the Democratic Party is dead.

[Postman]

If you're a liberal, the Democratic Party is not yours.

If you're a progressive, the Democratic Party is not yours.

The Democratic Party has been co-opted by the corporatists. Exhibit (A) being John Kerry's lame attempt at winning the Presidency and his tail-between-the-legs lightning-speed concession.

The Democratic Party is just fine with the position that Republicans can steal elections, suppress voters, commit acts of fraud

Bill Clinton was NO LIBERAL. Five letters...N-A-F-T-A

The best thing for Liberals and Progressives within the Democratic Party to do at this point is to find a new party.

Who needs republican lite when you can have the real thing?

[Deja Q]

1. We need a figurehead to create a new party.

I reckon Michael Moore might be that voice.

[Terry_M]

2. Oh please not him

:P

[Ardee]

13. Oh really?

and you have done more for progressive causes than has he? I dont think so......

[mzmolly]

4. We need to stay in the party and hang on tight by the proverbial balls

NOT let go. THEY can leave, I won't.

Can you imagine a more pleasing thought to Republicans "progressives leave democratic party in droves."

No thanks.

As for Clinton not being a 'true' progressive, NAFTA is ONE issue. Clinton also changed his position on issues when he was WRONG. That's a true progressive. I imagine if Clinton were in office today, he'd be making some changes to our trade agreements and we'd be living in a much different world.

I personally refuse to enable the right wing facists, directly or indirectly.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

21. there was more than one issue he sold us out on:

here are a few more:
-most-favored nation trading status for china - he promised to "stop coddling dictators", but as soon as he was in there, he extended MFn, then changed it's name to the euphemism "Normalized trade relations", then made it permanent, then pushed to get china into the WTO
hate wal-mart, sweatchops, and outsourcing? thank bill!
-promised to quit turning back hatian refugees, then did so-you only get to come here if you're a descndent of batista's goons
-welfare 'reform' - the kind of bill that shows you have no fucking soul
-the 96 telcom act- hate claear channel/ thank bill! have high cable rates? thank bill!
-GATT, in addition to NAFTA, made outsourcing possible
-made no effort whatsoever to advance a progressive agenda. bill could have fought to get the fairness doctrine back, but didn't.
-signed the homphobic so-called 'defense of marriage act"
-refused to cut corporate welfare and obstructed the efforts of a coalition including ralph nader, paul wellstone, and john kasich when they tried to do so

and not an issue, but a huge gripe with bill:
-was too busy fulfilling his sexual needs that he never wonce thought that "maybe, for the good of the left, i should keep my dick in my pants til i'm out of office. it's not like i have a bunch of fundie opponents out to crucify me who will use this to beat the democratic party like a drum" did he have a right to do it? sure. should he have been impeached? no. was he a self-centered, self-indulgent ass for derailing the political agenda for doing so? absolutely

[mzmolly]

48. Oh my, in 8 years you mean to tell me he didn't do everything YOU want?

:eyes:

Sorry, I know Clintons accomplishments FAR outweigh any differences I have with the man. I disagreed with some of his policies in 8 years, and I would feel the same about anyone.

Bush on the other hand is a nightmare, and I shant forget the "differences" between a Democrat and a Republican again.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

74. that is a cop out of an excuse

it's not that he didn't do everything i wanted-it's that he did things i din't want, that no progressive wanted, that he claimed not to want when he ran in 92, and that we would expect only from republicans

there's no excuse for the shit he pulled
how can anyone with a conscience vote for NAFTA and GATT (two of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation that you try to brush off with a snide "oh my") and screw workers? simple- he took labor for granted and he got a nice infusion of corporate cash

how can anyone with a soul vote for the so-called welfare bill?

and please explain to me how signing the 1996 telcom bill and giving away the broadcast spectrum and setting up conglomerates like clear channel did anything other than line the pockets of his contributers

clinton was not on our side. if you look past the charisma and catchy slogans , he was basically a neocon minus the war. his domestic agenda wasn't just not liberal enough. it was extreme right wing and set up the neocon economic policies of so-called 'free trade' which he remains an apologist to this day.

and we have nothing to thank him for. by giving voters no reson to vpote democrat, he eroded the base until we lost both houses of congress, setting up a GOP trifecta for the first time in almost 50 years

clinton is a self-serving, GOP-enabling prick

[mzmolly]

84. Well it's a good think Clinton can't run again then.

:hi:

I can't spend too much time looking at his record under the circumstances. I respect your opinion on the matter.

[m berst]

142. you make a good case

You make a good case for working within the party, and I hope this doesn't become another source of contention and division.

When you say this -

"Oh my, in 8 years you mean to tell me he didn't do everything YOU want."

I fear that it makes matters worse. We should give the person you are responding to a little more credit here. Politics is not about what any of us want personally, it is about what we think is best fro all of the people. Personalizing it the way you did can just lead to acrimony and debases the whole concept of politics.

Also this misrepresents the person's view. You are making it look like the poster is being a purist as well as selfish. Whether we agree with the posters opinion or not, the point was that the party is a long way from traditional Democratic positions, not that the party is off in a few trivial cases.

Now perhaps you are correct mzmolly, that working within the party is the best course, and that the party is not significantly too far to the right. Just argue your point - as you have done so well - on its own merits without dismissing the other person's point a priori by the words that you use and we can all be pulling the same direction.

Many feel that the party has gone too far to the right. Many feel that the party has gone too far to the left. The two group of people are not looking at the same evidence. The two groups of people are not using the same definitions.

When you say that Clinton and Kerry are plenty liberal enough and that anyone who says otherwise is a crybaby for not getting what they personally want - even should you be right about that - it won't lead to any understanding.

Some of the people who are unhappy with the party are mainly concerned with what they see as the party's willingness to compromise with the reactionaries. Others who are critical of the party see the party as too far to the right on economic issues - too cozy with the big money interests.

On the other side people see the party as too far to the left on the hot button issues as defined by the Republican party. This is a different set of issues being used as the test for what is left and what is right.

So people are seeing different realities. That is harder to resolve than a mere difference of opinion. If one thinks that things are more or less OK and moving in the right direction with the current leadership, that is one take on reality. If one sees things as being in a dangerous crisis situation that isn't fundamentally altered by having the current Democratic leadership in power, than that is a different take on reality.

We can't argue remedies when we don't agree on the disease.

[knight_of_the_star]

150. But did he roll over under fire?

I am willing to bet you good money that Daschle would have rolled over and DIED if he was in the same position Big Dog was in. He did something a LOT of Democrats aren't doing:

He stood his ground and told them to go fuck off.

[mike_c]

40. I said that for THIRTY YEARS....

Now you can waste time trying to change the Democrats. I'm done-- I'm Green.

[mzmolly]

50. Ciao.

Enjoy your political purity, until that time which one of the two or three Greens in office disappoints you. At such time, I'm certain there will be another party to meet your need for perfection?

The thing that pisses me off is that the MANY Democrats who FIGHT like HELL each and every day for US, are forgotten by the crybabies here so often. They are lumped in with Bruce friggen Reed, and statements about the evil "Democrats" are perpetuated. :eyes:

Sickening.

I won't list the almost 300 Democrats who voted against the war and stood strong against this administration in many ways because frankly, I doubt it would matter.

Cheers

:hi:

[mike_c]

60. argument by misdirection, also called telling lies....

Now where do you get the notion that after having bent over for the Democratic Party leadership for THIRTY VOTING YEARS that I demand ideological purity, or that I am only satisfied with political "perfection?" I have spent most of my adult life turning the other cheek for what my party's leadership deems is in my best interest, and I've supported them for DECADES. Don't lecture me about not being being willing to fight for progressive causes, or about being a "crybaby."

Yes, nearly 300 dems voted against the IWR, but in the end the DNC still ejected everyone from the national convention who expressed criticism of the illegal invasion of Iraq. No criticism of the "war on terror" scam was allowed either. Sorry, I want to be represented by a party that stands for the same things I stand for.

[mzmolly]

62. Conventions are meant to "rally the troops"

I understand the rationale behind not wanting to allow anti-war signs to detract from the issues being presented.

Like I said, cheers ... and good luck in your search for a party that stands for what you do. It's quite easy when you have two people in national office, and a one page platform.

I'll stick with the party that best represents me, and one that can actually win against the extreme right.

P.S.

Nader busted unions before becoming the nominee of the GP in 2000, does that represent your values? He also stiffed the homeless, is that an issue for you or not?

On second thought nevermind, like I said good-bye. :hi:

[Ardee]

67. I know you to be intelligent

from your posting history. But I must say that it is unworthy of your intellect to so disparage someone who has made the best decision according to h/her criteria. You seem to ignore or overlook the given reasons for this decision while glossing over the very real mistakes made by Clinton in his eight years, mistakes that have directly led to this mess the democrats now find themselves in, falling out of power, out of favor and leaning ever more to the right, despite the very real evidence that this move is disastrous.

