The Stepford Democrats

[Q]

- I used to be a Stepford Democrat...but I changed. The change came about when I realized I was being asked to buy into a lie for the 'greater good' of the Democratic party. There was a time when being a stepford Dem was acceptable because you could count on all the candidates promoting and supporting Democratic principles. This is no longer the case...as right-leaning candidates sneak into the process under the auspices of the DLC and similar groups.

- Some well-known Democrats are asking us to 'unite' behind one candidate...no matter which candidate that may be or regardless of their position on the issues. I have to say that this is exactly the type of group-think that gave us George Walker Bush*.

- We're called 'purists', 'extremists', 'far left' and worse. We're called these names...not by our political enemies...but by fellow Democrats. There is a purge going on within the party not unlike that the Republican party experienced in the 80s and 90s. Just as the true conservatives were shunned and then purged from the GOP...certain elements within the Democratic party want to purge anyone that labels themselves a liberal or social Democrat.

- Meanwhile...the Neocons are slaughtering us at the polls. Not because Democrats can't get the votes...but because we've been counseled by the Democratic Right Wingers to 'move on' and 'get over' the many attacks against our party, government and Constitution...and the 'promise' of free and fair elections.

- You can vote Democratic without being a Stepford Democrat. Don't vote for candidates that call themselves Democrats while clearly supporting what are obvious right wing positions. There's nothing wrong with being a traditional Democrat who believes in the 'greater good' of the people and puts them before the needs of the party or the corporate state.

- I realize upfront that this thread won't appeal to the majority of DUers who have signed on to the 'anyone but Bush*', blind faith mantra of the New Democrats. But I tell you now...this is a formula for failure and a maintenance of the status quo. Want the Democratic party to thrive instead of simply survive? Then reject the Stepford Democrats who believe they can put justice on hold and give the Bushies a free ride until the next election...and the next.

- How can you tell if you're a Stepford Democrat? You're one if you believe that winning is more important than justice.

- I won't expect many responses to this thread...because on DU I'm a Stranger in a Strange Land. A land where Pitt's 'fuck you' threads get hundreds of responses and traditional Democrats are called 'purists'. But that's okay...at least read my rant and think about why some of us refuse to join the Stepford ranks.

[Woodstock]

1. Your points are good, but we can't afford another 4 years of Bush

Nothing you say addresses that bare, cold, hard reality.

Bush must be removed from power.

You can't do that by staying home or voting for someone who will get 5% of the votes.

And I steer clear of the vanity threads you mentioned.

[Q]

3. I wonder if you really understand just how Bush* attained so much power?

- The Supreme Court gave him the power...and the right wing elements within OUR party made stolen elections and government corruption acceptable.

- Bush* has no POWER without the Democratic party's appeasement and enabling of his crooked administration and harmful policies.

- I'm shocked at the number of democrats who seem to think that everything will be okay if we can only get Bush* out of the WH. But the problem remains: our entire system of government has been compromised and corrupted.

- And it's time we admit (at least to ourselves) that more than a few Dems are in on the 'take'.

[Woodstock]

6. I don't think "everything will be OK" but this is a serious crisis

Bush could literally cause WWIII.

I think Dean will make a good president, so I'm doing what I can to see him be the one that goes up against Bush.

And I think we can work toward change during a Dean presidency (and his presidency will give the planet a chance to recover from Bush.)

[GreenArrow]

29. equally likely to happen...

Bush loses. A Dem gets in, and because there is no change in the fundamental way things are done (only on the superficial level), WW III comes along with a Dem at the helm. This country cannot continue as it is going. Simply electing a "Democrat" is not going to change anything at any deep, foundational level.

[Woodstock]

32. No, I would not put that as "equally likely"

And I do not think the only way to change things fundamentally is to have Bush for another 4 years.

[GreenArrow]

39. time will tell

the same people run the country regardless of which political party "sets the tone."

[pansypoo53219]

41. more likely

he will drag us down like the USSR, trying to stay affloat. we will be WALLOWING in the greatest debt ever created.

