOT perfect, he is to the left of Bush, and appointees to his administration would be much more willing to give progressive causes protection, unlike Ashcroft and Cheney, et al. And with a possible Senate win this year, the ship could be seen as righting (lefting?) itself ever so slightly. Hope? Maybe.

But we won't turn the tables by voting third party this year, or by not voting at all. That's a petulant solution to a mature problem.

I've been waiting for more posts like this. Thanks!

[EV1Ltimm]

8. i've been saying it since i got here...

We've alienated everyone on the far left, our ideological source.

We've got to bring them back so we can start making progress again.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. It's very sad, and so predictable.

Every day, reading the increasingly strident posts of the DLCers and their calls for the left to again "get over it and get in line", I'm grateful to be on the outside, looking in.

It's incredible and yet entirely predictable, that after three years of Bush's horror show, the Democratic nominee is one who says the US military needs 40,000 more bodies to fight the bogus war on terror he hopes to inherit.

Now I suppose I'll watch, as I would a train wreck, as the US media begins to deconstruct Kerry's "electability," as Bush - soon to be known as "the comeback kid" - climbs inexorably in the polls. I'll be horrified, but I won't be surprised.

After November, the American left had better find a new vehicle. This one's up on blocks.

[Hotler]

14. The silence dose speak volumns.....

They're afraid to piss-off corporate America. They're all in it for the money, perks, and benefits. Their biggest fear is returning to private life. Ever watch our Dem's on c-span interact with the GOP in the house and senate? They play kiss face, pat each other on the back and act all nice, nice. Where is the fire, and brimstone outrage that should be pouring off the hill????

[Q]

17. It's a 'conspiracy of silence'...

- It will just go away if no one talks about it. But there is something very wrong with a country and two-party system when neither party wants to debate the most important issues facing our nation. Lip-service replaces action and accountability.

- The reality? Bush* should be impeached or in prison. Democrats shouldn't be simply campaigning against him...they should be demanding that he resign.

[Az]

18. Kucinich is the last of my finger nails clinging to the party

After Bush, if there is not a strong voice for liberal policies coming from the Dems I cannot see a valid reason to continue to support them. I am a left wing liberal. If the Dems are not supportive of my positions then why am I supporting them.

I believe the country is like a car heading towards a cliff. I do not want to slow it down, I do not want to speed it up. We have to stop this thing and turn the car into a new direction. The systems in place are incapable of doing this.

There is no mechanism in the corporate state to keep us from plunging over the edge. If we slow the system down the economy collapses. If we speed it up the people are made all the more slaves to the corporate state. If we support freetrade our economy is demolished and jobs are lost with the power collescing in the hands of the rich and powerful. If we deny freetrade we support the continuing inequity of the distribution of wealth on a global scale. This inbalance cannot be maintained. But allowing the corporations to handle the redistribution only guarantees our enslavement and their hold on power.

The system is broken. It no longer serves the purpose it was used for. It is not functionally capable of creating opportunity for all equally. It has brought back the fuedal system and there are now powers that are unapproachable. We are becoming a world of serfs and lords. Applying some patches here and there is not going to fix things.

[Q]

25. All the 'mechanisms' that were in place to regulate...

...the corporate state have been abandoned by both parties. We've entered an era of the 'survival of the fittest' and the poor and working class are left to fend for themselves.

- And you're right when you say applying patches to a broken system won't work. It may make it LOOK better...but the underlying cancer is still there.

[kayell]

20. I agree, and may go one step further

I've just discovered that I now am eligible for immigration to Canada, with their changes in the point system.

If * wins in Nov. I am almost certain to run for the border. But even if the dems win, if there are no changes in the party, I will undoubtedly give up on them, and quite likely on the US.

While I admire the Greens and Socialists of this country greatly, the govt is structured in such a way that I don't see there being any real possibility for their making a dent in the next 20 years. Either the Democratic party will return to representing progressives, or progressive ideas and goals will be further marginalized.

I am old enough that I would like to spend the rest of my life in a country somewhat more attuned to what I believe in. Even the discomfort of cold weather and the lack of grits and fried green tomatoes does not compare to the advantages of living in a sane, non-imperialist, and reasonably progressive civilization.

[Q]

28. I'd rather stay and fight...

...and won't give up on my beloved country.

- I believe things will change...but human nature is such that they may 'need' eight years of Bush* before they FINALLY wake up and smell the fascism.

[kayell]

36. I've been fighting since the McGovern campaign*

I'm tired and I don't see much chance anymore of this country becoming anywhere close to as progressive as most of Europe or Canada. I don't feel especially American anymore. I've seen my country turn into something I can no longer relate to, and so I'll be making the choice relatively soon. I also have to make the decision before the age thing starts working against me on immigration.

Since I would likely be one of the "unpersons" in a 8 more years of a BFEE Republic of Gilead scenario, you can bet I won't even let the tv cool off on election night before hitting the hiway if things go badly.

*even before that. I was teargassed in DC when I was 13, protesting against the war.

[kath]

54. Yes, yes -- I would love to live in a country where healthcare is provided

for all, where all the votes are counted in elections, where there's some semblance of a free press, etc.

I'm thinking it's time to leave. I'm so disgusted with the Democrats lately (with a few VERY rare exceptions) that I can hardly stand it.

[Codeblue]

60. Is it that everyone is afraid to actually FIGHT for what they believe in?

Is everyone just content to march in protest or practice civl disobedience to get they change that America needs? I am not. To me, that isn't fighting. Back in the 60's and 70's when the Civil Rights movement was its height, those kinds of tactics work. I've been told by my professors and whatnot that change doesnt happen overnight and that if given time, civil disobedience and protests will change things.