Nader's every word echoes what used to be the mantras of the democrats, but now sadly is no longer. I blame no one for leaving a party that has deserted them a long time earlier. I am just stubborn enough to continue to attempt this slide to neoconservative anonymity and Bush enabling cowardice, my decision.

[mzmolly]

78. It's easy to decide according to criteria if said criteria doesn't involve

actually winning.

Of course Clinton made mistakes. Name one President who hasn't. Further, why does Clinton represent the entire Party to those that wish to chastise it?

As I said before, Nader is "talking the talk" but his history of Union Busting and stiffing homeless people suggest to me that he doesn't "walk the walk." I find it curious that his "flaws" are overlooked while Clintons are used as justification for fleeing the Democratic Party.

Like I said to those who wish to leave, "ciao" "cheers" "adios" but I don't intend to read their diatribe and not respond.

[Ardee]

137. Circular reasoning eventually brings you back

You may be confusing me with Tinoire, possibly because I mentioned (dared to mention?) Clinton having made mistakes. Both you and Tinoire accurately posted facets of the Clinton presidency, and used those truths to form opinions, or rather more accurately to reinforce opinions.

Ive no interest in defending Nader from your charge of "union busting and stiffing homeless people" as I am not aware of either being truth, if you'd care to provide a link to such charges Id be grateful (not the Washington Times of course). I do confess to reading what Ralph has to say though, chiefly because I do not hear such refreshing stuff from any democrats.

Again we are really talking around the main issue, which is whether or not the real and tragic losses by the Democrats in the last three elections are due to the rightward leaning strategies of the current leadership. You aver support for Dean which should, on the face of it, lead me to believe that you are against such a rightward shift. At the same time you seem willing for the party to remain silent on critical issues in the hope of not alienating voters (maybe I'm wrong here).

I asked you once, in a post above, what you would recommend as a strategy for changing this leadership and you stated a preference for grassroots building of a progressive base. I noted that the leadership has seemed to turn a deaf ear to the party's base thus of what effect such grassroots efforts? I would like to know how you intend to turn this party from its defeatism and silences on important issues?

The national party has joined the initial efforts of Greens and Libertarians in Ohio, and it is very sad to see a party I once loved "sucking hind teat" in such a startlingly important matter. What is it going to take, another leadership effort by a third party perhaps, to get them to join us in decrying the numerous Bush plots and machinations ? Where ,oh where is the beef........

[mzmolly]

144. No I didn't confuse you with anyone. I know a Naderbot when I see one.

Further, I'll refer you to google to find out about Nader's union busting and not paying the homeless activities. I am shocked that anyone here is not aware of these things, but then again ...

How bout his stock in Haliburton, were you aware of that? My guess is you were not.

And you dare call me uninformed? Needless to say your uninformed about MANY things surrounding this election - including Kerry's involvement in the recount effort.

Lastly, I don't believe in continuing a conversation with someone who doesn't have an original thought, and is frankly uninformed so, cheers. :hi:

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

153. You are quite amusing. I enjoy reading your drivel. I hope you have

another pointless, inaccurate and narcissistic reply real soon.

:hi:

[Ardee]

154. How can I miss you when you wont go away?

You have said goodbye or Ciao three distinct times now please mean it....

An open letter to everyone not this obstacle to progress and apologist for failure

Three elections in a row ending in defeat

Two presidential campaigns against perhaps the worst political figure in recent American history and we lose the second worse than the first

Overwhelming and deafening silence from democrats on issues of major importance to America and the world

It took two third parties to open investigations into possible election fraud in Ohio, Cobb and Badnarek had to beg us all for the necessary monies to qualify for a recount while Kerry sat on his fat campaign war chest (perhaps he took it skiing?). Only when the investigation began to gather steam and momentum did we see a democratic presence in this matter, dragged kicking and screaming into it is more likely.

If this is what you all want from your party then you all should be overjoyed. Meanwhile we see the same coterie of apologists for failure come out of the woodwork whenever some folks dare to criticize the abysmal failures of the leadership.

We are told that we cannot speak up because Bogeyman Limbaugh would say bad things about us, we are told that we should work in the grassroots (conservative doublespeak for shut the fuck up and quit complaining).Yet everyone knows that the leadership has ignored the precincts and the progressives for years.Is this what you want, then you should be overjoyed.

Finally , as a last resort, they stoop to calling one a Nader lover or some such absurdity and trot out the usual set of lies and distortions about him nd assumptions about those who protest one failed election after the next. If this is what you want then you should be overjoyed.

Look, one final point then I'm off to fish the Feather and Sacramento for those winter run salmon. These non-progressives (happy mod) know full well that American politics is cyclic, that the Dem's will return inevitably to the WH. What they want really is for that to occur with the conservative leadership still in place. They wish to ensure a conservative agenda and damn the rising body count, damn the failing schools, damn the lost jobs, ideology is what is important to these people. If that is what you want for your party then welcome to it......

[mzmolly]

156. How many elections have the Greens won again?

Let's see ZERO!

And as I pointed out to others here, Zell Miller claims we lost because were "FAR LEFT."

Also, the last time I checked JOHN CONYERS was a DEMOCRAT. He and the HOUSE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS WERE the FIRST voice on this issue of fraud. Cobb and Badnarak wouldn't have heard about it were it not for DEMOCRATS who filed legal inquiries on 11/5/2004.

Do share where I lied about the "Union Busting/Homeless Stiffing" Mr. Nader? I'd love to see the specific claim you dispute?

Ralph Nader's Union Buster hypocrit and all around asshole record:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion

To my friends in the labor movement:

I read the reports about the UAW and Teamsters considering a vote for
Ralph Nader and think - I must be living in never-never land.

Ralph Nader fired me and two other editors from Multinational Monitor in 1984 for trying to organize a union in our shop. You can look it up in the Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review and Labor Notes.

I was fired the day after we filed our union recognition papers with the NLRB. In the hours that followed, Nader 'transferred' ownership of MM to Essential Information run by John Richard (who would become his H.R. Haldeman if by some stretch Nader was ever elected prez) and let them do the dirty work, which included trying to get the cops to arrest me for allegedly 'stealing' my own files.

Myself, my two fired colleagues and John Cavanagh of the Institute for
Policy Studies, our closest supporter, were then sued by Essential
Information for trying to 'destroy their business,' a pure harassment
tactic designed to make us shut up about what happened.

And now the guy has the balls to say his key campaign theme will be
reforming US labor laws so its easier for workers to form unions? Simply amazing for a man who has used those laws to prevent his own workers from organizing - and MM is not the only place he's done it.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/001003/refuseralph.html

https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/mobglob-discuss/2003-January/000507.html

And ... Ralph Nader, stiffer of homeless people:

"Many of the circulators were never paid, according to outreach workers and interviews with several men who had collected signatures.

"A lot of us were scammed," said Ed Seip, 52, who said he collected more than 200 signatures for Nader."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/9288457.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp&1c

Never-never land is an apt comparison for current Nader supporters. In fact, your diluted world is exposed the more you type, so I'd keep my replies less windy if I were you.

I would have "gone away" but couldn't resist the bait to expose Mr. Nader to the naive. Though, most won't care what his actual record is, they love his lofty rhetoric none the less.

[Walt Starr]

I'm with you if anybody but Dean becomes DNC chair!

And that damned fast!

[Tinoire]

83. Please. It was a LOT more than NAFTA and every Progressive knows this!

It was

- NAFTA
- WTO
- a war against Yugoslavia that was as internationally illegal and immoral as the one Bush is waging in Iraq, dropping TONS of Depleted Uranium in a country that never raised a finger against us so that piplelines could be built (Yugoslavia was step 2 of the PNAC wars with Gulf 1 as step 1)
- signing a top secret directive authorizing first use of nuclear weapons against Iraq "under certain circumstances."
- the Lieberman-sponsored "Iraqi Liberation Act" that paved the way for all the death and destruction we're witnessing today
- 8 years of sanctions against Iraq, deliberately weakening it for this invasion
- the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which he signed in 1996
- passed a crime bill that gave us more cops, more prisons, and 58 more offenses punishable by death
- the telecommunications act
- Colombia
- the welfare repeal bill
- the weakening of the Endangered Species Act

Shit, the list is too LOOOOOONG for words.

It's extremely unfortunate that the DLC doesn't "refuse to enable the right wing facists, directly or indirectly".

As long as people refuse to look at Clinton and his merry gang of neo-liberals in their true light, there will be NO progress within our party or within our country.

[mzmolly]

86. Like I said, Clinton is not running.

I refuse to re-hash his record AGAIN here. I've done it on several occassions and it's pointless.

His list of accomplishment is "too long for words" as well.


Moved From Record Deficits to Record Surplus.

Paid Off the National Debt.