[Andromeda]

64. Democrats have been

leaderless, basically, since Clinton left office They have been drifting in a sea of confusion since Bush was installed by the SCOTUS. After the 2000 election Democrats have been suffering from post-tramatic election syndrome.

The people have been madder than hell, but the leaders have been slow to act and when they did speak out the media were loathe to report anything negative about the "king" for fear of reprisals from the administration.

Bad things have happened to people who stood up to President Junior.

Somebody tried to kill Tom Daschle with anthrax. Many did die from it. Mel Carnahan's wife took his place after he lost his life in a small place crash just two weeks before the election. Wellstone died in a small chartered plane about three weeks before the 2002 election. Maybe you don't believe in conspiracies but you have to admit that it's a hellava coincidence.

At the very least, it should make you think.

Republicans have systematically shredded all decency and fairness in their quest to win at all costs and Democrats are typically just too nice for their own good.

We are just recently beginning to fight back and there have been some positive changes in the media reporting. It's not all pro-Bush lately and they are starting to ask questions about the war, the economy and the job situation in America.

The Democrats are starting to get their groove now, probably because campaign season is winding up. Keep an open mind and listen to the candidates. It's been pretty interesting lately and after it's all over I think we will have a Democrat for president.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. Your right, but so could Joseph Lieberman

You aren't voting for him in the primaries, so you aren't the problem but I worry about open primary states. where people who will vote for Bush in the general election, anyway, could give Liebermen some momentum, which will alienate people like Q. The republicans who get Lieberman nominated will vote for Bush anyway, and the real democrats will not vote or will vote green.

[Clete]

2. Yeah,

I was beginning to think you were a disruptor while I was reading the thread and had to go back to double check that it was you who wrote this. We can't afford another four years of Bush. I don't know if we can even afford to keep him to the end of his term. The thing is we can choose whom we want in the primaries, but if it turns out it's Holy Joe, then Holy Joe it will be, because he will never be as bad as Bush.

BUSH MUST GO!

[Q]

4. Answer this question:

- If the Democratic party is in agreement that 'Bush* must go'...then why don't they investigate and prosecute him for his administration's numerous crimes and misdeeds?

- Too many Democrats protecting their corporate donors and their own asses?

- We didn't give Nixon the option of being voted out in the next election...he was FORCED to resign or be impeached.

[Clete]

8. The Democratic voters are in agreement.

You are asking why our elected Representatives aren't doing it and I wonder why they aren't trying to get something rolling. I already have my list of those reps who won't be getting my vote in the next primaries for the Senate and other offices, but if they are the candidate left standing, then I will have to vote for them because I won't vote for a Republican or waste my vote on a third party candidate. It is still important to have a majority in office even if you don't like the individual.

As for getting rid of Bush before the election, it will have to be his own that dump him and you never know they might. It was the Republicans who got rid of Nixon and forced him to resign. We don't have a majority anymore, remember.

[never cry wolf]

18. Nixon was dealin with a dem congress

I have heard many dems call for investigations and impeachment but they control NOTHING, don't chair one committee, don't have any woodward or bernstein, don't have the SCOTUS, nothing. didn't graham use the I word, didn't durbin call for a full investigation of the wilson affair??

i can see your points here and God knows how i would love investigations and impeachment and if whistle ass continues to drop in the polls and enough of his own party get scared for their political lives, maybe something will happen, but that is the only way, if shrub's own party turns on him.

but i maintain that if that does not happen, 4 more years of the same treason will collapse this nation. at least with ABB, and maybe control of one of the houses on the coattails, we can at least start to rebuild the country and tear down the corruption.

[KoKo]

5. Just here to give support Q.! I'm no Stepford.....

and .....I'm just about at the point you are.....but I think we have a couple of candidates we can support. And, everytime the DLC puts out one of their "memo's" to the "faithful" those two candidates get more contributions.

I think those of us who felt we weren't DLC have left or are "lurkers" or have gone our own ways finding other outlets for our feelings.

Some need to stay here and keep at it......

One shot posts with emotion.....and one shot answers are about all some can do....and some are just tired....worn down....and don't know what to say about it all anymore.

But, I'm sure your posts get read.......by those who just can't talk about it anymore.