No, not anymore. We have no time to waste sitting on our arses and marching around holding signs. More people protested Bush around the world than protested anyone, EVER. 19 million people across the planet took to the streets to protests Bush and his invasion of Iraq. What did it do? Hmmm...let's think. Nothing. It did absolutely nothing. We can no longer work within the system to change the system. It has become too large, too corrupt to respond to our pleas for change. The Framers of our Constitution had the elite, not the oppressed minorities in mind when they wrote it. Today, our beautiful country has become the embodiment of the Constitution. There was never any democracy in this country, it has all been an illusion. The poor masses have never had power.

We pretend our votes actually matter in the grand scheme of things, but they don't. Through the electoral college system, we vote for who we may want to represent us in government. However, the electors in this electoral college system can vote for whoever they want. So if I vote for Kerry as president, and the majority of Colorado votes for Kerry, the electors could decide they want Bush, and vote for him. It has happened twice, where an elector voted against the majority of the state just as a protest against the system. And while every elector has never voted against the people's wishes, there's nothing stopping it from happening. The system is flawed, and it has been flawed from the beginning.

Change from within has become impossible. I've heard people say things like "Well if we don't win 2004, we'll have to win in 2008." I am not content with just sitting around until 2008 rolls around. By then, the elections will be just something to appease the people so we think we're voting, but the outcome has been predetermined. This election may well be that way already, but if Bush is allowed to rule for 4 more years, it WILL be so. If a democrat gets elected, it will be Kerry. While Kerry is better than Bush, he is not different enough to really change things.

Many of you may think that I am an extremist, but no I am not. I am simply a radical left-winger striving for change. I would rather not leave this country and abandon my fellow Americans to a fascist government...ruled by Bush or someone else. I would rather FIGHT for our country back. But something radical must happen to obtain that change. The tactics that have been commonly used to create social change for the past century are no longer applicable.

Sorry for the super-long post, but I had a lot I needed to say.

[bobthedrummer]

21. Kucinich certainly is, and Dean probably too-working for reform of Party

If they were leading the direction of issues to be discussed, I would consider joining the Democratic Party even though I have never been a member of any political party, and have done volunteer work for Democratic candidates in the past.

When you have the power elite calling Dennis Kucinich's issues-which, really, are a collection of the people's issues--far out, fringe, radical etc. then something is wrong in the Democratic Party IMHO.

Don't forget, there was only one US Senator, Russ Feingold, that even tried to have debate on The PATRIOT Act.

And Dennis Kucinich did try to put the brakes on George W. Bush's rush to war.

Don't marginalize your best.

ABB.

[Q]

23. The lack of debate...

...on so many issues has made the Democrat party look weak...or worse...complicit.

- I give full credit to the handful of Dems who have opposed Bush* and his ruinous policies since 2000. But then you have Dems like Lieberman and Daschle that actually PRAISE Bush* and his policies. Other Dems support Bush* policies like 'regime change', Patriot act and preemptive war.

- Democrats shouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of evils. It's time the party gives the voters a clear choice...between democracy and a constitutional dictatorship.

[Cleita]

34. It would be great if Kucinich and Dean started working with

the Green Party. If high profile, but liberal, Dems start switching we may have a chance of getting a party that works for the people and that can effect change.

[Brian_Expat]

26. Amen brother

Just wait for the DLC people to attack you. The flames should be high and hot, and completely missing the point.

The dwindling of the party from 51% of voters to 33% in ten years is a great example of this.

[Q]

29. Nah...they'd rather ignore than debate or flame...

...and sadly...debate is what's needed more than anything right now.

- I consider Bush's* election fraud, obstruction of investigations into 9-11 and invasion of Iraq to be crimes. I'm simply shocked that the Democratic response to this is to run a normal campaign against him and play politics as usual.

- Bush* is capable of riding his 'successes' in Iraq and the 'war on terrorism' right back into the WH considering the lack of active opposition from the Democratic PARTY.

[mike_c]

30. I agree-- I too have been a loyal democratic voter for 30 yrs...

...and I feel betrayed by the party I've supported for so long.

* Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the "war" in Iraq, and yet the party will very likely nominate someone who voted for it and who wants to "win" it.

* The likely Democratic nominee also want to "win" the "war on terror," a Bush meme from the very beginning, and the only leg that the shrubstitute has to run on-- diminishing the importance of that issue alone would undermine most of Bush's campaign strategy.

* My democratic party was the party of fair labor, fair trade, and environmental protections, yet the likely Democratic nominee supports global trade agreements that violate every principle of fairness in favor of corporate profit interests.

I could go on and on, but I won't-- this isn't the forum for it and I'm sick at heart to see the party of FDR lurching to embrace rightwing corporate politics.

[Cat Atomic]

31. Then the neodems will blame *YOU* when they lose elections

by running their moderate, Republican-lite, pro-corporate, pseudo-populist windbags.

I'm with you, Q.

[Cleita]

32. I wouldn't vote for Nader under any circumstances because he

is as much a corporate whore as the rest of them. Because he jutifiably criticizes some corporations doesn't mean that he still isn't very much in the hip pocket of other corporations. His own actions have shown him to be anti-union and conservative in many of his views.

That being said, I probably am going to change my registration to Green after the election. I want to work within the organization to help the party register liberals. I will still no doubt vote for Democratic candidates in the future until we get rid of Republicans everywhere.

My idea is that a party of liberals like the Greens should start at a local level. They should start aiming for municipal, county and state government seats first to give the Party a chance to grow and have their politicians gain in experience before trying to pick off the big offices like Governorships and Presidencies.

If the Green leadership starts proving to me that they will start working in a smart manner and refuse to become a tool of the right wing like they were in the last Presidential election, then I'm with them.

[Malva Zebrina]

37. perhaps they are so complacent because they know we have no

choice. The terrible Bush regime has got to go--they know it--so no matter if Kerry or Edwards or any voted for Bush's illegal war, it does not matter.