Over 21 Million New Jobs - most created under a single administration.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades.

Unemployment rate was Lowest in Three Decades.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Decades.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s.

Expanded Pell Grants.

Lowest crime rate in 25 years (thank goodness for more cops on the street)

Passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Doubled Child Support Collections.

Expanded Investment in Urban and Rural Areas

Inacted many major health care improvements.

Adopted the toughest standards ever on soot and smog, negotiated an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Brokered the Good Friday Peace Accord in Northern Ireland, ending decades of bloodshed.

etc..

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/bill-legacy2.html

[Tinoire]

92. That's centrist fluff trying to paint a DLCer as a progressive

I quote you:

As for Clinton not being a 'true' progressive, NAFTA is ONE issue. Clinton also changed his position on issues when he was WRONG. That's a true progressive.

My post was to illustrate that there was nothing progressive about Clinton, not to say that everything he did was bad.

No one, after honestly examining his record, can claim Clinton was a progressive. He was a third way DLCer whose movement has trashed and destroyed the party.

Silicon Valley was more responsible for the economic wealth of the US than anything else. Clinton just found himself in the right place at the right time, when money was practically growing on trees.

[mzmolly]

114. You don't define Progressive for everyone else frankly.

I maintain that Clinton was a progressive, we obviously have different criteria.

I would not call Clinton a "Liberal" but I would call him a progressive.

As for the argument that Clinton's policies had nada to do with our economic growth, I'll add them to the similar comments of Rush Limbaugh on the matter.

Clinton was an excellent President with a 70% approval rating, he won two terms and much "progress" on many fronts. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.

[Nordic]

93. Uh ... NO. Thank you very much

Michael Moore is a media figure. He's a reporter. He's a muckraker.

He's not a politician OR a leader.

[ChiciB1]

3. WHOOPS!

I think you're gonna get DUMPED on! I'll wait a while and THEN tell you MY first thoughts. However, I've already posted them elsewhere!

[latteromden]

5. I'm not leaving and letting my party get taken over by Republicans.

No, I'm going to (*shudder*) "stay the course." Stubborn, yes, but some of us have got to stay and kick some sense into the leadership, I might as well be one of them.

[mzmolly]

6. I agree. Screw these BS "let's leave the party" rah rah threads.

This mentality helps ONE party, the Republicans.
Too many innocents get hurt in the process of our longing for perfection.

There is room for disagreement withIN the Democratic Party. I am tolerant enough to allow for differences.

[Disturbed]

7. Not dead.

In coma. It may wake up any day now.

[ChiciB1]

9. I Think You're Beginning to Get a Feel

for what I meant by WHOOPS!

[mzmolly]

51. Bush is the bigger "whoops" and enabling another Republican

President is a blunder beyond comprehension.

Very few Democrats enabled Bush in this past term. MOST stood strong against the war, do they count?

Further, haven't you all seen enough?

How many more wars ...

How much more poverty ...

How many more kids suffering educationally ...

How many more corporate tax breaks ...

How many more people cut off health care ...

How many more people exposed to more environmental hazards ...

How much more of an erosion of our civil rights ...

Do you all need?

NO Democrat in the running now or in 2000, would have created the friggin mess were experiencing today, not ONE.

[ChiciB1]

88. MZMOLLY...

That WHOOPS was posted shortly after the thread started. I think you misunderstood what I meant by it.

When I first saw it come up, I felt the Democrats would be coming out of the woodwork and calling FOUL! My first inclination was to emphatically disagree with the post. Which I still do.

I'm a Democrat from way back, and liked your reply to the guy who says his arms are tied behind his back. I stand with you! I don't welcome all this hair pulling and hand wringing!

We need to get back into our melting pot!

[mzmolly]

89. Woops!

On my part then. Sorry for the "whoops" ie. misunderstanding. :hi:

[ChiciB1]

111. Not A Problem....

Just wanted to re-clarify HOW Democrat I Am!! And that I concur with your feelings and sentiments wholeheartedly and compliment you on your great posts!

[Ardee]

10. Even when those "differences" lead to

Bush Enabling?

While the party is far from dead it is in dire need of a spine transplant. Your dismissing what is going on as "room for disagreement" minimizes gravely the absence of a true opposition party mentality within the leadership.

The mid-term election usually is one in which the "out" party makes good gains, check your history. Instead, and due solely to what Nader calls "Obeisance to a war time President" we lost ground. The same can be said of this election as well, and the lack of a national presence in the Ohio debacle for the longest time, until, frankly, the Third Party efforts embarrassed them into a fight is unconscionable.

I do not agree with the thread starter that abandoning the party is right for all of us certainly. But to simply dismiss that posters arguments is wrongheaded and is the attitude that leads directly to more losses......hell maybe you can get ready to explain Jeb's victories in '08 and '12...anyone think one of the Bush girls will run in '16?

[mzmolly]

47. "The differences make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans."

~ Paul Wellstone.

I am a Dean supporter, through and through. I don't "dismiss the need for an opposition party." But, I'll be damned if I'll abandon my party to the DLC hacks.

Further, I think the post is not only wrong headed, but dangerous ... though I'm open to discussion, and I would defend the right of the OP to state his/her opinion on the matter. I will simply state mine as well.

Additionally, some would accuse the Republicans of "Clinton enabling" as well, would they not?

Thems the breaks man, but the differences between the two parties are differences that matter to REAL people around the globe.

The best way to go about change is to do so from "within" ... that's my position.

[Ardee]

69. Fair enough.....well maybe

I would certainly welcome reading how you intend to work to effect such change as you agree this party requires.

Do you intend to work to end the conservative influences of the DLC? Will you urge democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi to cease agreeing to put Social Security reform "on the table" when she should be arguing that it is a social contract with the American people that should be inviolable? Will you urge those within the party who vote with Bush for war and torture to rescind those votes or at least publicly regret them? Will you stand and insist upon a clear voice against the continuing free reign of corporate terrorism against American jobs and unionism?

I could go on but I would prefer to see your plans to reform our party......

[mzmolly]

85. I intend to work with DFA, 21st Century Democrats, Progressive Democrats

and other organizations to take pack the party from the "bottom up."

:hi:

Will you thank all those in the Democratic Party who have renounced the war? Will you recognize THEM everytime someone makes a blanket statment smearing Democrats for not doing so? Will you allow Democrats to disagree on some issues?

I could go on as well, and ... I think I've answered your question.

[Ardee]

127. I must say

that I appreciate your responses, to my questions. I must also wonder if a grassroots, bottom up approach to restoring the party to its proper place and path can be effective when the current leadership is the main problem. I see, at the local level, many fine progressive folks who really do understand the issues and the proper stances to take in addressing them. I also see their input being ignored time and time again.

I particularly enjoyed the exchange between you and Tinoire, both of whose posts were accurate, illustrating further the puzzle that was and is William Jefferson Clinton.

[Postman]

11. Have you noticed that they already have taken it over. (DLC)

where were the "liberals" within the Democratic Party back in 2000 when the Congressional Black Caucus needed just ONE STINKING SENATOR to contest the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD?

Why is there such a thing as the Democratic Leadership Council (aka Republican Insurgents)?

[mzmolly]

52. They win if they run progressives out of the Party.

I like your cherry picking of the Senator situation in 2000.

Moore sensationalized that issue which made for an excellent cinematic moment, and while I loved F911 ... I asked the question, what if?

What if a Senator (such as Paul Wellstone) had signed on to the bill.

Answer: The Republican controlled house would have decided the outcome. Gosh I wonder if they'd have selected Gore? :eyes:

Your decision to leave the party is turning it over to the likes of the DLC. I refuse to join you in your haste.

[tsuki]

108. Excuse us if we are angry. I have been since I heard the

dem I worked for, canvassed for, probably lost friends over, Rep. Allen Boyd, first action upon being re-elected blue, in a red, red area, was to hop over to the Repubs and sign on to their "let's reform social security," and "can I help sponsor the bill."

ClubBev Kilmer was a thorough ReThug. And she actually lost the election. The Repubs won't make that mistake again.

Will I be out canvassing for Boyd? No. And don't tell me to write him. I am expecting his letter of justification from his aides any day.

But I am angry. What do the dems think they are doing?

[mzmolly]

115. What I don't get is the demand that in order to be a Democrat we must

all think alike.

That is a position of weakness, and I don't see Centrists promoting such a narrow view.

Here is the problem I have with this post:

"The best thing for Liberals and Progressives within the Democratic Party to do at this point is to find a new party."

This person isn't speaking for him/herself, he/she is suggesting that "progressives should find a new party" I find posts like this both counter productive and suspicious.

[Rockerdem]

141. I agree

If we make a stand (and work hard and effectively), we have a chance to make an impact. Let's see how things shake out before anyone takes a powder to the third party.

