If this is true, I'm leaving the democratic party

[nankerphelge]

Harry Reid is bad enough; if Tim Roemer is selected head of the DNC, I'm leaving and won't be coming back.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1219-03.htm

[Walt Starr]

1. It;s true, they want Roemer

and if he becomes the DNC Chair, the Democratic Party is D-E-A-D.

If Roemer wins, I treat Democrats precisely how I treat Republicans, I won;t even consider voting for them.

[welshTerrier2]

94. be careful Democrats ...

55 million or more voted for "the most liberal Democratic Senator" ... a conservative selection for DNC chair will be very damaging ...

you cannot automatically count on the future support of many in the ABB crowd ... a conservative selection is a foolish policy ... think about which states were more competitive this year, the red states or the blue states ... remember how worried you were even on election day about carrying Pennsylvania?

in trying to make inroads into the red states, you very well may be putting some of the blue states at greater risk ... what will happen when the unions stay home? what will happen when many activists leave? You keep telling us how well McCauliffe did with this year's fundraising ... how much of that money came from a community of online activists ?? what is that community telling you now ??? or didn't you bother to ask them ???

i worked hard for the Democratic Party this year and sent a lot of cash I didn't really have ... i've been feeling very betrayed since the election ... perhaps it really is time for us to go our separate ways ... I've been sticking around hoping for a good DNC chair selection ... Roemer is just not the way ... be careful Democrats ... you've centralized power too close to the top ...

[bullimiami]

2. "ive got your back" kerry

has pretty much done it for me.

they are going to have to come win me back if they want me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

108. I won't be leaving the Democratic Party

And the only "back" Kerry had was his own. That's pretty obvious. So be it.

[DemBones DemBones]

169. I know the feeling exactly. And I told the DNC that,

very politely, but have received no response. Does this mean they don't care how we feel???

[Kyle Reese]

3. I like Roemer.

He was able to consistently win as a Democrat in INDIANA. I think the message being sent is that we want to be competitive everywhere, not just the coasts and upper midwest.

[Walt Starr]

4. It's sends a message all right

The Democratic Party will become more "Republicaner than thou".

[formernaderite]

144. Agreed.....let's remember the more we move to the middle....

..or to the right, the more the center shifts rightward. The republicans become loonier and the public won't notice. The time is NOW....dig your heels in fellow travellers.

[liberalhistorian]

5. Excellent point.

And for all of you weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth and threatening to leave the party, answer me this: exactly what other party would be available with the same national organization and clout? Oh sure, you can go to a third party.

And you can also kiss any hope of having any influence on elections and national policy, on any of the issues you care about, goodbye totally. You want to marginalize yourself instead of sticking it out and working to make the party what you want it to be, go ahead, but don't drag the rest of us along with you.

[Walt Starr]

8. The ABB arguments died on November 2nd

I won't buy that shit any more and I won't enable the Republicratic-Democan one party system masquerading as two parties any longer either.

[Lone Pawn]

101. And in 2000 the "I'll vote my conscience because there's no difference"

died even more catastrophically.

[robbedvoter]

141. Funny you should juxtapose those- since both elections were stolen

In the end, it made no difference if you voted your conscience or you pulled together against the common enemies - the elections were trump - by judicial fiat in 2001, by glitch in 2004. Hard to say which was "more catastrophic'
The end result is - no more democracy in the country, and a lot of people who refuse to see it and hope, like Charlie Brown that Lucy won't kick the ball next time....

[Walt Starr]

145. What does it matter when the "two parties" collude with the effect

that there really is only one party?

[nankerphelge]

12. Yawn

Apparently things have to get a whole lot worse before the masses understand how bad they've become. As a middle class white guy with health insurance and a professional license I can use overseas, I;ve got no problem with it. I don't have to compromise my values.

[umtalal]

13. Green.

[tedzbear]

80. Green

Me too.

:bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

88. I'm heading in that direction, myself.

Just let them keep this unmitigated bullshit up.


Maybe the problem isn't that we field candidates who are pro-choice. Maybe he problem is that we field candidates who are so lily-livered scared of alienating the right wing in this country, that they come off as wishy washy prevaricating putzes.

[Lone Pawn]

102. Yes, let's split the minority left into two parties entirely incapable of

winning a single election ANYWHERE!

Wow. Thank God DU isn't the mainstream Democratic party.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Look, I've spent the last decade vigorously

defending the Democratic Party. Kay? Believe me, lots of people have already left. But it gets increasingly difficult to advocate supporting the lesser of the two evils when it is consistently trying to remove any and all distinction, whatsoever, from the greater of the two evils.

Screw that. The Democratic Party already doesn't have a set of balls on issues like the drug war, universal health coverage, and the environment. Almost all of the Democrats in the house- including my own "ultra-liberal" rep. lined up to vote yes on a GOP bullshit bill about "defending the pledge of allegiance". None of them wanted to talk about the constitutional church/state issues involved, nor about the fact that "under God" was tacked on, unnecessarially, during the height of '50s McCarthyism.

On most of these issues, and many others, if I run down the list I probably agree with either the Greens or the Libertarians. So why am I still a Democrat? Because a) I hold out hope of my party regaining its soul -and its cojones... and b) because I recognize that a unified front is necessary to, as you say, win elections.

But if they jettison every single motherf*cking reason I have to support them- and choice is a biggie- why the hell should I stay? For what? If they give me no reason, at all, to vote for them, because voting for them is virtually indistinguishable from voting for the Republicans, hell yes I'm going to join a "minority party" that, at the very least, represents my values.

[Tansy_Gold]

106. "Lots of people have already left"

You're absolutely correct, impeachdubya, and most of them are the liberals, left-leaners, greens, etc. they're doing it right here on DU. On this thread.

Hello, DNC, can you get a clue????!!!!!

The Democratic Party is NOT winning over the moderate repukes. They aren't, folks, they just aren't. What they are doing, with this constantly moving further and further right, is losing the liberal vote. how about going after the 50 million (or however fucking many it was) souls who DIDN'T VOTE FOR ANYONE???????? Why try to get the folks who actually voted for demonspawn? They LIKE him!!!!

As for the people who don't want the Democratic Party split in two becuase it will "weaken" the opposition -- how much fucking weaker can it get??????????????????????????????????



Tansy Gold, who is not normally given to excessive punctuation

[CrispyQ]

112. I agree. If they don't get back to a true liberal agenda . . .

& stop being afraid & ashamed of being liberal, I won't vote Democratic

Someone on the Bill Maher show said essentially what you said -- stop trying to sway the swing voters! Take a real stand -- a liberal stand -- & go for the non-voters who are liberal & want to see a party & candidates who are not republican light.

[ChiciB1]

165. I Don't Want Roemer But....

I won't leave the Democratic Party!! My Democratic Party that I'm so "in your face" about. I tell EVERYONE that I'm a Liberal and that I'm Proud of it. We have to stick together because division only means we stay out in the cold! There has been some movement going on because this subject has been on the "front burner" for so long! I don't think we really have much of a choice anyway!

And Roemer is Anti-Abortion! That just can't be the head of the Party, he doesn't even represent what WE stand for. We need to find a way to let the leadership know. And Joe Lieberman is right there with him even though he's never said he was anti-abortion. But he's sure in the Conservative lane!

Come on Democrats, let's make some noise! What about swamping Kennedy and Biden with our thoughts?????

[Tomee450]

125. AMEN!!!!!

[Djinn]

110. yep much better to keep voting for a party

with whom you disagree with on almost every issue just because they may be able to win - why not just vote for the repugs then?