This is wrong.

Overlooking such an egreious act done in the name of the United States is akin to participating in the killing and murders as if one were a neo con also.

Pretending it did not happen is just more of the eery feeling I get that this is not the real world, but a Potemkin village where Democrats and Republians both reside is a sort of old boy club.

We are forced to vote for Kerry now. I will, just to get Bush out and the pleasure of seeing him go down after only one term of total atrocities.

[Redleg]

38. Good luck with that third party thing.

I assume that's what you will do because the Dem party is so feckless.

[Q]

39. I will indeed go 'third party'...

...unless the Democratic party begins to understand that they can't deal with despots by cooperating with them. Something has to give. If we continue (after 2004) to vote for Dems simply because they're not Reppublicans...then we'll be part of the problem instead of the solution. Politicians of both parties need to learn that they must earn their votes. The only way this can be accomplished is to stop voting the party line even in the absence of loyalty from the party leadership.

- Republicans and now Democrats are falling away from the people because they depend on corporate donations to their campaigns. They've completely bypassed The People in the process.

[GreenArrow]

56. "...can't deal with despots by cooperating with them."

No, but they can save their asses, which is what they've done. Hey, the system works for them, and it can work for YOU too, if YOU'LL only let it. Obey. Breed. Consume.

[Redleg]

75. If things are as bad as you suggest then a third party is not going

to cut it either. I know I am being cynical but sometimes I wonder that nothing short of an armed revolt will change things in a meaningful way. How many of us are willing to go that far to restore democracy?

[Q]

96. We have to start somewhere...

...and give the Party an incentive to change. Automatically voting for them only encourages them to think they can do anything they want and still get our vote.

- The problem remains: the Democratic party has been taken over by 'conservatives' and others who are trying to move our party to right and push liberals OUT of the party at the same time. This is exactly what happened to the Republican party when far-right wingers and neocons pushed out all the real conservatives.

- There is no more sharing of ideologies within the party. The big tent is now a pup tent with room only for DLCers and NeoDems.

[struggle4progress]

40. Why give up?

Become a steely-eyed realist: politics is about power first and policy second. A "statement vote" is a wasted vote: the losers don't control anything. I always support the real candidate who nauseates me least: if Candidate A makes me gag and Candidate B induces projectile vomiting, then I show relative enthusiasm for A.

There's often more diversity in local elections, which are frequently choosing the next generation. If you don't like the current crop, help grow a new field.

[Q]

41. You're talking about 'selling out'...

...which is what many Democrats are doing right now.

- Hell...is it any wonder the party is full of sellouts...with an attitude like yours?

- I was just reading where Sen. Robb (intel commission) was practically kissing Bush's* ass and promising him that he wouldn't look into how intel on Iraq was used or misused in starting a war. How chickenshit is that?

- And just the other day Daschle was actually praising Bush* and his illegal friggin war. Before that we had Dems on the 9-11 commission agreeing to go easy on Bush*. More than selling out...these are traitorous acts towards the party and our nation.

- You sound like you're new to politics. I've watched and participated in Democratic party politics for thirty years. Like the Republican party...it has been hopelessly corrupted by special interests and greedy politicians more interested in their careers than the people.

[struggle4progress]

64. No,

I don't think I'm talking about "selling out," although to tell the truth, I'm often at least as disgusted as many other posters and for familiar reasons. And while I'm not especially talented at politics, I'm not at all new to it: I think I've spent years in various trenches trying to fight what's always seemed losing battles, and sometimes we amazingly win, at a cost of some years and treasure.

Our side several different problems: (1) Our opponents work full-time to screw us and enrich themselves and their clients. We need treat our struggles as seriously as a business, with a cold eye towards the bottom line. I think the difference between being an activist and being a sell-out is very simply: do you do it for love or for money? (2) All changes come by shifting the center. But sometimes it's the work on the lonely fringes that ultimately relocates the center of mass. Sure it's hard, after listening to people oppose you for years, to smile and shake their hands and bite your tongue when they claim credit and say they were always on your side, but that's life. (3) Folks trying to save their souls, should do that with religion: politics is about forging temporary and shifting alliances with people who you don't necessarily like and who don't agree with you about everything, in order to obtain specific effects. This is hard work, and certainly some hypocrites do it well, but not everybody who does this is a hypocrite. (4) People power really works. Good energetic work by a relatively small group can succeed. But it may take substantial effort.

Yeah, there's a lot that sucks. Yeah, some of it sucks bad. It doesn't upset me to recognize that. I expect it.

[Indiana Democrat]

42. Don't let the door hit you!

We don't need quitters. That's what the Green Party is for.

[Q]

44. After thirty years...it's not 'quitting'...

...it's facing reality. I grew up with a Democratic party that fought for our rights...that kept the other side honest instead of joining them in their dishonesty.

- Don't presume to lecture me about loyalty. I've given the Party many chances to reform itself...even though they continue to commit political adultery and sleep with the enemy.

- Many Dems suffer from the same malady as the Republicans that we so often scorn for voting the party line.

[Woodstock]

114. The party is not your servant, YOU are supposed to make things happen

All your comments have sounded like you want the party to serve you exactly what you ordered from the menu, while you sip on a cocktail at the table. It doesn't work that way. The party is only as good as the people working within. How hard have you worked from within to bring about better things? Several people have asked and you have not yet answered.

Vote for third party and ensure that Republicans will stay in power for a long, long, time.

Work to change the Democratic party from within, and we can build a strong party that can defeat the Republicans.

[LWolf]

52. Way to win friends

and influence voters, Indiana Democrat!

If 2004 is too close to call and the supreme court gets to select again, give yourself a pat on the back for hittin' all those former potential allies on the ass as they abandoned hope in the democratic party.