:-)'s

[Q]

15. Whew. Thanks for responding...

- Many of the people who respond to my threads do so by sending messages to my inbox. They admit that they're 'afraid' to express their true opinions about the Dem party on DU for fear of being labeled 'purists' or 'extremists'. And frankly...they're just tired of being screamed at by the faithful Stepford Dems.

- I don't have a problem with any of the candidates persay...it's that the Democratic party has staked EVERYTHING on the 2004 election without caring about or considering the ramifications of allowing a corrupt government to exist without investigation or punishment.

- And since when do we vote corrupt politcians out of office instead of indicting them and seeking justice in the name of the people?

[leftofthedial]

7. ABB, not for the good of the Democratic Party,

but for the good of the country.

[JVS]

9. Great post

I've always called them doormat democrats.

[MuseRider]

10. Hey, I don't want to argue

with you. I am a left lefty but I did not see Pitt's thread in the same light you apparently did. Nobody wants to compromise. It is really not in our nature and not in the nature of our party. I HATE to be told what to do or what to think so I don't participate in those kinds of threads. At this point in history I am willing to go along with anyone who is better than Bush*. I don't care what you or anyone else does but if he is not gone or stopped with a congress full of democrats we will not get another chance. If you do not believe that, fine. If you do you may have to vote for someone THIS TIME who is less bad than Bush*. You have every right to be resentful of this, you have every right to your opinions. I like to read your threads, I don't always agree in fact I don't know how often I have or not but the fact remains that this imposter in our White House will never leave if we don't kick his ass out and I am willing to do just about anything to see that happen. Once he is gone there will be time to refine and vote for someone with your intentions and who fits you perfectly but IMO I don't think there will ever be another chance if we don't get Bush* out now. There is nothing at all wrong with being a purist, nothing. I also tend to think there are a great many of us here who are far left. I think if you do not feel that way it may be because many of us have already given in to the Anybody But Bush. I will hold on to my wishes for DK but after the primary I will be there for whoever it is with my whole heart. He/she better do a good job or there will be hell to pay from those of us who do not care for them. We will have earned the opportunity once again to bitch and moan and be a pure as we want. Justice is hugely important but we certainly won't get it with Bush*. Just my opinion.

[pasadenaboy]

11. You probably don't get responses

because you write as a monologue.

If you want responses, you have to right in a dialogue.

[Catherine Vincent]

12. You can call me whatever you want.

Bush* has got to go!

[David Zephyr]

13. Stepford Democrats = Corporate Democrats

That's the stinging reality, Q. I agree with a lot of what you say, but the comment about Pitt was a bit uncalled for and beneath you.

Once you attacked me pretty harshly, too -- albeit a long time ago -- for not going along with the Party line for unity's sake especially during those days after 9/11. You were very loyal to the Democratic Party then as you acknowledge, although I wouldn't call you Stepford.

I took a lot of shit back then for questioning not only Bush, but our Party (except for a few brave individuals, one of whom is now dead and who I miss greatly...Wellstone) for going along with Bush supporting the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the indiscriminate bombing campaign of Afganistan...long before the War in Iraq. I never took the flames and attacks that IndianaGreen unfairly took, but had my fair share. She's one of the reasons I've hung around...if there's room for her then there's room for me...and if anyone looks back, she's almost always been right.

I have always felt that the DemocraticUnderground was a safe harbour for a lot of life long Democrats like me who want to see the Party always progressing, doing better which inevitably always runs against the Corporate grip on the Party. Organizations like the DLC are a cancer on what is supposed to be the People's Party. The disastrous 2002 mid-term election results prove that being Republican Lite is no response to the needs of our nation and is no strategy for getting the masses off their asses and to the polls to vote.

I want to tell you that I agree with the spirit of your statement, "How can you tell if you're a Stepford Democrat? You're one if you believe that winning is more important than justice." That, my friend, is really the truth. To be frank, when any of us care more about a "politician" who has made a career "serving" the people than we do about the vital issues that confront us, we are on the wrong track.

I have a dear friend whose health is failing. He told me last month that this election he wants to be able to vote for someone who will at least speak the truth whether it's pragmatic to do so or not.