[Oak2004]

149. Actually if progressives are driven out of the Democratic party,

the DLC has the limp corpse of a political party on its hands. From what I've seen it is progressives who do most of the hard grunt work within the Democratic Party. Without progressives I think the Democratic Party would rapidly (within an election cycle or two) go the way of the Whigs.

Whatever party inherited the progressives would not immediately, or even inevitably, become a major party. But they'd be well positioned to become so within a few election cycles, possibly sooner if political circumstances went their way. Of course all of that presumes honest elections (an assumption which reminds me of how we'd assume inclined planes had no coefficient of friction way back when in physics class).

[atreides1]

26. It May Already Be Too Late

The DLC is already filled with enablers and the DNC isn't much better
at this point in time.

I mean we the people don't even get to vote for the leadership of the DNC, so how is it our party?

If leaders don't lead then we're all screwed.

[wyldwolf]

8. So... NAFTA defines what a liberal is?

[Postman]

14. Partly, yes.

You don't sign "Free Trade" agreements without protecting the American Working Class.

Living Wage jobs were replaced with Starvation Wage jobs. Thanks Bill Clinton!

With "Liberals" like these who needs Republicans?

[wyldwolf]

16. ok... by the way...

Howard Dean supported NAFTA, as well.

[Postman]

17. What makes you think I support Howard Dean?

I voted, like alot af suckers, for John Kerry.

My personal choice would have been Dennis Kucinich.

As it turns out Ralph Nader was right all along.

[wyldwolf]

20. I didn't make any such assumption

But I'm getting a feel for where you draw the line on what a "liberal" is...

Kucinich...

Kucinich’s record includes voting:

-- For the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which makes it a crime to cause the injury or death of a fetus

-- Against funding research on RU-486, the "morning after pill"

-- For a ban on the late-term abortion procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth" abortions, without a provision for the woman’s health

-- Against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers

-- Against allowing Washington, D.C., to fund abortions for poor women with nonfederal dollars

During his 1996 run for Congress, he opposed same sex marriage.

as recently as 1997, Kucinich voted in favor of the juvenile justice bill that allows children as young as 13 to be tried as adults and sent to adult prisons.

He voted to allow the House Judiciary Committee to look into impeaching Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

He voted to make flag burning illegal

[Postman]

24. He was also AGAINST...

NAFTA

PATRIOT ACT

IRAQ WAR

I guess I define "Liberal" as NOT BEING A REPUBLICAN FASCIST.

[wyldwolf]

25. ok, so I see now you confine your definition to 3 pretty recent issues

[Postman]

27. Where is John Kerry?

Why is the Libertarian Party and the Green Party paying for the recount in Ohio?

John Kerry couldn't concede fast enough. This guy left a dust trail that would make the Road Runner envious. WHAT A JOKE.

[wyldwolf]

33. what does this have to do with what we were discussing?

[wyldwolf]

34. what does this have to do with what we were discussing?

[serryjw]

36. Everyone evolves.....Look at Kucinich in 2004

I'll take him ANY DAY over anyone else in the party

[wyldwolf]

37. sure... they evolve when running for a national office

[serryjw]

39. NOT entirely fair......

he KNEW he didn't have a chance. He is the only one that took ZERO corporate money.

[wyldwolf]

41. completely fair

..he changed his positions on most if not all of the before mentioned issues as he ran for president.

I do respect him for not taking corporate money.

Me? I'd take corporate money then screw the corporations!

[Postman]

45. You wouldn't live long.

n/t

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

22. dean, to his credit, says it needs work and was partially a mistake

bill, on the other hand, still beams and goes on endlessly about global this and global that and never mentions the environmental, labor, or human rights disasters his adminstration furthered into law

[Forkboy]

23. Deanophobia...the disease that can't be cured

When in doubt,toss Dean's name into the mix :)

[wyldwolf]

110. but not completely... there are many other issues that are important

... that so-called liberals "fail" the test on.

[President Jesus]

35. good point. Since when did "liberal" = "protectionist"

It doesn't, and never has.

Free and fair trade is a GOOD thing, and it is the single best wat to keep nations from going to war with each other. It also promote broader understanding and acceptance of the world, characteristics which are hallmarks of real liberals.

We all agree the government has let us own on the fairness part of the equation, and we need to be vigilant about that. But that does not mean we are all supposed to become protectionists like Pat Buchanan...that's just short-sighted and inane.

[Postman]

43. Oh, I see. The Republicans are the real liberals...

because they are giving all those jobs that were Living wage, Union jobs to all those poor Taiwanese, Chinese, Latin American peasants.

Its "protectionist" to want to keep those jobs in America.

If the Democrats who signed off on NAFTA were really for protecting American workers and American jobs they would have made sure the labor provisions were in place beforehand. To argue after the fact is ridiculous. Now they are in NO position of power, the corporations already have what they want.

[President Jesus]

91. yeah. NAFTA signed in 93. Unprecedented job growth in US 1994-2000

...and read my entire statement before you comment next time.

If you want to describe yourself as a protectionist, go right ahead. But there is nothing liberal about erecting barrier to the rest of the world.

[IrateCitizen]

113. Clinton ran on NOT signing NAFTA in 1992...

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, one of his campaign themes was taking the Bush Administration to task for pushing NAFTA without demanding that Mexico raise its labor and environmental standards first. Upon getting into office, however, he ignored his previous stance and instead pushed for NAFTA as it was -- a virtual giveaway to corporate interests. It's bad enough that he pushed the agreement, but the manner in which he did it was a downright betrayal to organized labor and progressive groups, one which still sticks in many of our craws to this day.

As for job growth, much of this was due to a "trickle-down" that resulted from the internet boom. I would highly suggest Kevin Phillips' perspective on this in his book, Wealth and Democracy. In it, he describes Bill Clinton as a modern-day Grover Cleveland, because they both were Democratic Presidents who presided over an era defined by a technological boom (railroads for Cleveland, high tech for Clinton) and both went out of their way to assure big business that there would be no real restrictions placed on them.

I don't think that anyone is going to deny that FAIR trade can lift economies. The European Union is proof of that. However, such arrangements have to be done with the honest goal of elevating all those involved, rather than simply crafting a deal that is most favorable to big business. The EU emphasizes the former, while NAFTA certainly emphasizes the latter.

There's nothing protectionist about wanting fair trading standards. As it is now, both developing nations AND workers in the US are being sold down the river in order to enrich transnational corporations, and that's just plain wrong. It's the stuff of the second Gilded Age.

[mzmolly]

116. Clinton did push for international standards, they simply aren't being

enforced.

Further, I always cackle at the Hannity like assertions that Clinton benefited from the policies of Ronald Reagan. And, from what I gather, poor Mr. Bush is paying the price for Clintons follies too? :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

119. That's a pretty big distortion there, mzmolly!

Further, I always cackle at the Hannity like assertions that Clinton benefited from the policies of Ronald Reagan.

Where on earth did you infer that from my post? My citing Kevin Phillips' book Wealth and Democracy, and his parallels between Grover Cleveland and Bill Clinton? Sorry, but if you want to ignore the fact that Bill Clinton benefitted tremendously from a technological boom, that's your problem. But the reality is that he did, and it had NOTHING to do with Ronald Reagan.

WRT NAFTA, Clinton said while campaigning that he would not support NAFTA in its current (in 1992) form. Yet, that's exactly what he did. Furthermore, if there WERE these hypothetical "standards" out there, the enforcement of them comes right down on the executive branch. If they weren't being enforced, then there's nowhere else to look during the Clinton years that the White House and USTR.

And, from what I gather, poor Mr. Bush is paying the price for Clintons follies too?

This is such a strawman that I'm not even going to give it the dignity of addressing it.

Hannityesque? The only thing Hannityesque in all of this is the lengths to which you've gone to distort my arguments in order to better accomodate yours.

[mzmolly]

121. Clinton had economic policies that benefited Americans. All the book

recommendations in the world don't change that. I maintain the fact that Clinton was a success largely due to his policies and not merely the benefit of a technological boom.

Regarding NAFTA, I'm no fan but I realize that trade could be tremendously different in terms of impact, with international labor standards.

"In the coming years, we must continue to negotiate to lower trade barriers and insist that our trade partners play by fair trading rules. As we continue to work to open new markets, we must ensure the protection of our workers & our environment, as well as seek to advance labor and improve environmental conditions in developing countries." ~ Bill Clinton

[IrateCitizen]

123. You're not maintaining any facts. You're maintaining you opinion.

I maintain the fact that Clinton was a success largely due to his policies and not merely the benefit of a technological boom.

That's not a fact. That's your opinion. Just as my assertion that Clinton's success was almost completely due to his policies is more of an informed opinion than fact.

Regarding NAFTA, I'm no fan but I realize that trade could be tremendously different in terms of impact, with international labor standards.

Absolutely. The EU is proof of that. But considering that the EU was following this course at the same time that NAFTA came out, one must wonder why Clinton didn't push harder for these concerns at that time. It is, IMHO, another example of a Democrat voicing concern for these considerations, but supporting big business when push comes to shove BETWEEN the business agenda and these concerns. I viewed John Kerry's history on this issue in much the same manner, and it really frustrated me.

"In the coming years, we must continue to negotiate to lower trade barriers and insist that our trade partners play by fair trading rules. As we continue to work to open new markets, we must ensure the protection of our workers & our environment, as well as seek to advance labor and improve environmental conditions in developing countries." ~ Bill Clinton

Those are just words. His record, however, does not demonstrate any real committment to these goals.

[mzmolly]

124. So your opinions are "fact" and mine are "opinions" ??

Pardon me but I'm not convinced. You can read a book and call yourself informed, I can read/research and consider myself informed, go figure?

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010913.htm

http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsbc01.shtml

http://www.ryunlv.com/news/2004/09/16/Opinion/Clintons.Economic.Legacy-723092.shtml

His record does speak for itself. We had the best economy in the history of our nation because we had the conditions necessary.

[IrateCitizen]

125. Where did I say my opinions are fact?

Contrary to your assertions, I presented my statements as informed opinions. You're presenting yours as the same, that's fine. It's just that our information is from different sources and perspectives.

As an aspiring historian, I like to take a longer view on things. That's why I give a lot more credence to a viewpoint like that of Kevin Phillips, for instance, because it's one that is looking at things from a broad historical context. I also like Phillips because he's a former Republican, and tends to give a very balanced view on matters such as this.

Additionally, I tend to run like the plague from all of the Clinton worship that takes place on this site. I'm certain that clouds my view in certain instances, but it's something that I personally can't stand, and I also believe that the Clinton years were disastrous for the greater Democratic Party in the long term. But, once again, that's my personal opinion, an interpretation of history, and I don't pretend that it is a natural law.

I'm through debating this with you. It's obvious that we're both more interested in proving each other wrong than discussing anything substansive. If you wish to continue in this line and have the last word, have at it.

[mzmolly]

129. I'll decline the so called "last word."

I do respect your viewpoint, regardless of my tone. :hi:

Peace

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

75. that' was the big swindle they pulled

clinton and the boys acted like anyone who had any opposition to NAFTA for whatever reason was a knuckle-dragging buchananite

no one on the left was advocating isolationism. clinton had the opportunity to build a real legacy and give us a free and fair trade bill that would have elevated conditions worldwide. but, as he often did, he took the easy way out and did as his corporate masters told him, too

it still blows my mind that after all the hep he gave the GOP in creating our current concentrated media/outsourced economy, people still act like apologists for the self-serving ass

how are you guys enjoying that minority in congress he gave us?

[Nordic]

94. don't forget all of Clinton's deregulation

that didn't help matters either.

Clinton, best republican president ever.

[Forkboy]

12. nah..not dead,just starting to smell funny

[Sara Beverley]

15. I'm for a new party. Most of the military fighting in Iraq right now

should join it.

[Disturbed]

19. A new Party?

Uh.. The Green Party is ready to accept all Dems that are not pleased with the Dem Rethug. LITE direction. ;0)

[mmonk]

38. Do the Greens have

ballot access in all the states?

[mike_c]

54. now that's a sore point that needs to be addressed....

The GPUSA lost ballet access in several states in 2004 because many greens decided to vote for John Kerry, and David Cobb himself encouraged that stance. In other words, the GP's ballet access declined because the GP came to the aid of the Democatic Party.

Now I wonder when the Democratic Party is going to encourage dems to vote for the Green candidate, or to otherwise support the GP? How about individual dems of good conscience returning the favor and using their vote in 2008 to try and rebuild the GP? At the very least, dems should see to it that the signature drives the GP will have to run to get back on state ballots are successful.

[Nordic]

96. "If it ain't Howard Dean ..... I'm gonna go Green"

How's that for a slogan?

That's what I'm gonna do.

Unless Howard Dean starts a new party, which he's said he's not gonna do.

[mzmolly]

117. Ok, I'll give you that one.

;)

[Sara Beverley]

18. America is dead!! It doesn't matter what party in control.

We have lost our souls to the corporcrats and military industrial complex.

[Telly Savalas]

42. Then what's the point of talking politics?

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Hippie is dead, too!

Revolution would be infinatly easier using the existing Demo structure than joining a 3rd party.

[leans2left]

29. Not Dead

Just regrouping!

[ChiciB1]

30. Come On... Democrats

I want to HEEAAARRRR YOU!

[pretzel4gore]

31. with nearly 300 million people

you'd think the USA would produce SOMEONE who could, w/out getting killed, grab the brass ring and either takeover the democratic party or start a new one...the so called democrats are cowards it appears. As far as Bill Clinton goes, remember he took over after 8 years of ronald mcdonald reagan and 4 years of father geebush. 12 years of those horrorshows, and 12 years of the mass media groovin' their arses off (see rush limbah-humbug, foxnews, oj simpson, ken starr, impeachment wag the dog) and one imagines clinton watching bushinc during recent election and nudging john kerry 'this is just too good john! hahaha!'
lewis lapham once gave an interview in which he said the relentless mocking of the left in America was a fatuous joke because there IS NO LEFT IN AMERICA!...and that was years ago during the clinton years.....i suspect that the reasons are numerous, but not the least has been the murders of JFK, RFK, ML King, MalcolmX, Abby Hoffman, Archbishop Romero, Denver talk radio host Alan Berg and god knows who else over the years that as a result ridiculous ham actor like reagan somehow became president of the most important democracy on earth.....when you think of all that's happpened, you can see that the presentation of George Juniorbush is as natural and inevitable an event as ann coulter killing hope ...bill clinton isn't the only one who said 'fukkit' (obviously)
those of you who aren't also cynical and filled with hate cause such heartache, it's almost paralysing

[President Jesus]

32. 48% against a wartime incumbant president. yeah, dead. snore.

[Kazak]

44. The Neo-Progressive Party?

Just as soon as you can register as something other than Republican, Democratic, or Independent, I'll switch over my registration in a heartbeat.

[mike_c]

58. Can't you register Green?

eom

[Kazak]

59. Nope.

Not in Oklahoma.

[tsuki]

109. Why?

[Old and In the Way]

46. I'll be sticking around and working for change from the inside.

God love the Greens and the other progressive political parties. I hope we can find much common ground and integration of their ideas in our evolving vision for America.

I know one thing, Democrats have got to offer a strong and bold vision that contrasts starkly with the bankrupted misdirection of a Republican Party that has dropped all pretenses of making this country a better place.

Republican interests are never ending war and conquest. They vision is extending corporate oil profits paid with our children's blood. They have no future vision for this country - how else to explain the draining of the Treasury and now setting their sights on the social security trust fund?

Democrats need to make a simple contrast-

Republicans = Oil = Wars without end = DEAD END end for America
Democrats = Alt/Renewable energy = jobs = a REAL FUTURE for our children.

[tedzbear]

49. I've already re-registered Green Party

:bounce:

[mike_c]

55. me too-- the final straw was the dems REFUSAL to allow...

...any antiwar sentiment at the national convention, even going so far as to eject party members who wore T-shirts expressing opposition to the occupation of Iraq. Now, we all know that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, and the occupation tramples on the Geneva Conventions daily, yet the Democratic Party could not countenance ANY opposition despite the clear moral imperative that any civilized-- or at least law abiding-- persons do so. That tells me that the Democratic Party has NO PRINCIPLES that aren't for sale, or that aren't freely malleable to win elections. That's why some in the party leadership are already calling for repeal of the party's support for women's right to control their own reproductive future, and it's support for equal rights for all Americans who want to marry one another, and so on. At least the GP stands for something!

[mmonk]

53. Actually, we need more dems like the late P. Wellstone,

or like Byrd, Kennedy, Dean that will just say NO to the extreme right when they cross certain lines. We need dems of courage and conviction. We don't really need the compromisers of our democracy to the new extremes and doctrines for job security or political comfort. Then we will win again and become dominate again. There is no choice and no compromise to certain principles if the party is to survive. The only thing that changed on 9/11 was America itself.

[Warpy]

56. The grassroots are alive and well, but the leadership

is moribund.

[unkachuck]

57. I'm inclined....

....to go along with you....I'm tired of wasting my vote on the Democratic Party, a Party today that represents little or nothing of what I believe in, a Party that's reluctant to fight and offers little hope for the future....

I can 'waste' my vote in more productive ways....like voting for people who at least represent my views and are willing to build and fight for the future....if 1/3 of the Democratic Party walked, (you know those damn extreme liberals that keep costing the DLC elections), it would be a good start and in 15-20 years we could build something to be proud of....

[mzmolly]

61. Hitler won with 17% of the vote before he elliminated elections.

We can't afford 15 more years.