That's the way to campaign!

:toast:

[Guaranteed]

90. Why not LISTEN for a change?

THIS is why the Dems keep losing. They're complacent.

[ldf]

97. as Q says..

after thirty years, it's NOT quitting.

it's bending over. (and i mean that in a BAD way...)

i'm with Q.

the democrats have had two national elections to do what needs to be done, and they have refused to do so, and are continuing to refuse, as we sit here and type.

i will vote against bush, and for kerry.

but if kerry doesn't start shaping up the party and return it to it's roots, the door won't have an opportunity to Q on the ass, because it will hit mine, since i will be right behind Q.

there will have to be a third party option, if the democratic party doesn't wake up.

[Woodstock]

113. I agree Indiana Democrat

Anything less than fighting tooth and nail to make the party better from within is quiting. All voting third party in national elections (where there is simply no chance in hell they will win) will do is ensure Republicans stay in power for a long, long time.

[RedEarth]

43. A vote for anyone other than a Democrat is a vote for the Republicans

Unfortunately, that's a fact in a General Election. In local and state elections, there is a greater chance a third party candidate would have an opportunity to win.

In this GE....the choice is either Kerry or Bush.......for me, it's not a difficult decision.

[Q]

46. All of us plan on voting against Bush* in November...

- But there is no guarantee that the Party will receive our votes after that...unless they deal in a bit of introspection and change their direction.

- It's difficult to admit...but the Democratic party has forsaken the people for a few silver coins. They've betrayed our values, principles and heritage. Some call it 'compromise' and 'bipartisanship'...but we've received nothing in return for bowing down to the Bushies and allowing them to have their way on so many issues.

[tomorrowsashes]

47. I don't understand the whole "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing

Voting for Nader doesn't help Bush, unless the person would have voted for the Democratic candidate. Were it not for Nader, I would advocate public refusal to vote, or voting "Nobody" as a write in. It matters not to me which corporate whore I'm a slave to. If a person who would have voted democrat votes green, it encourages the party to move farther left, or else sends them into a frenzy that will eventually lead to it's downfall and replacement. I see either of these as preferable actions. I think that it is important to get Bush out, but don't think that you are a champion of truth because you went into a booth, and checked the name next to another sellout. I will never truly support the democratic party, or any other party based on hierarchical organization, including the greens, but certain changes might enable me to bypass my conscience.

[DennisReveni]

77. "A vote for anyone other than a Democrat is a vote for the Republicans"

What happens when they hold the exact same values?
http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
"The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defense" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.

In addition, Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was reinforced and Iraq was subjected to a medieval siege that claimed up to a million lives while the country was being attacked, on average, every third day: the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign in history. In the 1999 Clinton-led attack on Serbia, a "moral crusade," public transport, nonmilitary factories, food processing plants, hospitals, schools, museums, churches, heritage-listed monasteries and farms were bombed. "They ran out of military targets in the first couple of weeks," said James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia. "It was common knowledge that NATO went to stage three: civilian targets." In their cruise missile attack on Sudan, Clinton's generals targeted and destroyed a factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to Sudan reported: "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor country died as a consequence . . . but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess."

Covered in euphemisms, such as "democracy-building" and "peacekeeping," "humanitarian intervention" and "liberal intervention," the Clintonites can boast a far more successful imperial record than Bush's neocons, largely because Washington granted the Europeans a ceremonial role, and because NATO was "onside." In a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down.

A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch." Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat." Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Collusion between the Bush and Gore camps was common. During the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke, who probably would have become Gore's secretary of state, conspired with Paul Wolfowitz to ensure their respective candidates said nothing about US policy towards Indonesia's blood-soaked role in southeast Asia. "Paul and I have been in frequent touch," said Holbrooke, "to make sure we keep out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests." The same can be said of Israel's ruthless, illegal expansion, of which not a word was and is said: it is a crime with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats.

John Kerry supported the removal of millions of poor Americans from welfare rolls and backed extending the death penalty. The "hero" of a war that is documented as an atrocity launched his presidential campaign in front of a moored aircraft carrier. He has attacked Bush for not providing sufficient funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, which, wrote the historian William Blum, "was set up by the CIA, literally, and for 20 years has been destabilizing governments, progressive movements, labour unions and anyone else on Washington's hit list." Like Bush – and all those who prepared the way for Bush, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton – Kerry promotes the mystical "values of American power" and what the writer Ariel Dorfman has called "the plague of victimhood . . . Nothing more dangerous: a giant who is afraid." "

[Ripley]

45. I agree Q. We really need another party.

Not Green (too narrow of a platform), but Liberal.

What is needed is a hugely charismatic leader to build another party and fast. Dean comes to mind. I don't think he'd do it because he still says he doesn't want to "hurt" the Democratic party. But dammit can't he see the current party is dragging us down?

If that party were to emerge, you'd probably see some Repugs join the Centrist party (formerly known as Democrats).

[Q]

49. I prefer to change the Dem party rather than find another...

...but I wonder if that's possible considering how far to the right they've gone? Would changing the leadership be enough if conservative influences like the DLC remained in place?

- There needs to be a true 'party of the people'. A party that does more than give lip service to democracy and the Bill of Rights. One that represents the working class and their unions...the poor and the disenfrachised.

[greekspeak]

48. Danged if we do, danged if we don't

We can vote for puke-lite and get quasi-liberal legislation at the very best, or join a third party and flush our votes completely down the turlet. What an amazing country this is politically. Trash the politicians with the drive to change lives for the better, and vote for the candidate who wants to starve you to death in the name of "family values." Ugh.

[Q]

51. Yes...it has been the lesser of evils...

...for far too long. But we have to start somewhere. Perhaps we can begin with the ideal that politicians have to earn our votes instead of automatically expecting us to always vote the party line?

- It's not discussed that much around here...but I'm still very pissed that OUR party ignored Blacks in general and the congressional black caucus when they asked us to help defend their civil rights in the 2000 election. How can the party even expect their votes after that?

[arewethereyet]

50. this is an old song, sung for many a long year

and still there are only two parties.

and so it shall remain.

You can choose to not participate or not. Or not. The country will roll on either way.

Will you be an observer or a participant ?

[Q]

53. That there are only two parties...

...doesn't mean we have to accept them in their current form.

- Why willingly participate in something you know is wrong? Why not try to change it?

[arewethereyet]

63. you have to understand their nature

this is about power, pure and simple. There is no desire to change and an urgent will to resist that unfailingly.

Consider this and then ask yourself if the politics of our day has anything to do with any higher purpose...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Alexander Tyler

[Deja Q]

55. Maybe that's why Nader's got 6% right now.

We need to woo the Greens back, but we need to look at ourselves. Our constant capitulation to the repukes and favoritism toward corporate america doesn't help us either.

We're supposed to be a party for the PEOPLE. WTF happened?

[Q]

57. What happened? MONEY...

...Special interests have literally purchased our government...and whichever party happens to be in control. This is one reason we need public financing of at least presidential campaigns.

- And once they buy their way into office...they trade legislation for more cash and favors. Worse...those not participating in the corruption are intimidated into looking the other way.

[doc03]

58. Liberals, what about labor?

This party has little attraction for labor anymore. People considered on the far right like Pat Buchanan are the only ones that support American workers. Kucinich was the only one that came out against NAFTA, WTO. I don't know what his stand was on MFN status for China and think even he backed bringing illegal workers in to drive wages down in this country.

[Mairead]

88. "I think even DK backed bringing illegal workers in to drive wages down"

He does favor limited immigration and legalising the status of undocumented workers who've been here 5 or more years. They mostly come from Mexico, Central America, and to a lesser extent South American and the Caribbean, and they mostly take the stoop-labor jobs.

And he opposes the anti-labor use of H1 and L1 visas, though he says ominously that there might be no way to recover the computer industry.

I don't know about China, though his opposition to the WTO suggests that he opposes MFN status because of Beijing's labor policies.

[lams712]

59. I totally agree

I'm for Kerry in November, but after Nov., I'm pretty much gone. I WILL support good Wellstone/Kucinich type Democrats (I can probably list 20-30 current members of Congress I admire), but my support for the party as a whole is indifferent at best.

[corporatewhore]

61. you make avery good point of the dems doing what the neocons did to the

buchanan oldschool con wing

[bvar22]

62. As of today, we have a choice between:

a) a pro corporate, pro NAFTA, pro WAR, pro Patriot Act Republican

OR

b) a pro corporate, pro NAFTA, pro WAR, pro Patriot Act Democrat

I am as disgusted as you!

I WILL VOTE FOR KERRY, though I expect to see little change in the direction of our country. The Wal-Martization of America will continue; the gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of us will continue to widen. Labor will continue to get cheaper; the middle class will continue to decline.

[myopic4141]

65. Fall back position.

You could always fall back to the "lesser of two evils" position.

[drdigi420]

66. Add to that list Ending the Drug War

If the Dems don't start seriously challenging the counter productive brainchild of Nixon, then they don't deserve to be thought of as the defenders of civil rights

[gate of the sun]

67. Q you get my vote for the hero of the day

for your wonderful well thought out post and replies to all the people who dismiss the need for the Democratic party to change. So many issues are being completly ignored and those who scream and cry about it are now considered trivial. Thank You for your well spoken and appropriate words.

[Forkboy]

68. Same here

04 will be my last Dem vote as well.The Party is beyond repair imo.

[Q]

69. The denial coming from the party...

...'faithful' is difficult to understand. There is no difference between a Democratic and Republican partisan who will ONLY vote the party line. As we vote 'anybody but Bush*' the right is voting 'anybody but a Democrat'.

- The problems we face as a party go deeper than the leadership simply making a series of mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. What we're facing is a party that not only refuses to make the Bushies accountable for their crimes against the people...they allow the opposition to paint the left in a false light without challenging it.

- I'm frankly tired of belonging to a party that has become little more than a punching bag for the Right. They hit us hard with smears and character assassination and the Party responds with a whimper and more concessions. We're being 'raped' and the leadership's advice is to lay back and enjoy it. No more.

[robcon]

70. One of the most anti-democratic staements I've read.

Q makes some good points but the he wrote:

"- Many of us on the liberal side of the political spectrum have predicted from the very beginning that a 'DLC' politician would be the Democratic nominee. This end result was assisted by conservatives in the Democratic party (and the American media) who labeled anyone to the left of Lieberman as 'conspiracy nuts' and out of touch. Democratic voters really never had a choice. "

The people have spoken, Q. The Democrats and democrats on this board should support the people's right to choose their nominee.

[Q]

71. Candidates like Dean and Kucinich...

...never had a chance. Many of us predicted long ago that a DLCer would be the nominee. That prediction was based on the trends in the Democratic party...to demonize and marginalize liberals and move the party to the right on many issues.

- The 'people' didn't choose Kerry any more than they chose Bush*. The party machines choose the candidates, who will be nominated and participate in the final debates.

- There is no doubt that Democrats will vote for 'anybody but Bush*' this time around. But don't fool yourself into thinking you had a real choice in who would be the nominee.

[Castilleja]

72. Yes

Kick

[Q]

73. The Democratic party wouldn't have to worry about votes..

...if they stood up for what is right and let the people know that THEY come before having a seat at Bush's* table and corporate bucks.