You are a great fighter and have a lot of passion. Keep fighting.

[Q]

17. As to my comment about Pitt...

...my animosity towards him is no secret. I have my reasons...but it's based mostly on his arrogance and his anti-Gore threads after the 2000 selection. I mentioned Pitt as an example of the 'me too' mentality that has overtaken reason and common sense in the Dem party.

- There's no question that we must get rid of Bush*. That's not even the issue. But...what good does it do to win the next election if we lose our democratic soul?

- I'm indeed sorry to hear about your friend. That he wants to vote for the truth instead of political expediency says much about the quality of his character.

"Once you attacked me pretty harshly, too -- albeit a long time ago -- for not going along with the Party line for unity's sake especially during those days after 9/11. You were very loyal to the Democratic Party then as you acknowledge, although I wouldn't call you Stepford."

- Yes...I used to be a Stepford. It took almost three years of the Democrats giving Bush* a free ride before I woke up and realized that 'certain' Dems were turning their heads to blatant and widespread government corruption and malfeasance. I'm still 'loyal' to the Democratic party...just not the New Democratic Party.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. I feel your pain.

[liberalmuse]

16. I don't agree...

It's called, 'compromising for the greater good'. I'm all for individuality, but not when you believe in sacrificing the collective to your own personal 'virtue'. I don't think it's noble, and I have little respect for people who get some kind of sick self-gratification by voting for the Santa Claus candidate. 'Look at me, I voted my conscience, even though the person I voted for didn't have a chance in hell of winning. That makes me better than you'. No it doesn't. It makes you a heartless, self-righteous, self-centered prick, especially now, after seeing all the harm the Bush administration has done--killing innocent people, polluting, trampling on the poor, etc. You'd rather put someone like Bush back in office than compromise your oh-so-lofty-ideals. Wow!

I'm certainly not a 'bot, and I wouldn't put that label on my fellow DUer's, either. I'm a realist, regarding most things. I love my country too much to throw away what we can realistically accomplish if we are willing to give and take.

On edit: I really should have read this post a couple of times. I took it the wrong way. My response doesn't apply to anyone here, so basically, just disregard it.

[Q]

19. Ethics and good government should be everyone's 'virtue'...

...this is something I didn't just invent out of thin air. Right now we have the most corrupt government in US history...and a majority of the Dems have relinquished their responsibilities and duties to the people and their Constitution.

- The Dems aren't powerless to stop Bush*. They just refuse to do it.

- There are a few candidates that step up the podium and speak truth to power. But they're being systematically smeared by the right wingers within the party. They will not allow these truthtellers to make it past the primaries.

[MuseRider]

20. You are right

and it is disheartening. Wouldn't it be easier to deal with them from within the party when we actually have some power? I can't stand the DLC, I hate what they have done. I am actually very much of the same opinion as you but still feel with have to do this thing first. It shouldn't be this way and hopefully it never will get this bad again. I guess I am just trying to understand. I don't see why you don't seem to understand and I don't understand why I don't get what you don't get. Get it?

[Q]

21. The Democratic party has been out of power since at least 94...

...and the Neocons made it impossible for Clinton (and then Gore) to govern or take office. Simply electing a Dem will NOT change what's going on in our government as long as the Neocons are in control of the 'shadow government'.

- Bush* isn't just a bad 'president'...he and his administration have committed crimes against the state and people. Do you really think the 'system' that made Bush* possible will disappear with a Dem in the WH? Hell, no...they will continue to make it impossible for a Democrat to govern.

- The Bushies must be prosecuted...not simply voted out of office. And it's up to the loyal opposition to make sure that happens.

[leftofthedial]

23. what "shadow government"?

it wasn't a "shadow government" that persecuted Clinton.

Bush/PNAC are not just bad--they're criminal.

But the ONLY way to vote them out of office is to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate.

The only way to prosecute them is to get them out of office.

[JVS]

28. The only way to prosecute them is to nominate a dem who will prosecute

Then we come together and vote for that Democrat.