[unkachuck]

63. I think you'll...

....be working well beyond 15-20 years to bring the Democratic Party back....the corporations own both Partys and they're not going to give them up....it'd be bad for business....

[mzmolly]

64. Not any more they don't ... Dean changed that with his example and the

Democrats raised FAR more money from average Jane/Joe's than corporations.

The revolution has only just begun. :)

[unkachuck]

65. I'd really like....

....to believe you....but we've been flim-flammed one too many times by the Democratics....let's wait and see....like who they'll appoint to chair the Party....is that fair? :)

[mzmolly]

73. Not really. I don't expect it will be Dean because he's polarizing and

we just lost the election.

I'm idealistic, but I'm not stupid.

:hi:

If it's Dean, I'll rejoice, if not, I'll join his efforts at DFA and continue supporting his desire to take back the party.

[Redleg]

66. Blah blah blah. Jeebus, don't you guys ever give up?

EOM

[Ardee]

71. A Kansas Redleg?

They were bloody butchers, at least your silly post is succinct......

[Redleg]

76. No, Redleg as in artilleryman.

At least my post is succinct.

[Nordic]

102. why yes, we do. That's what we're talking about in fact

What if you were in a marriage where your spouse didn't have sex with you for five years? And blamed it on "well, we wouldn't want to offend anyone by having sex, would we?"

It's a bad relationship, and we're figuring out that it needs to be ENDED.

Like all bad relationships, when you realize you have to end it, you think "why didn't I think of that a year ago? Why did I stay in it for so long?"

[Lexingtonian]

68. Memo to All Hysterics: Please jump ship now

It's definitely time for you to form a splinter Party, ensure that it is also dysfunctional and full of circular firing squads, demand leaders and immediately tear them down, imagine that anti-NAFTA is a liberal political position rather than a Left one, and import more Pied Pipers from states where the state capitol lies across the street from a gas station. More purity, more purges, no entrepreneurs permitted. Oh, and Denial is a river that runs through Egypt. Utopia Now! unless it isn't.

NB, pace Mark Twain: reports of my demise have been greatly exagerrated. Ask 59 million voters. (Why can't you see that number being 63 or 65 million next time?)
-The Democratic Party

[Ardee]

72. While it is difficult to respond to your polemic and hyperbole

and while it is probably a waste of time......

I care not whether the current incarnation of the Democratic Party wins an election, they stand for nothing but a continuation of the corporate stranglehold on America. Some here, in opposition to the trend to the right, offer clear logic and literate example. Perhaps you might defend your party with the same.

[Redleg]

77. Ah- another person who wants to purge the Dem party.

Only the right kind of liberals are welcome. Look, I am a liberal Democrat but I am also a pragmatist. We cannot afford to alienate any of our party, whether they are to conservative or too liberal.

[mzmolly]

79. Exactly!

The word "win" seems to matter not to some.

We can't press for progress unless we WIN first.

[bvar22]

98. What good does it do to win,

..if we sell our soul to Wal-Mart?

[mzmolly]

118. It's a matter of balance. I don't think we have to sell our soul.

But I think we best not flaunt our hatred of Walmart in the process of running an election.

[Ardee]

126. reading comprehension is such a bother

isn't it, Redleg?

The post to which you respond was directed at and commented upon the style in which Lexingtonian chastised someone who criticized the party.It made no reference whatsoever to liberals of any type, nor conservatives or moderates for that matter.Nor did it call for a purge though it did comment upon my personal reaction to the direction of the Democratic Party and its relevance or lack thereof to our political and social needs.

Please try to keep up and keep on track, thank you. Should you require assistance in the interpretation of any future posts I'd be more than happy to assist you.

[Redleg]

130. Perhaps you should write more lucidly

you arrogant ass.

Here is your statement: "...they stand for nothing but a continuation of the corporate stranglehold on America."

If that is not an extreme statement then I don't know what is. The Democratic party is people, not a monolith that believes in a single set of principles.

Perhaps you too should withhold the polemics and the attempts to question my literacy and intelligence.

[bvar22]

131. The Democratic Party does hold a convention...

...every four years. At that convention, the PARTY drafts a PLATFORM.
In that platform, they provide a list of the issues that the PARTY will work to support or oppose. It is really a CREDO for Democrats.

Have you read it?
Don't feel bad. NOT ONE of the Party supporters and activists I asked (several hundred)replied that they had. ALL declared they knew what was in it, but were only able to paraphrase a few of the latest soundbytes.

The Democratic Party Platform is 44 pages long. It rambles, circles, wanders, and displays vague platitudes about middle class values and fighting terrorism and supporting Education. There were very few Declarations of Specific Positions.

What was more important were the issues that were missing from the Platform. There was NOTHING in the platform that would indicate that the Democratic Party would DO ANYTHING to rein in the Wal-Martization of America and the World! Beyond proposing a very vague program of more Corporate Welfare to keep jobs at home, there was NOTHING. I could find NOTHING that would indicate the the Democratic Party even considers Corporate influence in Washington DC to be a problem.

Here is the link to the Platform:

Democratic Party Platform

If you can find ANYTHING that would even indicate that the democratic Party even acknowledges that there might be a problem with Corporate Power in Washington, please point it out to me.

I'm old and might have missed it.

[Redleg]

132. John Edwards and Al Gore both spoke a great deal about protecting

consumers and employees from the excesses of business. I don't deny that some members of the party have been too business friendly at the expense of working people but I don't see this pro-corporatist stuff as the central organizing principle of the party.

Yes, the party leadership is in disarray and the principles are not clearly articulated and in some cases have wandered from our more traditional Dem principles.

[bvar22]

136. Al Gore is a private citizen,

just like Michael Moore. Neither speaks for the Democratic Party, although I like what they say.

John Edwards campaigned on the "Two Americas" theme early in his campaign for president, and he is a good lawyer representing the common man against the Big Corporation.
Did you notice that after he accepted the VP Nomination, the "Two Americas" theme got buried. I went to TWO Edwards rallies in Minnesota, and the "Two Americas" did not show up.

I personally feel that both Kerry and Edwards are more liberal than they were allowed to show in their run for the presidency. They were forced to campaign on a Democratic Platform that was written by Corporate interests that have bought their way in to the DLC/DNC and control the Party agenda.


That's what it looks like to me. I believe it is imperative for the survival of the Party for immediate REFORM. The DLC/DNC isn't going to do it voluntarily because it means slapping the hand (BIG CORP) that is making them rich. Reform will have to be DEMANDED, or they will simply give us (the voters) more of the same. At some point, the Republican Party will begin financing the DLC just to keep up the appearances of a two party system.

I have stopped send any money to the DNC/DLC, and am supporting ONLY those Democrats that I feel support LABOR and the Middle Class. Some of them I send money to directly (Mark Dayton, Betty McCollum).
The others I am supporting through this organization. I suggest you check out their site:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[Redleg]

147. Al Gore was the Vice President and the Democratic Presidential candidate

I don't see him as just a regular private citizen. I do agree with you that the DLC needs to either go or needs to wise the hell up. They are too cozy with big business and I believe their attempt in the 90s to attract white collar moderates by changing the face of the party was wrong.

[Ardee]

133. Please stop looking at my ass

and pay attention...your response, in case you have forgotten was:

Ah- another person who wants to purge the Dem party.

is a lie, a distortion of my post which you probably failed to complete (short attention span or whatever). How you got from that sentence to a purge of the party or a selectivity of liberalism is beyond me and is a matter for you and your english coach.......bye now, further discourse with the likes of you (liberal my previous referred to ass)is useless......and will not be engaged in by me....

[Redleg]

145. More personal insults, how "liberal" of you.

I can play at that game too. You think you are so god-damned bright that you question my reading abilities, my attention span, my intellect. You know virtually nothing about me yet you continue to derogate me.

True- I did color you as another party-purger. If I was wrong I apologize. Your statement seemed quite extreme to me.

[Redleg]

157. I guess you really are going to ignore me.

I guess I'm not intellectual enough for you.

[Lexingtonian]

82. irrationality deserves a commensurate response...

Postman's post is so lacking in sense it deserves a smack. It's a "Republican" post in the sense that it's a pathetic question or cry for help posed as an ugly challenge/assertion that the person doesn't actually believe correct.

As for your p.o.v., let me point out the problem with your problem. It's the so-called wedge issue. The wedge issue is the one where people end up voting against what is proper or in their best interest- and in turn they vote to affirm their prejudice(s). Social rights issues are wedge issues.

Historically, social rights issues have to be resolved before economic correlates get adjusted to reflect them. So I don't disagree with your views about e.g. corporate overprivileging. It's just that in this era's fight social rights is the horse, economic equal rights is the cart, and vehemence doesn't change the order.

All our present domestic problems reflect a failure of the elected national government officials to pursue the enforcement of "equal protection"/nondiscrimination standards. The People keeps on voting them in by small, net decreasing, margins.