I stopped voting for our major "left" party a long time ago (admittedly the preferential system makes it an easier choice than you guys face) because I was sick of being told to vote for a party that ignores workers rights (what the hell happened to the LABOR part of the ALP?) prefers middle-upper class tax cuts over services, wants to privatise everything, beleives in "free trade" etc etc

There's no moer reason for me to vote ALP than the Lib's (our conservatives) so why would I?

[NightTrain]

121. Green green, it's green they say, on the far side of the hill....

Green green, I'm going away to where the grass is greener still!

I said it here when Kerry conceded, and was raked over the coals for saying so; but I see now that others have taken my initiative and will jump ship to the Green Party. And why not? Unlike the Democrats, the Greens have both integrity and courage! If enough of us join and support the Greens, they'll eventually become a viable alternative to the one-party system that masquerades as a two-party system.

I didn't leave the Democratic Party; it left me!

[montana500]

139. lol

good luck. Any party that opposes hunting will never win any national election. you are doomed before you start.

[paulk]

18. of course they will

"kiss any hope of having any influence on elections and national policy, on any of the issues you care about, goodbye totally. "

But then they can come here to DU and piss and whine and moan about it. It's win win!

[Warren DeMontague]

104. News Flash.

We've already kissed any hope of having any influence on national policy goodbye. If we're forced to choose between two pro-life, pro-corporate, pro-war parties, please explain to me how that is preferable.

[paulk]

113. that's your charactorization

don't say "we".

Go ahead and join the Greens, see if I care...

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Really? With a Republican President & Congress?

Beware, the mighty rod of Democrat influence.

Listen, I'm the guy who hectors my green and/or Naderite friends every four years. I'm the guy who consistently says ideals are fine but they must be tempered with realism. But guess what? countless years of a party pussyfooting around like Tom Daschle and apologizing for things like being pro-choice, while failing to articulate consistent stands on things like, say, the wrongness of the pre-emptive Iraq war, the fact that 45 Million Americans have no health coverage, and the fact that we blow $200 Billion a year on a useless "drug war" that accomplishes nothing except giving us the highest incarceration rate of non-violent offenders of any industrialized nation... 2 presidential elections, now, with us playing the game that way hasn't done us any favors. In case you haven't noticed, being "practical" (i.e. moving to the right) hasn't led to victory. Maybe what we need is to be a little less practical- find what we stand for and stand for it...

As I've said, I'm usually the guy standing up for the Democratic Party. Very forcefully. But if we sell out things like our commitment to reproductive rights, or our commitment to the separation of church and state, fuck yes I'll join the greens. And if the party starts losing people like me, it doesn't matter what YOU think.. I'm telling you it's in deep, deep shit, my friend.

[progressoid]

25. True, but what influence will the DNC have after a few million leave the

party because it no longer represents them? Sadly, the DNC already is just a wounded dog that can't seem to get it's tail out from between it's legs. Where is the organization and clout now? Is turning your back on the base of the party an answer? I think all of the former Greens and Indies that came over this year will leave asap if this happens. It's not a matter of leaving the party, its a matter of the party leaving them - or more accurately, disappointing them again.

No body is saying you have to be dragged along with them, but don't be surprised when the gains sought by pandering to the center is offset by losses from the left.

[Nite Owl]

26. But that is just what they think too.

Don't bother with the base they have no where else to go so move right and pick up the right of center people. It hasn't worked and it won't work. People want a party that stands for something and is honest in their beliefs. One of the reasons we lost is because we didn't stand for what it means to be be a Democrat. It shows weakness to do that and in leaves people to think that we will abandon whatever is said during a campaign since it isn't true anyway. Progressives/Liberals have to work to show that what we believe in is what is truly good for the country and increase our numbers to win, becoming more Repuke isn't going to do it at all. If they are going to do the move to the right they are going to wake up again after election day in '06 and still be wondering why they lost. A move to the right will lose the base, and that's me.

[dmkinsey]

59. I think the point really is

snip<One of the reasons we lost is because we didn't stand for what it means to be be a Democrat.>

We DO have to stand up for the ideals of the Democratic Party and we have to do so in a way that gets through to the voters in the center.
It's not a question of US CHANGING to be more centrist we already have the issues that should attract the center voters. We just have to get the message through the wall of right wing BS that keeps the centrist voting against the party that is their natural ally.

[liberalhistorian]

66. I totally agree that a move to the right

would destroy the party, and those dumbnuts considering it (Holy Joe LIEberman, anyone?) would be signing the party's death warrant. That is why it's important for the base to stick with the party and work to change it from within, to make clear that there are millions of us who won't tolerate any moves to be even more repuke-lite than they already are.

[Q]

33. You should know that people don't always choose a 'third party'...

...when they leave. Just as often you'll find people simply dropping out and never voting again for any party.

Keep in mind that half of America doesn't bother to vote. Why add to their numbers by offering more of the same instead of trying to understand WHY they're leaving?

[Kipepeo]

82. Exactly

Moving to the center and trying to be more Repubilcan than republicans will NOT win us Republican votes, will definitely not reach the non-voting population, and will almost certainly disillusion many dems and turn more people into nonvoters.

The turnout was huge this year. If the Dems swing more to the right and don't offer people any ALTERNATIVE to bushco republican crap, then turnout will be back in the toilet again in 2008.

[Guaranteed]

89. Oh, yeah, the DNC has some CLOUT, baby!

HAHAHAHA!!

Hell, I'm a Democrat- why didn't anybody tell ME that?

[lateo]

90. We are already marginalized.

Haven't you been paying attention?

[Cobalt Violet]

7. But how about where the base is already?

We can always vote (and donate) Green.

[nankerphelge]

10. You don't become competitive by trying to outrepublican the republicans

[Kyle Reese]

14. I'd like to call it a paradigm shift.

It could be that far left policy stances just aren't jiving with the electorate right now; or not enough so to win elections. I think one has to look at it in a larger context. I think Dems could start winning everywhere again if they went with a populist economic stance, and a softer religious and culture stance.

[Walt Starr]

16. I call it Republicanizing the party

which allows them to move even further to the right draggin the center with them thus even further marginalizing the democrats.

That strategy loses twice.

[Kyle Reese]

19. Actually it's won us the presidency twice

And it's been the only effective strategy to win. McGovern, Mondale, Dukkakis all got blown out. Were they "democrat" enough for you?

[Walt Starr]

20. No, it hasn't won us the presidency twice

Charisma and a third party challenger won us the presidency twice.

This strategy lost us the Congress and two presidential elections.

[Kyle Reese]

21. And your strategy has won how many presidential races?

Btw, studies show Clinton would have won regardless.

[Walt Starr]

23. My strategy has won us nothing lately

because we've been playing by your strategy since '85. Since then we've lost three presidential elections and the Congress which had been held for forty years.

[Kyle Reese]

28. So it won us the presidency prior to '85?

Humphrey? McGovern? Carter? who?

[Walt Starr]

31. You're strategy didn't get us anything prior to '85either

in '68, we ran a conservative, AND LOST. Carter was a populist and won in '76, but ran from his base, took a soft stance on abortion which drove the progressives to Anderson in '80 and LOST.

Moving right is the ABSOLUTELY WORST MOVE the Democrats make, and the PNACDLC is pushing it.

Now put up or shut up. Give me a citation for your claim that Clinton would have won anyway.

[Kyle Reese]

37. Carter won

using the strategy we should be using now. Ran from his base? What the hell does that mean. He came off as a bluecollar guy and he wasn't far left on key issues. He was able to win Texas. He lost in '80 because of a horrible economy and a international incident in Iran. Explain 1972 to me. That's what you want to re-live.

regarding the Clinton thing. Ive read on this site that poll done about voters in Perot voters in '92 split favorably to Clinton. Keep bashing the only Dem president we've had in 25 years though. It will get you places I'm sure.

[Walt Starr]

38. Link please

Still waiting.

[Kyle Reese]

40. Great argument

[Walt Starr]

41. You made the assertion

You are under the burden of proof.

Again I say, link please.

[Kyle Reese]

43. 1972

1972

[Walt Starr]

46. Argumentum ad ignorantium

Fallacious and not even meaningful.

[Kyle Reese]

48. 1988

[Walt Starr]

51. I repeat, argumentum ad ignoratium

Again, fallacious and not meaningful.

[Kyle Reese]

54. 1972

[Walt Starr]

56. 1932

1936
1940
1944
1948
1960
1964

and on the losing side for moving to the right

2000
2002
2004

[Telly Savalas]

60. Which is convenient...

since the socioeconomic climate in 2008 will likely resemble 1932 due to Bush out-Hoovering Hoover.

Edited to add: will this get me banned, since I'm slagging Bush and not fellow Democrats?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

149. FDR Was A Small C Conservative...

He conserved capitalism by removing it's excesses..


A true leftist would have junked the whole system..


I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing...


Also, in 60 , and 64 we ran tough on defense candidates...


Hell one of JFK's arguments against Dick Nixon was that a missile gap had developed between us and the Soviets during the Eisenhower administration..


This liberal/conservative view of American political history is ahistorical and counterproductive...

[eridani]

75. In 1972, much of the party leadership--

--actively worked against its candidate.

[TankLV]

167. A - a newbie lecturing an expert - this should be fun.

Enjoy your short stay above ground.

Carter won because people were sick of crooks in OUR White House and there were honest elections with no computer tabulations.

Carter was considered the "honest" candidate.

Still lost to the bad actor when all the disgust with what the repukes had brought us was forgotton.

[Wabbajack]

69. Humpherey was a conservative?

[LandOLincoln]

71. In 1968, yes, he was. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

100. He supported the war in Vietnam, that makes him a warmonger

Liberals are not warmongers, but peacemakers.

[David Zephyr]

124. David Zephyr May Become David Green Soon.

It has been coming for years, the DLC chair will probably be the last straw for me. By the way, happy holidays, IG! :hi:

[IndianaGreen]

133. Yo, David!

I will never support a candidate, or a party, that does not support full equal rights for GLBTs, including marriage rights. And I will definitely oppose anyone that is for the war and for PATRIOT Act.

Now... how about Russ Feingold?

[David Zephyr]

155. The Grass is Getting "Greener " By the Day on the Other Side.

There are still a number of truly courageous Democrats who merit support, but the old canard of "well, if you vote Green, the Republicans will wind up with the White House and both Houses in Congress" doesn't work anymore. The Right Wing Democrats can not possibly lose anymore than they have already have lost.

[lojasmo]

151. Nice picture of half dome

Was that taken from Curry Village?

I'm thinking I'll be caucusing with the greens in 2008. We'll see.

Feingold's the only Senator I would support in 2008 (Oh yeah, probably Boxer too)

[David Zephyr]

156. The Half Dome is a DU Graphic.

It looks like it was taken from the Village, but I'm not sure.

Feingold and Boxer are terrific Senators and have my complete support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. Harry Truman Supported The War In Korea...

He also wanted to socialize medicine and did integrate the Armed Forces..


I'm tripping from this board...


Who needs acid....

[IndianaGreen]

161. You should read about Truman's shameful foray into Greece

and the Truman Doctrine, based on lies, which led to the phony Cold War.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. Humphrey Was A Conservative?

He was a hawk like many other liberals including JFK, HST, and RFK except RFK had the wisdom to see the folly of Viet Nam and had nothing to lose by sharing that wisdom with the electorate...


On domestic and social policy Hubert Humphrey was a liberal...It was Humphrey who insisted as far back as 1948 to include a civil rights plank in the Democratic platform...


In your attempt to make a rhetorical point you tarnished a good and decent man....


I hope you have the wisdom to see the error of your ways...


Peace

Brian

[Cheswick2.0]

27. link?

What studies would those be?

[Forkboy]

76. Here's a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=161276

:D

[Tinoire]

87. I laughed before I even clicked on your link-

you're too clever by far. Laughed my ass off when I clicked on it!

[lojasmo]

152. Damn you, Forkboy. (lojasmo shakes his fist) N/T

[mattclearing]

150. The ONLY reason Clinton won was because Perot played the spoiler.

Without Perot, Clinton was doomed.

[TankLV]

166. Studies have shown just the opposite.

Perot split the Repukes.

[hansolsen]

72. Right on. N/T

[Kipepeo]

84. Far left?

The Democrats running the party don't have any "far left" positions, Rush. But god I wish they did.

[rman]

142. It would be a paradigm shift to try the old Dem values again.

What would be a "populist economic stance"?

favor corporations over people (do you really think the populace wants that?), like the repubs do, which is the direction the DLC has been taking the Dem party for the past few decades?

"softer religious stance"?
allow fundies to dictate how we greet one another during various holidays? it's not the Left but the reli-fundi RW that is religiously intolerant. we *are* soft on religion in that respect.

"softer culture stance"?
allow them to rid the airwaves of such 'immoralities' as Janet's boob?
outlaw non-standard sex practices, have the government police our bedroom (and call it "small government")?


I'd say if there really is no popular support for social democracy, religious and cultural tolerance, then the Dem party has no basis to exist and the repubs can just have it all - there's no point in having two repub parties.

It "could be" that by now there are in fact a lot of people who would feel more at home with traditional leftist pro-labor values then with the new-democrat corporatist values. It hasn't been tried for ages.
After trying for decades to out-repub the repubs, it would be a paradigm shift to try the old Dem values again.

[ClintonTyree]

15. Winning at what cost?

What have we gained if we win elections and lose our soul? It's time to go back to the left where we came from, not farther to the right just to appease freaking ignorant red staters.
I believe America will come to US, after they've been fucked over again and again by the right. We have to give the people a choice, not be Junior Varsity Republicans.

[Higans]

67. Has it occured to you

That maby the only reason Roemer is winning is because that is what the machines have been programed to say? It's not because people actually like him, it's because who ever controls the machine decided they wanted him to win.

Will we the people ever have a say?

[Kipepeo]

83. You're silly

We ARE competitive everywhere. Take your coasts and upper midwest stereotype and throw it in the garbage with the Republicans-only-appeal-to-the-deep-south stereotype that I'm sure you'd rightly find issue with.

[Rockerdem]

96. Roemer was part of the charade that . . .

. . . let Bush skate on 9-11 AND created a bigger police state bureaucracy. How in the hell can that be considered "progressive" in anybodys language?

Roemer is good at providing neo-con cover, not setting the agenda for the left rising from the ashes. Give me a break.

[saracat]

127. At the expense of MY rights!

Whoopie for him! He is a Faux Dem. He ought to be kicked out.What good is a Dem that represents the other side and votes their way?

[Capn Sunshine]

154. BRGGGGGGGGGGGGH

That's the sound of the astroturf machine.

[progressoid]

6. Me too. What's the point if we become republican lite.

time to start sending some more emails I suppose.

[nankerphelge]

36. Yes indeed.

I sent the head of the party for my state a message letting him know I'd be gone.

[yurbud]

9. Room to appear like we aren't the extremists

I'm leery of these centrists too, but not necessarily on abortion, depending on how they frame it.

Both sides have staked out the extremes, ALL abortions are bad, or ALL abortions are okay, but nobody has taken a more common sense position, like that implied in Roe v. Wade.

The baby or whatever is less human closer to conception, and more human closer to birth, and we should have restrictions after viability--if we tie it with the right getting off our ass on the first trimester. There won't be any arms and legs in the tissue bucket if women and girls have access to the morning after pill.

I don't think this is what the centrists have in mind though. It looks more like bowing and scraping to the religious right, and the big businesses who are yanking their chains.

[buddysmellgood]

17. That is way too common sense. Common sense is out. We need to be

even more outrageous than the republicans. We need to make it a crime to even think about sex without actually following up and having sex that makes a baby. If we frame this right, we can sell it with sex and steal their thunder.

[AgadorSparticus]

138. and under no circumstances are people allowed to enjoy sex---

even for procreation purposes. we would have to apply for permits for intercourse, of course, and the dept. of homeland security will oversee the sexual activities in order to protect us from terrorists and homosexuals--in the event that they pop into bed with us or something.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. there are already restrictions after viability

[proudbluestater]

131. Yurbud, RE:

"The baby or whatever is less human closer to conception, and more human closer to birth, and we should have restrictions after viability..."

We already DO have this. It's called Roe v. Wade. Everybody should read it at least once. It's not a freaking free-for-all. It's pretty much unrestricted in the first trimester, thereafter it gets stricter.

[Warpy]

11. The DLC, not content to lose elections to fraud

..now will sell women completely out and lose them for real.

If they do this, they can all go to hell together. I'll be voting Green.

His weakness on choice caused most progressives to desert the party in 1980 and vote for John Anderson instead of Carter.

I'm beginning to think the tinfoil beanie people are right and that the leadership of both parties are in this together.

[HeeBGBz]

22. With fraudulent elections, it doesn't really matter

You can't win in a bogus democracy.

[femme.democratique]

32. Hit the nail on the head....none of this matters if the corruption remains

We're not too far left. In fact, we're not left enough IMO!

[SheilaT]

24. Don't pay any attention to the

so called leadership of the Democratic Party. We simply need to take it over from the bottom.

Become a precinct committee chair. Run for local office. Actively support candidates who run for local office. Go door-to-door on behalf of state legislature candidates. Make sure good, progressive, liberal Democrats run for County Commissioner, Water Board, State Education Boards.

We can do this. It won't happen overnight, or in just one or two election cycles, but we can reclaim the party.

[Pushed To The Left]

29. I disagree with both sides on this

I disagree with the Democratic Party backing down on one of their core progressive issues, but I also think it's a bad idea for the progressive side to split in half. Both of these things will only strengthen the right-wing. The Democratic Party buckles on a core issue, and then a chunk of the Party joins a third party and splits the progressive vote. Karl Rove is probably having an orgasm.

[Walt Starr]

34. Well damn, the DLC wants to purge us lefties

I say we purge ourselves if they move us farther to the right!

I didn't start this purge shit, the PNACDLC did.

[Kyle Reese]

39. Don't forget the masons

and skull and bones.

[Walt Starr]

42. Argumentum ad absurdium

Fallacious, and not even funny.

[Kyle Reese]

44. 1972

[Walt Starr]

47. Argumentum ad ignoratium

Fallacious and not even meaningful.

[Kyle Reese]

49. 1984

[Walt Starr]

52. Again, argumentum ad ignoratium

I repeat, fallacious and not meaningful.

[Kyle Reese]

55. 2004

[Walt Starr]

57. GOTCHA

We moved to the RIGHT in 2004

[IndianaGreen]

98. Mister Electable...

Not!

Wrong on PATRIOT. Wrong on IWR. Wrong on NAFTA. Wrong on gun rights. Wrong on Plan Colombia.

The odd thing is that thanks to the ABB coalition, Kerry may just have won Ohio, and hence the election. Of course, it took third parties like the Green and Libertarian parties, to ask and pay for a recount in Ohio.

Mister Electable, where are you???????

As to the country, we are all better off if we part ways from Jesusland and join a civilized country like Canada. There is nothing united in the United States of America. We are a house divided against itself, and fall it must!

[KnowerOfLogic]

120. Right on, