Why do we vote for the democrats when they just keep selling us out?

[southernleftylady]

those who keep giving in to all the republicans as of late... we need to call their office and ask them why we should vote for them?? obviously they aren't listening to their people...
why?
and why do we still vote for them??
we need a GOOD 3rd party and we need one NOW

[bluestateguy]

1. If this is because of the CAFTA vote...

then I'll remind you that only 15 House Democrats voted yes.

[ClintonTyree]

2. ONLY?

It seems that's all it took, huh? I wonder what quid pro quo these 15 traitors to their country received for those votes?

[southernleftylady]

3. no not just CAFTA! but the war, patriot act EVERYTHING they have

been going with the repugs

[bluestateguy]

4. reply

A majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq War resolution, and the recent vote to renew the Patriot Act in the House was voted against by 70% of House Democrats.

Place the blame where it belongs, with the governing party.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. But that would make too much sense

People like the drama, and love the opportunity to use the word "traitor".

Rather than take a direct, active role in lobbying their representatives and senators, they prefer to expect that they will be serviced like princes and princesses. They forget that the right-wing bastards who now control the works spent years schmoozing the power structure.

I agree that those dozen or so Democrats who voted for CAFTA ought to receive special attention -- first, to "come back into the fold", and then, to kick them out during the primary if they don't.

But the instant sulk strategy is for losers. We need to get a grip and formulate a broad range of winning strategies. Screaming "traitor!" is a waste of time and passion. Picking up the phone and calling one's legislators is a lot more effective.

--p!

[southernleftylady]

8. well you can talk for some but not for me because i DO lobby my reps.

so please don't assume anything

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Personalizing it is also an assumption -- this is a group-wide problem

If I put in even half of the qualifying rhetoric, I would go nuts. Rather than walk on eggshells, I just assume that people who rant on-line do not have overly tender feelings, and can distinguish between personal attacks and criticism of destructive trends. For instance, criticizing our reps isn't destructive; ranting and raving like a mad Freeper, however, is.

Qualifying that one paragraph would require me to point out that it's not about you, or anyone in particular; that I am pointing out a similarity and raising a cautionary note and NOT calling anyone a Freeper; and do not intend any particularization based on ideology, political persuasion, faith, creed, race, gender or other identifying category.

Doing it on as intensely managed as forum as DU is even more absurd. I already work overtime to circumscribe my writing; are we such tender souls that we can not bear to hear that we might be wrong about something?

So, no, it's not about you. I am quite happy that you are active enough to lobby your local politicians one-to-one. My dissent is in regard to the growing political intolerance and emotionalizing that threatens the progressive left.

My argument, which I'll repeat with some elaboration, is simple. We (as in "far too many DUers") have developed completely dysfunctional political strategies. Most do not participate in politics in any way other than to vote; very few, almost none in fact, have ever lobbied their representatives; and the dominant political strategy in left circles is to expect quick gratification. Failing that, disappointment, rage, and cynicism are quick to follow.

Look around at DU. A number of DUers are doing nothing beyond venting their rage over two picayune issues: First, Hillary's disapproval of the secret nudie files in Grand Theft Auto, and second, last night's vote for CAFTA -- against which most Democrats voted. As a result, dozens of DUers have posted "Fuck You, Hillary!" and acted as if the CAFTA vote was on the same level as overturning Roe v. Wade. These issues are setbacks, and disappoint many people, but they are far from killing blows.

I fully expect that most of the answers to this post will completely miss the point, and try to convince me of the importance of CAFTA or how Hillary really is conservative. But I don't dispute those things. Yet I can make that prediction because I have seen it happen half a dozen times just yesteray. Failure to be angry enough has gotten me plenty of criticism, too -- often with the hollow insistence that it's an act of "conscience".

I'll sit that part out. The ceaseless, red-hot, jargon-laden, outrage-justified inward-turning rants are useless as political action. And yet, for some reason, they are honored and revered as the vocalizations of God. They are not. Nor is any great courage of conscience required. They lead to Freepish intolerance and unmanageable anger. State a different opinion and get your head bitten off -- that isn't high-minded civil activity, it's a tantrum.

My larger argument is: why are we so opposed to pro-active solutions to dealing with our apostates? It ought to be easy to bring Hillary back to the idealism of the Left. Instead, we're a bucket of hot tar and a rail away from giving her a wild west farewell. And it's nuts. It's like amputating an arm for a hangnail.

No, I'm not personalizing any of my attacks. And there will be no name-calling, either. But a hundred rage-only threads per day, each with 50 or more responses, is not the way to build a strong political movement that sets goals and achieves change. If we can't effectively persuade our own co-partisans, what hope do we have to change America?

Anger isn't enough, and blind anger is worse that doing nothing. The time has come for us all to decide what we really want. If we need our emotional release more than we want to build a better world, we should not be involved in political action.

--p!

[mopaul]

5. personally, i vote democratic cause there's nothing else

if a daffodil ran as the democratic candidate i'd vote for it over a republinazi

[wake.up.america]

7. Very few have the intestinal fortitude...

Very few have the intestinal fortitude, and the system is such that there is no way for a politician to go far from the existing power base (money)and remain in office or even be a viable force.