All the carping on the Democratic Party not adhering firmly to some particular part of the agenda is pointless and stupid. You and I know the Republican Party has a jealous and irreversible monopoly on the opposite position, of ensuring that there is only privilege, no "equal protection". Democrats are in for a penny, in for a pound on opposing that racket. Willingly or not, and it's a painful thing to do, so letting all the people who have 'suffered too much already' have a respite is a reasonable matter.

The national game is about Equal Protection, it has a rough but in good part invoilable order in which issues must be resolved. And no Third Party has any part in the resolution, except that it forms part of a liberal-Left spectrum alliance...iow, that it is a caucus of the Democratic Party.

Where is your logic, literacy, and clarity?

[Ardee]

128. Sense or nonesense

deserves politeness, generally. We are seeing a discussion of wholesale desertions from a political party for varying reasons, some carrying more weight than do others. I am calling for a fair hearing for all these complaints and not strident and biased denigration of what are basically rather accurate representations.

I am no fan of the party leadership and its direction obviously but I am far from calling for its destruction, in fact, whipping these disaffected folks practically ensures that destruction I would think.....

[Lexingtonian]

155. No

Whining and irrationality gets abusive too. Sometimes you have to slap little children before they accept order and sense- and the imposition is what they want and need.

What is going is that people around DU are trying to decide whether the Party is presently about fleeing backwards, fleeing forwards, or regrouping and making progress in an organized fashion. The major problem at the present moment is the assumption that fleeing is what is called for. You can't sensibly argue the full range of options with people who consider its validity beyond question.

[Nordic]

97. Well, to quote Bill Paxton in "Aliens"

"In case you haven't been paying attention, we just got our asses kicked!"

And kicked, and kicked, and kicked ........

And now we have to listen to assholes like Harold Ford Jr. saying we should all turn into republicans if we want to "win"?

That's not winning. That's losing.

Turning into a republican is the biggest LOSING there is.

Fuck the Democratic Party. Start a new party and let 'em die. Do an end run around them, and embrace all the republicans who actually realize the GOP party has been hijacked by a bunch of corporate gangsters.

Do you have any idea how many people there are, both republican and Democrat, who are SICK of the status quo?

Who would like an ALTERNATIVE to Dem vs GOP?

You're talking probably 65% of the electorate out there.

People who just want truth, honesty, and government BY and FOR the people.

The way it's supposed to be.

[Lexingtonian]

99. I think Ross Perot isn't running in '08

But you can give him a call.

Btw, do you know where the majority of his voters went? Yes, the GOP.

Tell us some immediately implementable way to beat the 'cultural wedge issue', and you can have the anti-corporatist party you want. Until then we have the problem that too many people want a "moral" and a 'Christian' society rather than a just one.

[Nordic]

101. Zogby proved that the "morals" issue in 04 was a lie

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10389

Most people voted the way they did based on "greed, poverty, and the war".

The mainstream media just repeated the RW lies as usual. And now everybody, including a whole lot of people on DU, believe that crock of shit.

[Lexingtonian]

104. you misread that

Republican voters didn't define their reasons as "morals", they defined it as "values". 'Greed, poverty, and the war' was probably given on the Democratic side. Voting for Bush on the basis of 'religious' non-logic was overhyped after Election Day, just as the present attempts to pretend that It Wasn't So is also in vogue.

Keeping America run by whites, straight males, and 'Christians'- and not giving taxpayer money or political/economic power those who aren't- remains the Republican game. The wrong kinds of people are all "immoral", e.g. Bill Clinton, or not 'Christian'- the RC Church told its parishioners to vote against Kerry. I think you haven't caught on the non-economic "logic" of it all: these people are willing to suffer economically so that the country stays in 'the right' hands. My counterlink: get yourself a copy of "What's Wrong With Kansas"- I prefer the short New Yorker article version, personally. That's also the deal with the O'Neill Swift Boat thing- these people can't let go of the idea, all the evidence to the contrary, that they're not the world's Messianic people. (They can't accept the alternative, which is that they are a pretty average people mostly dupes and morons whose Cold War faux zenith has passed.)

Most people voted on that basis. You're confusing them with swing voters, who consider the Democratic Party too filled with people with immature agendas/understandings :-) even if they liked Kerry and aren't giving up on Iraqumire despite themselves.

[Nordic]

105. I admit it's a huge problem, but I don't think it's "most" voters

I think the Zogby poll shows that.

But I respect your point of view.

I just think it's high time we stepped back, looked at the big picture, and got away from all the connotations and all the baggage of Democrat vs republican and "liberal" versus "conservative" and just started a party that stood for common sense, honesty, and actually representing people, democracy, straightforward debate, and accountability.

It would have a mix of both democrats and republicans, and hell, it might later splinter into two parties again.

I think there are a whole TON of people, like I said, I think it's WAY over half, probably a pretty good majority, who would like to reject BOTH parties.

How many times have we heard people interviewed saying "it's a choice between two evils" or I remember one college girl saying in an interview "I think Kerry is a douchebag but at least he's not Bush".

That's a sad state of affairs.

[Lexingtonian]

107. It's too easy, though

I'll disagree with you on what the Zogby thing means.

These days "common sense, honesty, and actually representing people, democracy, straightforward debate, and accountability" gets the label of being 'liberal'. Hell, maybe it is, if you toss in the word 'freedom' (which I assume you imply, actually). That's maybe because what passes for 'conservative' more accurately fits the term 'illiberal'- constricting, mean, narrow- behaviorally.

I consider us in a recapitulation of the Civil War. Of course most people don't want to be involved or have to make decisions about issues which they feel incompetent or falsely competent to deal with and have nice, peaceful, bourgeouis lives in which everything around them is well managed and nicely settled- according to the way they know and like or want it. This was also true during the Civil War. War came to these people rather than they to the war. War simply isn't to be ignored, though. War defines the times and the way everything happens and gets done. Like a wave of crime, no one asked for it, but it stems from undealt-with facts of the world and imposes itself and the criminals have the initiative most of the time, forcing the rest of us to live defensively and some to give up, others to become vigilantes, others to go away. The hardest thing is to keep good cheer and a sense of measure of oneself and a sense of what the real progress being made is. Much as people want peacetime and enjoy some nostalgic denial ('neither party' stuff), in the end they very much conform to the logic of the warfare. Scratch 'em hard and they admit to voting or wanting to vote Republican.

Even the issue itself goes back to the Civil War. All of our present problems center on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment not being enforced in letter or in spirit- union busting, election malfeasances in black precincts, gay marriage bans, Church-derived interference in schools, torture in Guantanamo, tax cuts for the wealthiest, anti-Latino immigration law enforcement. We're not arguing slavery, we're now arguing about there being a privileged class of people in every arena of public life and another class that gets screwed. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 because Southern states were coming with unbelievable shenanigans to disenfranchise and otherwise disadvantage freed slaves and deprive them of all state-level rights. We are all, unless wealthy/white/male/Christian, rediscovering the freed slaves' position now.

The people who say "it's a choice between two evils"...well, there are two answers. One is to admit to the real problems in the Democratic Party, which basically boils down to the elders who can't keep ahead of the curve as the country slowly finds Equal Protection/Nondiscrimination increasingly acceptable in various arenas of public life and they can't keep up. (Cue Zell Miller.) Democratic politicians have a double burden: keep ahead of the curve, and at the same time prove ability to govern better than the other side. The other answer is to say: these people acquiesce to fundamental unfairnesses in American public life and refuse responsibility for fixing it- and that's less than moral, too, especially the projection that the Democratic effort is misguided.

Right now there are two power games. One is the internal one, where the moderates are trying to make the best possible case for compromise- and I don't see how they can prevail, but the point is to get all their ideas and grievances out and their arguments stated, until they accept that there is in fact no compromise possible and tone down their dissent and efforts at disunity. The Democratic unity of October 2004 and the 59 million voters is the clinching evidence that the country is 'ready'. We're at the point that the Civil War was in mid-winter of 1864/65- one last long hard set of arguments in Washington about how and what for to win the war. An argument which ended in Congress passing the 13th Amendment (the 'moderates', the Northern Democrats, finally giving way) on to the states to ratify and Sherman sent in to destroy and politically wedge the last significant Confederate haven and resource bases, extremist South Carolina and moderate North Carolina respectively.

The larger power game of the Party for '06 and '08 is to wedge off moderate Republicans. We've lost all the conservative Democrats, there are enough moderate Republicans willing to cross to our side if we can resolve some remaining weaknesses or punch out some Republican selling points. I don't think it means compromises; I think it means breaking down some perceptions and false expectations and 'factual' supports for Bush and Republican policies. I think Iraq and 9/11-related stuff is the basic topic of '05-'06, but it's really all a story of everything Bush et al worked in their ideological side-privileging manner falling apart under Modern circumstances. It simply isn't 1890, the natives don't give up the fight against the colonialist overlords and their oppressive misrule anymore. The natives now have cell phones and the Internet... :D

[ChiciB1]

112. I had to respond to this one....

I didn't want to come out and actually say it in so many words.... but if those of you who are whining can't take the HEAT... then GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!