[MuseRider]

26. Exactly!

So what is the disagreement here? Is it just because of the interpretation of the "we" and the suspicion that we are being asked to follow? I could not agree with you more except on this one point. We must get the Dems in NO Matter What so that we can prosecute and end this. Even the most DINO candidate might be better. The Repubs might take a short break and we can push from inside the party. It has to be easier that way than trying to fix Bush* from the outside. I, for one, will not be happy to see them out of office unless they go out in orange jumpsuits and shackles.

[doreme]

27. if we all used this criteria

for deciding who to vote for we all would have voted for reagan
over mondale and bush sr. over dukakis. neither one of those
democrats had a snowballs chance to win their respective races.

[leftofthedial]

34. I don't think you understand

No one is saying vote for the winner.

The reality is the only alternative to Bush with ANY chance at all to win will be the Democratic candidate, NO MATTER who that is.

It's a two-horse race. All that any other candidate can do is divide the constituency of one of the two horses with a chance to win.

[doreme]

44. i think perhaps it is you

who doesn't understand. the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[leftofthedial]

58. Every man is a sinner

No one is pure

Everything is a shade of gray and there are differences. IMPORTANT differences.

Peace.

[RichM]

22. I generally agree with what you're saying, Q.

I might formulate it somewhat differently, but basically, I also see & feel all the things you're describing here.

[Q]

25. You would most likely 'formulate it' much better than I...

...but this was a quickie rant in response to what appears to be the widespread denial within the Democratic party.

- Do we want good government that serves the people instead of the corporations? The next election (if it's not rigged) will determine the future of the Democratic party. I submit that the quality of the candidate and serving justice is more important than 'winning' or replacing Bush* with a neocon clone.

[Pastiche423]

24. The night of the long knives

was the 1st time I realized how different I was. You must vote Dem, no matter what they stood for or how they voted! :wtf:

It really shook me. I left DU for about a month, feeling I no longer belonged here and it took me awhile after I returned before I began posting again.

For over thirty years I have voted for the person I thought best for the job. My vote was and is sacred to me. ABB does not make sense to me. IMHO, ditto voting is for repugs.

I do not understand how voting ABB is the best for our country. How can that be, if one votes for a letter? How can that be if that means, once again, voting for the lesser of two evils?

If I get called a purist, an extremist, far left or worse, so be it. I plan to stay true to myself.


ABC!
lol

[Q]

31. Stay true to yourself and Democratic principles...

- What some Dems have to offer has nothing to do with Democracy or the future of the party. They offer the same thing Bush* has to offer...but in a nicer package.

- The Right Wing of the Democratic party is for deregulation, corporate handouts and privatization of government services. One might as well vote for Bush* if this is the best the party has to offer.

[Clete]

40. Yes, the right wing of the DEMS are all those things and that's

why we need a majority to send them back into the obscurity of a corner of the party where they belong. I have always respected your posts and the thought and research you put into them, but I can't agree with you on this one.

[Clete]

33. Read about how Hitler or Stalin or any number of tin horn "leaders"

got into power and then you will see. If you do not have a united majority, and everyone is split up into factions with miniscule differences fighting amongst themselves, it sets up the stage for corrupt opportunists to gain legitimacy by grabbing power. Oh, excuse me, isn't this what happened in 2000 and 2002? You know what the next step is? No elections and appointed dictators for life.

[JVS]

48. So which is more divisive?

Saying "I stand by my principles"
or "Fuck your principles"
I'd say the latter is more divisive

[Clete]

53. Did I say anything about not having principles?

I would say that two-thirds of those of us who consider ourselves to be to the left in our politics, have the same principles. If we are united behind the candidate we want, we can't lose. I personally find all of the candidates that are running this time okay, except one. This is actually the first election in my life that I will be fine with whoever runs in our camp. We know Joe L. won't make it so it won't be a hard choice.

[JVS]

55. Sorry I'm still smarting from the other thread

Yelling at people that their principles are getting in the way isn't compromise. Compromise would be attempting to get the candidates who offend the least number of people. I think this ABB stuff is putting the cart before the horse. First we need a candidate that most of us can unite behind and then we need to unite. Having us unite ahead of time is just an invitation for the worst candidates to try even harder because the commitment to vote Democratic will let them know that even someone as bad as themselves could win the general with people following this line of thinking.