- It looks like WAR and 9-11 will be the central issues in the Bush* campaign. Many Americans are convinced that Bush* has done a great job and is protecting our nation against 'terrorism'. They believe this because the American media hasn't given them the facts...and the Democratic party hasn't shown any real opposition or tried very hard to dispute the Bush* propaganda.

- 9-11 happened on Bush's* watch and now they're trying to obstruct investigations and congressional oversight. They're doing the same with the intel investigations in the matter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. These should be campaign issues for Democrats.

[DennisReveni]

79. "Candidates like Dean and Kucinich..."

Hmmm,
http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
"Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat." That's how Bush himself put it."

"People who are aware of such danger, yet support its proponents in a form they find agreeable, think they can have it both ways. They can't. Michael Moore, the filmmaker, should know this better than anyone; yet he backed the NATO bomber Wesley Clark as Democratic candidate. The effect of this is to reinforce the danger to all of us, because it says it is OK to bomb and kill, then to speak of peace. Like the Bush regime, the New Democrats fear truly opposing voices and popular movements: that is, genuine democracy, at home and abroad. The colonial theft of Iraq is a case in point. "If you move too fast," says Noah Feldman, a former legal adviser to the US regime in Baghdad, "the wrong people could get elected." Tony Blair has said as much in his inimitable way: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians.""

[rman]

92. the DLC and the Media have spoken

and the people don't really hear anything else. people just don't choose a nominee who has been made out to be a conspiracy nut. where do people get such an idea? right...

Isn't it obvious both the DLC and the media are front ends of the corporate establishment?

[Az]

74. Strategists worry about the undecided votes, but

what they fail to see is that about 1/4 of the public votes. If they stood up and brought a message that drew people in they would not have to worry about the middle. Energize the process with real ideas and plans and the people will come to us.

[doc03]

80. We need a Labor party but will never see one

It seems to me that no one represents the average working person. I would like to see someone that opposes NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, MFN for China, illegal immigration and is going to balance the budget. But on the social issues is more Conservative.

[Nlighten1]

78. The sort of change you want...

isn't going to happen until the people take to the streets...they have gotten too powerful for too long...

[starroute]

81. How can we influence the discourse between now and November?

What Kerry supports now and what he actually runs on are not necessarily the same thing. What he runs on and how he governs are not the same either.

It's going to be a long six months, and the Democrats are going to need money to campaign on, especially between now and the convention. Where are they going to get it, if not from us? Lacking an endless supply of Bush-style rich donors, the party leaders are eying the grassroots greedily. What sort of price can we, the energized Internet progressives, demand for our support?

Then there are those soft money ads the Republicans are trying to squash. Those aren't controlled by the party machinery, are they? If they represent the independent voices of whoever pays for them, then those voices have the option of speaking up for broadly liberal policies and working to pull the party in their direction.

There's going to be a party platform written next summer. There's going to be a keynote speaker. If we as an active movement of progressive Democrats have made our presence felt between now and then, the party leaders will have to acknowledge our movement at the convention, or risk losing its support in the general campaign.

There is a lot we can do between now and November to start taking our party back. And the more we can accomplish, the more a Kerry administration will be forced to listen to our views and our leaders and not merely to those of the party establishment.

I may be willing to hold my nose one more time and vote for Kerry in November -- but I'm not willing to be silenced by the threat of scaring off voters and handing the election to Bush. I say we find our issues and speak out on them as long and as loud as is needed to make them heard. There's nothing we can imagine doing after November that we can't do even better right now.

[Selwynn]

82. Haven't posted much lately, but on this I just needed to say I agree.

Seeing as how I almost never agree with you, felt I needed to state that I strongly agree with you now.

[Zinfandel]

83. Man, I almost passed on your thread, I'm glad I opened it, someone who

understands and feels the way I do...very hard to find in this now moderate forum...you restrain your anger well and that's perhaps a good thing (I can't) frustration and the obvious nearly drives me insane.

Your thoughts are indeed to the point...would love to hear more. Hopefully some will truly understand you and see the desperate situation we are all in and avoid the traps of being moderate ("for little change")

It amazes me to read this forum and read how many people see this as almost like a football game. As if we just defeat the fascist BushCo (which is going to be so very tough, they will steal it all, given the smallest of chances)

Will Kerry just reverse Bush's reversals of Clinton's policy? So very much more is needed. Will he simply address corporate give-aways...or does anyone truly expect him to do what is really needed...to completely stop corporations rights being the same as individuals, and stop corporations from donating money and distorting our political system, to completely overhaul the FCC, to fight for health care for all, to stop corporate pollution and environmental exploitation, to save our public schools and Social Security from the corporate hounds who want vouchers and privatizing, stop this religious right and the conseratives assault on our civil rights, will Kerry take away the rich & the corporations tax cuts and the corporate welfare give aways, stop the military imperialist insanity for corporate arms profit, the resource stealing of other countries, will he force strong policy to make sure unions have a chance against the Wal Marts, etc.

Or will Kerry just be a moderate?

And we'll all just be so happy and satisfied that he just simply wins?

No real changes are OK, just holding the fort until the moderate sheep and republicans vote in the next Republican president?

Moderates???

[FDRrocks]

84. Only time I will vote Dem

At all, and even that is teetering, the more I read this board. The Democratic party is extremely weak, the only thing they seem to do anymore is react to what the other party is doing, and they help the RW corporate agenda.

I will most likely vote John Kerry, but this board sways me from it every day.

[Zinfandel]

85. FDR indeed rocked! My hero!

I know what your feeling.

[Woodstock]

116. That's OK, don't bother yourself on our account

We'll try to beat Bush without you.

If you want to stand by and watch Bush get another 4 years, and if you seriously think Kerry is worse than Bush, then I question that you are progressive (and that explains why you don't like this board, because it's SUPPOSED to be for progressives.)

[Zinfandel]

86. KICK!

:kick:

Q you need to be heard.

[Piperay]

87. If Kerry doesn't win...

it will probably be the last time any of us vote, I really believe the chimp regime is working to take that away from us next. :mad:

[DeepModem Mom]

94. Agreed -- 2004 may be the last time you vote, period....

Then the choice would be living with fascism, or leaving, if it's not too late for those of us who've been posting opposition to this government on this board. Call me a scare-monger if you like -- I believe fear of this regime's contempt for our democratic system is based in reality.

[liberalpress]

109. You know what me me sick?

...peopel who claim they're leaving the Democratic Party unless...

Deep, here's what you and I and all other Democrats ought to do. Forget 'em!. Count it up as a vote for Bush, then go out and do our best to replace that vote with a worried independent or an angry Reopublican.

We should stop wasting our time with these "sunshine patriots."

[Woodstock]

117. Agree, I don't know why I wasted the time responding

to yet another star turn "I'm leaving" unless the party kisses up to me thread.

A party is only as good as the people in it. The Democratic party isn't THEM, it's US, and we have the power to change it from within - provided we don't QUIT. Quitting will just get us 4 more years of Bush and then 8 years of Cheney and lots more death and destruction and erosion of our Constitution. I'm not a quitter - especially when all that is at stake.

[Guava Jelly]

91. removing your Vote from the democrats

Adds one to the republicans.
Great job your Helping Bush and his brown shirt nazi clan
You think the dems are moving to far right let them loose to bush this time.
If the majority of americans want a right leaning party then thats what the dems will do move right so they can win elections.
I think us as Dems are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Either vote Democratic or stay home..Bush will benifit by any other vote you cast.
so what are ya gonna do??.

[mikehiggins]

93. If I were you I would look to the Dean and/or Clark camps

to generate changes in the Democratic party, not the people now in power.

Not Dean or Clark, actually, but to the grassroots, populist initiatives they helped get started. Dean is still too much of an old style politician to be counted on, and my instincts tell me that Clark (as much as I admire him) is going to prove to have waaaayyyy too many blindspots about the current system to really shoot for widespread reform.

The people who came together to make these men viable candidates, however, were not likely to make common cause without such "sparkplugs" and every effort possible should be made to keep those movements going. The hardest part, of course, will be to prevent egos from running rampant, and to keep the regular pols from coopting them.

We'll see if that can be done or not. I'm hoping yes but I hoped that Clark would be our nominee in the first place so what do I know?

[Q]

95. If Bush* 'wins' in November...

...it will give the Bushies a 'mandate' for their 'doctrine' of preemptive wars, empire building and the complete destruction of all social programs and the end of the 'new deal'.

- We're all together on this one. Hell...even the Greens are with us in the effort to oust Bush* from our White House. But those of us who have been hanging on by a thread want to see some REAL changes before we'll vote Democratic after that.

- As I posted above...none of the more 'liberal' candidates ever had a chance. The new philosophy of the Party is to move to the 'center' while adopting the politics of false compromise that offer nothing in return.

- We compromised on war, abortion, social programs, workers and civil rights, separation of church and state...but are left with nothing on the table for our political base. GOPers walk away with everything.

[candy331]

98. I find your post very stimulating and enlightening

but call me nuts, conspiracy wacko or whatever, however I see the end of the USA as we know it and truly believe no one can turn it around.. I believe the next world power is looming on the horizon.(could very well be China, but not known at this point) This country is totally corrupted, the dollar is on the decline and will continue to fall, no jobs for a large proportion of it's citizens, health care costs out of control and nonexistent for millions, the so called greatest power on the earth and yet some 38 million/almost one eighth live in poverty and steadily rising yet billions and billions are spent on the military war machines, complicit overthrow of Democratic elected gov'ts (Haiti, Venezuela) are just a few reasons to conclude that this country is just bidding time. The most militarized nations in the world have fell from inside deterioration documented in history annals)and I say no one can stop this world powers rapid demise but only can prolong for a short while the evidentially. The "handwriting is on the wall" but most would prefer to put on blindfolds to keep from seeing it.

[SuffragetteSal]

99. Indeed perhaps a woman

with balls is what we need next.

[Donkeyboy75]

100. I think a lot of people share your sentiment

A coworker of mine, who hates Bush but is a pretty moderate Democrat told me "I'm voting Nader in this election." He did go on to say that if he lived in a swing state instead of Illinois, he'd vote Kerry. I've heard this pattern of thinking echoed more and more lately.

No longer is Nader the candidate of "extreme left-wing hippies." More mainstream, middle of the road Dems are getting fed up with their leadership, and they'd better do something about it. It's a shame they have to go for an egotist like Nader...

[ldoolin]

101. Q, I've posted similar...

...thoughts of frustration over the state of the Democratic Party and gotten flamed for it. You have my sympathies and support for expressing this opinion, and so do the many others who seem to agree here.

But I'm not going anywhere. I already took my leave of absence from the Democratic Party, out of frustration during the Clinton years and the surprisingly conservative direction his administration went. He did great things for the first month or so (Motor Voter, removing the abortion gag rule) and then *poof* - and I switched my registration to No Party Preference for a decade, finally switching back to Democratic last year. It was enthusiasm over the Kucinich and especially the Dean campaigns that brought me back. I'm not going anywhere this time...

We have a window of opportunity right now to start building on the grassroots movements that grew out of the Dean, Clark, Kucinich, and even the Edwards campaigns, and start taking back the party from the grassroots level on up. Get involved in your local Democratic Party chapter. Form groups with like-minded people. Volunteer and work for progressive Wellstone/Feingold type candidates at the local, state, and U.S. Congress levels. Give your donations directly to reform-minded candidates and PACs rather than to the DNC and other "official" Democratic Party establishment bodies. I will be doing all of the above.

I think it is clear that a top-down reform of the Democratic Party this year was premature although I do have to admit I was very excited by the prospects at first. What we need is to start building from the ground level up - and then we will have the Democratic Party in place that we can all be proud to once again support, that will not be able next time around to stop a genuine grassroots candidate. The Meetups and other movements that emerged during this primary season are a good place to start and to build on. The New Right and Neocons did this after the '64 Goldwater campaign, quietly building on the coalitions that emerged during that campaign until they had control over the Republican Party by 1980, and we can and should do the same with the Democratic Party. I'm not giving up hope this early in the game. The way I see it, we are right now where the New Right was in 1964.

[Q]

102. But the very candidates you mentioned...

...never got anywhere NEAR the White House. Grass roots support means nothing without the support of the Party. A very small group of powerful Democrats handle the money and decide who will be the nominee by 'pushing' the characterization of the candidates in a certain direction. There were probably just as many (DLC) Democrats calling Dean a screamer as there were GOPers.

- If a Democrat wins and goes forward with even some of the harmful Bush* policies...like the 'war' in Iraq and corporate welfare...the progressive agenda will move backward instead of making progress.

[ldoolin]

103. True, but

What I'm suggesting is we have to take back the party by building from the ground up, starting at the precinct level. The DLC types control the party right now and can keep any reformers from getting nominated, but that can change if they are no longer the ones running the party.

As for the second point, I'll give Kerry my vote but starting day 1 of the new administration I'll be ready to get out in the street and protest if he continues *any* of Bush's policies. We need to hold his feet to the fire and make sure he doesn't ignore the liberal base. Too many liberals made that mistake with Clinton, and gave him a free pass on things like welfare "reform" and NAFTA when we shouldn't have.

[Q]

105. Not to be too critical...

...but we've been 'building from the ground up' for 200 years now. You'd think we would have gotten there by now.

- And yes...some Democrats gave Clinton a pass...but it was those same Democrats who now control the party under the auspices of the DLC. They hate the New Deal Democrats and anyone that looks or sounds liberal. They actually WANT many of the same things the Republicans want...using the New Democratic party as a vehicle to accomplish it.

- You can't simply get rid of the DLCers. They have the money, power and contol. They play the traditional Democratic voters like a cheap fiddle while pandering to special interests and writing laws that undermine democracy and representive government.

- I sincerely believe that the ONLY way to change the Democratic party is to stop automatically voting for them (after 2004). They'll begin to respond to the base when they realize they have to earn votes by representing the people and upholding the law.

[MSchreader]

104. Q, you know my view on all this

So I won't bother to repeat it here.

Suffice to say, the changes you and I both want to see -- even though your goals are much more modest than mine -- will not be made at the ballot box any more. We lost that option in 2000, when both parties united to preserve their power at the expense of democracy. Our battle is now in the streets -- in Boston in mid-July, and in New York in late-August.

We didn't ask for it to be there, but it is there. Democracy can only be regained by once again taking to the streets and making what we saw at the end of the 1960s pale in comparison.

FOR A MAY '68 THAT GOES ALL THE WAY!

Martin

[Q]

107. Yes...we indeed lost the option of free elections...

...in 2000. Yet...we've held on for over three years hoping for a rebirth of a strong Democratic party. We waited and watched...only to see the Bush* administration grow ever more bold and arrogant in the absence of checks and balances or any meaningful opposition.

- Now that you mention it...only a few Democrats joined the millions who marched and protested against the Iraq shock and awe invasion. Bush* called them a 'focus group'. Democrats didn't say anything at all.

[Speed8098]

106. So What

What, you think the Democratic party will sink if you aren't part of it?

I'm sick of people coming here and whining about our party. If you don't like what is happening, do something to change it.

Your constant complaining is becoming tiresome.

This is an important election, vote D and THEN try to make changes, but let's complete our task and get * out of our White House.

[Q]

110. Do you think I care if you're tired of my 'complaining'?

- Glad you stopped by though...another one of the posters who come to...uh...complain but not to participate.

- Here's a clue: the Democratic party has already 'sunk'. I'd hate to see what you would call 'success'.

- You're simply wrong if you think I'm alone in the way I feel about this. Take a look at this thread for an example. The ONLY reason there isn't droves of Dems abandoning ship is that everyone agrees that Bush* must go.

- There will be no 'changes' without new leadership and direction. It's like telling a Republican to make changes in a party under the complete control of neocon extremists. They wouldn't get very far until THEY challenged and changed the leadership.

- And hey...it's MY party too. I'll complain any damn time I feel like it. I've earned that much for giving them my vote for 30 years.

[sangha]

111. Do you think we care if you leave the party?

If you think the party has already sunk, then leave. We don't need your defeatist rant about how only the Dems can save us

[Q]

115. Of course YOU don't care...

...because you're part of the problem and among those Dems who are happy with things just the way they are. If I were to 'label' you...I'd have to call you either a conservative or a DLC-type Dem. The DLC has been trying to remake the party in THEIR image for quite some time now. They're disgusted that a few liberals remain in the party and are vocal about the blatant sellout. I see you're joining them in driving the rest of us away.

- I'll 'rant' whether you 'need' it or not. Since when are you the arbiter of free speech? Of course you don't like my message because it offers hope instead of the status quo.

[Woodstock]

118. So tell us about all your hard work toward these changes?

Please outline all the work you have done to make these changes you want. Not voting once a year and checks sent now and then, but good, hard work to change things.

The Democratic party is self-service. Sorry, there are no silver platters with caviar delivered to your room in this one. You've got to go to the kitchen and start cooking if you want something to eat in this party. Maybe you have us confused with that other party.