Thanks but no thanks for your PAST Support. Please find yourself some other place to whine!

Sure we have work to do, God I wish Paul Wellstone was still here. He died on my BIRTHDAY last year!! What a kick in the pants! And isn't HIS death still rife with conspiracy theories??? I guess if they keep trying to KILL us off we'll go away. Well, I stand firm! I'm a "boomer" of the Viet Nam era, and can remember many good things we accomplished and I refuse to let MY VALUES be compromised!

[SteveIrving1]

70. Don't give up just yet.

Hey, throughout the history of the DNC we've been stubborn and had been known for never quiting.

We completely wiped out the federalists way back win.
And the wigs are nothing but ruins now.

Remember the Republicans have never actually defeated or destroyed any political party. We have twice we have history we just need a plan and to reunite the party then the country.

[ChiciB1]

80. I Want To Say...

that I'm a Democrat... a REAL Democrat. Yes, we know how to lose and we have lost a lot, BUT we are the REAL people of America.

We are the ones who have been the GLUE of this Nation.

We have remained bonded by our love for the human race, people of every color and the oppressed. We stand for the preservation of the environment, for animal rights, the rights of all people to speak their piece, the right to worship without recrimination, the right to give women a choice. I could go on an on. We stand for so many RIGHTS, yet we are called the LEFT!

Keeping an open mind is always helpful and keeping the lines of communication open is a good thing. That's why so many of you are here... venting! I only hope we can find a way to come together with a single voice. A loud, clear voice because we are the party of EQUALITY AND FREEDOM. Fractured and bruised, but we have always been GREAT!

I remain a Democrat with a BIG "D!" And a Liberal with a BIG HEART!

Think Left, Be Right!

[Chicago Democrat]

81. Terminally Ill.... Endangered Species....but not dead yet!

Plenty of disasters await us...

It will win or die...We are much much better off now than say the Republicans were in 1964. Leaders will emerge or they wont..

Don't have the funeral before its actually dead.

[bvar22]

87. Don't run off just yet.

There ARE Liberal Democrats still in the Party.
They are AntiNafta,
Anti-Stupid War,
Anti-Corporate Personhood,
pro-Labor,
Pro-Human Rights,
Pro-Environment,
pro-election Reform.

They are meeting in DC on Jan. 21st for a Summit. They are gaining support among some of the more liberal grass roots organizations (Move-On).
Check them out. They are HERE:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

The Progressive Democrats of America stand on Iraq:

Here is what PDA believes and what we believe needs be said.

* The invasion was illegal under both the UN Charter and the US Constitution.

* It was unprovoked, unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary.

* It is obscenely expensive at a time when non-military government programs are starved for resources.

* It is based on distortions and deceptions and falsehoods -- not by accident, but by design.

* That the costs incurred by the US are borne disproportionately by the poor and underprivileged.

* That it was not motivated by a quest for phantom Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but by the Bush Administration's determination to control Iraqi oil, to provide vast opportunities for war profiteering by American corporations, and to build 14 new American military bases in Iraq which it intends to keep there for decades to come.

* That the Iraqi people deserve reparations for the harm we have inflicted on their population, their country and their national soul.

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/pda_iraq_statement.php

STOP sending money to the DLC/DNC. Send it directly to the Democrats who speak for you.

Local grassroots chapters have been set up in most cities. Visit the site. You will see some of the better known DUers there.

[mzmolly]

90. HERE HERE!

:toast:

[Swamp Rat]

95. That's a good idea no matter what your political affiliation

:thumbsup:

[Dirk39]

100. All "democratic" parties are dead, everywhere...

If I read all those postings on DU about the DLC, I miss one thing: nearly all the established former leftwing or socialdemocratic parties, at least in Europe, did follow Clinon's example.
Blair with "New Labour", Schröder in Germany with his "Neue Mitte" (New Center). And apart from their agenda, they have simply destroyed the democratic structure of their parties. What was a party before, has become some kind of corporation. Communication and discussions were replaced through advertising and public relation-agencies. This is just the other side of their corporate-whore-policies. What they are doing couldn't simply be done without destroying the democratic structure of their parties.

In Europe, we experience now the opposite of what is happening in the USA. We experience, what DLC-like left and green and democratic parties are doing in the era of neoliberalism and so-called-Globalisation (the biggest lie in the history of mankind). The Globalisation of corporations doesn't lead to a more open and free and democratic world. The world was more globalised 100 years ago than now. At least for those, who doesn't have millions of money.

And it's bad news.

The former social democrats, socialists and even worse the greens are doing, what no conservative or right-wing party would dare to do.
When the left-wing parties are doing it, even the unions, who were their allies for decades don't dare to fight back. And there's no opposition left.
In Europe, the "lesser evil" has become much more evil than the conservative and right-wing parties. Germany might be the worst example. It's not easy not to hate THESE Greens and socialdemocrats more than Bush.

I'm not the one to judge about Kerry, but at least, he didn't attack those on welfare as Clinton did and to me, at least according to his speeches, he was far more progressive than Clinton, Schroeder and Blair.
And if I look back at what Kerry did, not only when he was a young guy, but even during the eighties and nineties, I was impressed. Whatever Kerry might be, he's not another Clinton.

I just remember how I - sorry - hated Clinton. I thought the decades of Reagan would be over. That things would change once again. But Clinton had nothing better to do, than to attack those on welfare...
And in Germany a few years later, after a nightmare of two decades of conservatives came to an end, the Greens and the Socialdemocrats did win, and they did everything against the Poor, the Workers and those on Welfare, the conservatives didn't dare to do.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Tinoire]

103. Hello to Germany Dirk!

:hi:

Good post as usual!

:kiss:

[bloom]

122. thanks for your perspective

"What was a party before, has become some kind of corporation. Communication and discussions were replaced through advertising and public relation-agencies."

It isn't very encouraging, though. :(

[UdoKier]

106. So is democracy. Big whoop.

But the DLC whores would still be preferable to the Bush murderers.

Democracy ends. Life goes on. Sucks, but as long as enough of us are fat dumb and happy, there is little we can do about it.

[nolabels]

134. I don't know about that, I see lots a frog a jumping

You want relief from misery or would you like to get rid of the thing that gives it to you. Many people try to stay away from any kind of drugs that act like painkillers because they find their body heals so much better with out it. We have lots of horrible things that go on to be sure, but being fearful of what you might see should not be one of them.

I trust things will work out in the long run. The Vote fraud and all the rest of the fraud will have to be answered for in one or another eventually. If you let yourself be deceived by it when you know better than you are part of it.

I hope it gets worse much faster so we can get the hell over it. If your really are a liberal or progressive you cannot be weak kneed in my book. It took them 60 years to tear it down (the things Roosevelt was forced to do). A couple of more hard turns and we will be back there again. No harm intended, just let them fall on their own ugly self.

[IrateCitizen]

120. It's not dead, just being reborn from the states on up.

Read the following article on Democrats' significant gains in Colorado from Alternet.org.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20757/

[KnowerOfLogic]

135. Keep the party, ditch the incumbents and the DNC/DLC. nt

[HEyHEY]

138. I've always thought you need a REAL third party

[eridani]

140. No, we still need a real SECOND party n/t

[jesusq]

139. Scrap the Democratic Party

The Republicans have done an extraordinary job of demonizing democrats for the last 30+ years and the Dems have done nothing to counter the attack. Most dems can't even figure out how "liberal" became a dirty word. Face it, the brand is damaged goods like "Valu-Jet," we've had one too many crashes.

More detail, if you care to look

http://kohala.pair.com/jesusq/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[Geek_Girl]

143. I Thought about leaving the Party

But I decided to stay and FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT. If I wanted to be a spoiler like Nader there would be no better way to do it than from the inside. If the Democratic Leaders want to follow the DLC, demonize their base and be Republican Lite then I'll fight against every DLC democratic politician they put up. They won't get my money they won't get my time and they won't get my vote. I'll vote for and support any candidate that espouses progressive ideals and every DLC candidate that gets put up in '06 will get nothing. I look forward to writing letters to my local newspapers about how I'm a democrat and you can't trust a democratic candidate that Flops around the issues and tries to pretend he's a republican. Oh I can't wait!

[samplegirl]

146. Bush signed N-A-F-T-A

December 17th 1992 not Clinton.

[samplegirl]

148. I cant believe

The democrats didnt ban together and ask for his head the first
4yrs. What good was the 9/11 investigation?

[arwalden]

152. Oh Brother!

:eyes:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!