[Clete]

56. I give up.

You want another four years of Bush have at it because that's what you will get.

[sendero]

30. if you are hemoraging...

... the first step is to stop the bleeding.

You can get all righteous later, but if you die, it's pretty much moot.

Sorry, can't buy your premise, even a little bit.

[Woodstock]

36. It's truly as simple as that!

Q seems frustrated that we don't see his point.

But that he doesn't get this one is the surprise.

[Q]

49. There are many things that I 'don't get'...

...but I do understand the basic principles of Democracy. And I do understand that Democracy and free and fair elections are a thing of the past in America.

- It took me a much longer time to understand that (some) Dems are part of the problem instead of the solution.

- Reality is a bitch sometimes....

[Q]

38. I asked you to consider the premise...not 'buy' it....

...and you offer nothing to counter my argument.

- The Democratic party is being divided by the New Democrats and brainwashed into believing that we must win by any means...even if it means voting against our own interests.

- I'm not 'righteous' or a 'purist'. But I believe in Democracy, truth and justice...something sorely lacking in the New Democratic Party. Thanks...but I'll stick with the 'old' party of liberals and social democrats.

[Cocoa]

35. it's too broad and ethereal

if you could tie it in to something down here on earth, it might help.

I'm curious about the "neocons slaughtering us in the polls." :wtf:

[Q]

46. I'll attach down to earth specifics...

...if this thread is still alive tomorrow. I've got a million of em.

- And...isn't it quite obvious that we're in the minority...not only in DC...but in many states. Once again...it's not because we can't get the votes...but because of the criminal enterprise that has usurped our Democracy and corrupted our free press.

[Capn Sunshine]

37. Resistance is futile

come.....join us.....happy feelings all the time
don't worry , it feels good............
"ABB, baby!"

[Q]

42. Yeah...I suppose you're right...

...it's lonely out here in the land of Old Democrats. I guess we're extinct...we just haven't realized it yet.

[Cocoa]

47. your preferred candidate is Al Gore

none of the candidates fits your needs, so you have called for the drafting of Al Gore.

"Old Democrat" lol!

[Q]

51. Indeed...there are 'old' and 'new' Democrats...

...or haven't you noticed?

- My preference is Gore because he won the last election but was cheated out of taking office. But I accept the fact that he doesn't want to run...and who can blame him considering how disloyal the party has been?

[Cocoa]

54. so you're an "Old Democrat for Gore?"

I agree that's a vanishing breed, just like the "Blue dog dems for Wellstone."

[MuseRider]

50. No you are not

and it would a a horror if you ever were! We need everyone and even if you don't buy in to ABB you are still of the party. I know that once Bush is gone I am coming right back but then again, will I be anymore welcome there than you feel here?

[lcordero]

43. I don't know about you but

as far as I am concerned, I never trusted shrub* and I never saw how I should ever give him the benefit of the doubt. As I understand it, a person automatically becomes my enemy the moment they cheat me and the DLC has cheated me.

I feel that I might have to sacrifice to the point of risking life, limb and a lot of suffering in the near and far future in order to get what I want. I will not vote for any DLC Demopublicans. I will be voting against both my Senators(Schumer and Clinton) so that in another 8+ years I might have sombody representing me that is worth something. I will get represented the way that I want and I will not compromise, that is final.

[pansypoo53219]

45. this is why Dean has the MOJO

he ain't playin the party's rules. he ain't bowing down. its a brawl baby and he has bare knuckles.

[Stuckinthebush]

69. I'd agree with you

but also interject that Dean hasn't gone too far left as well. So, he has given the finger to the rightward element in the party but has maintained a center-left stance with which to appeal to swing voters.

[Doomsayer13]

52. Tell me

who among the Democratic candidates would you support for President?

[Northwind]

57. I feel your pain, Q

At least in the aforementioned "fuck you" thread from Pitt, your responses were left there. Mine were deleted, almost certainly after a petulant Pitt or one of his groupies alerted. Apparently you cannot be the first person in any thread to call Pitt on being a pretentious fraud. I was glad to see I had lots of backup though.