[converted_democrat]

33. And the energy bill, patriot act, real i.d., just to name a few.......n/t

[James T. Kirk]

9. Third parties? They can't win.

I guess we have to buckle under and go with the lesser of the two evils.

[Tesha]

11. Why don't you go ask a Whig if that's true? (NT)

[James T. Kirk]

28. Good point. The Republicans really upset the balance back then.

[Tesha]

29. And it could, and probably *WILL*, happen again.

If not Greens vs. Dems now, then someday.

Tesha

[James T. Kirk]

32. Do you mean the Greens will supplant the Democrats...

or that they will supplant the Republicans?

[raccoon]

22. That's the way I look at it

The Democrats are, by and large, less repugnant than the Republicans.

I didn't so much vote FOR Kerry as I voted AGAINST Bush. I would have voted for anybody who ran against Bush.

Both parties belong to Big Business. Neither cares about the little guy, and neither party will make changes that will benefit the little guy unless the people DEMAND it. I don't think for one minute that Hilary Clinton, or any other Democrat, if they get into the WH in 2008, is going to give the US a national health plan. I hardly need add that Republicans won't either.

They're not our "public servants," they're servants of the powerful.

Remember it was CLINTON who signed the so-called "welfare reform" act.

[James T. Kirk]

27. And Clinton was pro-NAFTA, too.

[raccoon]

30. Right. IIRC, Bush I signed the bill,

and CLinton helped push it through Congress.

[Tesha]

10. "The triumph of hope over experience" (NT)

[lostnfound]

12. In the case on at least one - Cuellar - he cheated his way in.

Found ballots in the basement of his friend's bank.

[zalinda]

13. Oh, that will show them

it will let the repubs "rule" forever. Remember Nader?

zalinda

[southernleftylady]

15. i said a real 3rd party.. ok then what is your way out of this mess?? nt

[zalinda]

25. Support the dems you approve of

We all know that money talks. It is the way of politics, for the time being. If a dem does something you like, send him some money, and tell him why. If a dem doesn't do something you like, send him a letter and tell him if he had done this or that, you WOULD have sent him money. It's called reinforcement. Until money is taken out of politics, there is no other way, because it takes lots of money for them to get re-elected.

zalinda

[Deja Q]

16. We're just as programmed but on the opposite polarity than the pukes.

I've said my arguments too many times before. People need to come together for themselves. Not for the corporate elite. Both sides don't want to.

I am not voting anymore. They do not work for us. They are all people who are NOT from the middle class. When voted in they give themselves raises and benefits and they give precedent to the highest bidder.

[meg]

17. Because the alternative is worse

Remember Ralph Nader? With that said, let's take a legal and more constructive play out of the GOP playbook, run a good candidate in the primaries against bad Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Take out the nose plugs and vote issues rather than party.

If enough of us do that, the Democratic politicians will come after our votes instead of taking them for granted. Politicians chase the money and the votes.

[Cocoa]

19. I reject the premise

they fought, and lost, against Cafta.

I don't think they're selling me out.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. I Concur

Well stated.
The Professor

[Doug1865]

21. Does anyone know the history of Third Parties -- when they are

succssful, and when not?

[newyawker99]

26. Hi Doug1865!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Prism]

23. Sometimes . . .

I just want to vote Libertarian.

Sure, it probably wouldn't solve anything at all.

But hopefully I'd be too high on legalized pot to care anymore.

[depakid]

24. Welp, I'm not voting for either of my two "Dems" ever again

Wyden and Wu (Oregon) have sold me out for the last time. I'll vote for anyone who runs against them- either in the primary or in the general- and that may include a Republican if there's no Green. It's best for the party in the long run if they (and other Dems like them) are gone. It's the only way to bring accountability back into the equation

What's more, I'm going to convince as many people as I can to do the same.

Both of these bastards think they can backstab their constituents with impunity- well, if I'm going to be stabbed (or raped) then I'd damn well like to see it coming and not get date raped.

[DanCa]

31. Where's Jese Ventura and Ross Perot when you need them

Actually I vote dem for four reasons
1) A third party wont win the white house.
2) The repubs are a hell of a lot worse than any dem candidate
3) The dems are the best shot of beatting the repukes
4) I really need stem cell to pass and this war to be over.

Gee it's kind of like watching a debate between the crypts and the bloods. I admire your ideolizm though.

[Jose Diablo]

34. I don't think a 3rd party is the solution

We need to regain the control of the local party machines. It is at those locals that these Dino's are getting selected to represent the people.

You see, think about it as a bunch of wealthy local business owners running the machine with their money. What we are seeing at the federal level is the sum of all that local corruption.

Get involved at the local level, when enough locals are back in control by 'the people', then that federal level will straighten itself out.

Now, this is not to say that some influence at the federal level can not be achieved by Dean or others in positions of controlling assignments in congress and campaign money, but the core needs to be solid to make long term corrections within our party.

If the core is weak, then the whole thing is weak.

Forming a 3rd party, we would still need that local control, but then we would need to re-invent all the rest. Thats more effort than just correcting what we have now.

The Dem party has a pretty good history, don't junk that because we seem overwhelmed now. It's better to keep what we do have that is good, and correct what needs correcting.