[Q]

59. I have to get some sleep...

...would love to respond later.

- Thanks to everyone for their sincere responses.

[messiah]

60. I agree mostly..

Democrats should be attacking the president with all of their spirit. A bad strategy has been put in place and the punk ass democrats will follow it into hell.:silly::silly::silly:

[leftofthedial]

61. Q, I think at the heart of this, we agree

I think we probably disagree about the word "Stepford," and the notion that any member of the Democratic Party is a neocon in sheep's clothing.

I know we disagree about this statement:

"- How can you tell if you're a Stepford Democrat? You're one if you believe that winning is more important than justice."

I don't know any of the ABB crowd who want to win for the sake of winning. It's not a football game. The nation and the world are in danger from this criminal crowd. Getting Bush/PNAC out of office is a first step and a small measure of justice. We all must work to ensure that true justice is done for Bushco's crimes and that social justice once again prevails in America. But we'll never do that while they are in power.

How can we constructively channel your passion and that of others who are disaffected by the centrism in our party into meaningful reform of the party or, failing that, of the progressive movement in America?

[Q]

62. Quick note: the 'justice' I was referring to...

...is prosecuting the Bush* admin. for their very real crimes. I can't believe in any politician that would put justice on hold until after the next campaign contribution or election.

- How much of ourselves...our values and principles are we willing to give up in order to 'win'? Is it ethical to ignore disenfranchised Black Voters in Florida and election fraud until Democrats get a majority?

- The Dem party (in general) has fallen for the RWing sponsored propaganda that they don't have the power or the 'right' to interfere with the Bush* WH. But indeed it's their duty and responsibility under the authority of the Constitution to provide oversight...and the checks and balances that we've heard so much about.

- The problem appears to be that high profile Dems don't want to oppose the so-called 'president' on any issue of import for fear of becoming a target of the RWing press or losing the corporate donations that keep them in office for decades.

- In sum...I've vote for the candidate who understands that he's a PUBLIC SERVANT...and not just a placeholder for the Democratic party.

[leftofthedial]

63. on "losing the corporate donations"

I think one of the first jobs in fixing this would be public financing of campaigns, with no private contributions allowed.

We have to get money out of politics, or this problem will perpetuate.

[indigo32]

73. I have but one question

because I really do understand where you are coming from.

How are the Dems supposed to prosecute the Repub administration when the Repukes have control of the House and Senate. It's just reality that it's not gonna happen, as much as I'd like to.

I was listening to a local call in show about the debates today.... they were talking about how the Dems are still having a fight that the Repukes have finished. In their party the conservatives won. What will happen in ours? Well that depends on US. I'm gonna be at my caucus. I'm gonna continue to fight within the party.

But as far as the presidential election goes... I really feel I owe it to everyone in the entire world... to vote in a mannor that is the best way I know to go about removing the Shrub, even if I have issues with the party and the candidate. Note I used the word I. You'll do what you need to do.

[opihimoimoi]

65. Yup, you iz right man.

I iz in yo corner

Come, we find mochi ice cream, onolicious

[Q]

66. Good morning campers!

- I believe many of the 'older' Democrats (I'm 49) have a better prespective of what the party should and could be. Those in their twenties and thirties...while certainly not naive...probably don't understand what it took to build the Democratic party that we once had. Vietnam. Watergate. Civil Rights. Human Rights. Women's Rights. Choice. Iran/Contra. All of these things over time made the Dem party what it was...a party the 'little people' could look to for help.

- Did you know that the Democratic party is the oldest political party in the US? Have you ever read about Jefferson and Jackson and their great expectations for a party to counter the Federalists? Of course the party has changed over the last 200 years...but it can still be the counter-weight to the corporatists and the wealthy few the Founders warned us would one day try to rule this country outside of the Constitution.

- The one thing the US doesn't need is another party that bows to corporate interests and sells legislation and trades favors to the benefit of the few instead of the many. But that's exactly what the Democratic party is becoming at a very quick pace. We're being sold out by the RWingers and more than a few Dems that have joined them in silencing dissent while robbing the treasury and raping our resources.

- George Bush* was installed into office by operatives of the Republican party and certain Dems that agreed to go along with the scam as long as they got a seat at the table or were left off the RWing media target list. Let's make sure these enablers don't get a seat at the Democratic table.

[Cocoa]

67. Studs Terkel is 88 years old

he wrote a long endorsement in The Nation endorsing Dennis Kucinich.

He's not crazy about your candidate, Al Gore, but he held his nose and voted for him in 2000, even after previously supported Nader, because he knew that the rhetoric about "there's no difference" was limited, and that Bush would be a total disaster.

Would you consider Studs Terkel to be a Stepford Democrat for "settling" for the candidates that actuall exist?

btw, my father is 82, FDR is his hero, he always votes democratic though in my lifetime he's only been enthusiastic about HHH, Jimmy Carter, Paul Simon and now Dick Gephardt.

[Stuckinthebush]

68. Your "purity" is admirable

But in this instance, I think it is myopic.

First, I don't think there is a purge of traditional Democrats in our party. I think we do have our share of DINOs, but the Democratic party is truly a big tent (to steal a GOP phrase). I know a number of Southern Yellow Dawg Democrats who balk at traditional left wing rhetoric. These Yellow Dogs are real, honest to goodness Democrats who will tell you that their mama and daddy were Democrats too. These voters are purists in their own sense of the word.

Ideological debates are healthy and good for party growth. I would agree that we need to move the country back left, but I also posit that you can't do that immediately. There is a pragmatic side to those of us who will forsake some of our Democratic pure principals in the short term to move the debate in our direction in the long term.

I responded to your response to me in Pitt's recent post on this subject, but it is probably lost in the mass of posts on that thread. I'll repeat one thing that I said there that I think is important in this debate. I believe that there is a political Hierarchy of Needs. Without meeting the most basic needs (as in Maslow's theory), one can't meet the higher order needs. Our most basic need is to gain power to control the agenda. If gaining that power is accomplished through electing a more center to center-left candidate, then so be it. Once in, the Dem base can and will keep the candidate's eye on the prize. Without the support of the base, a president can consider him or herself a one-termer.

What you are seeing in the lead up to the primaries is that the front runners are having to move left to gain support. This slight leftward movement is a result of the candidates understanding that the base is pissed. Also, the candidates see that the swing voters don't mind a leftward shift on some issues. But, if that shift is too drastic, then the swing voters will stay away. If you can't get the swing voters and the moderate Dems, then you can't win. If you don't win, you don't control the agenda, if you don't control the agenda then the things that we hold dear will continue to be destroyed.

Compromise is important at this point in American history. Rigid idealism of the left will not help us win the presidency. I care about winning because there is too much at stake to lose.

[nolabels]

70. The Stepford Democrats are lying to their selves and the rest of us

To counter act the rhetorical LIES spun * and posse the winner will need have to come with an equally pie in the sky or higher concept.

The simple fact is the rest would care for just more lies just as long it makes it all better and they won’t have to do too much, seems the M.O.

Politics for sure, and as of yet have not seen any bold camps come out demanding that key word "Justice".

Yes seems that I have been Hearing a lot of apologist describing the problems, but not a whole lot people describing what they would do about the corruption that most of us are witnessing

Please excuse the help wanted sign

[John_H]

72. I just checked with both my conscience and my sense of justice

And they both told me that they would both feel violated if I were not willing to compromise, within reason, some of their deeply held ultra pure beliefs in order to defeat the ultimate evil. My sense of justice, in particular, scoffed at the notion that voting for a candidate you agree with thirty percent of the time in order to defeat a candidate who symbolizes the worst injustices imaginable is a violation of his ideals.

Mt conscince added, "I don't know what kind of consciences those one-percenters have, but they must be those stubborn my-way-or-the-highway authoritarian consciences I I read about in "Conscience Times. You know, the kind Tom Delay and Ralph Reed have. Why don't you tell those those one-percenters who are all of a sudden telling you to check with us to help as much as they can or get out the fucking way if they can't figure out what we consciences are trying to tell them."

[ElsewheresDaughter]

74. i'm with you Q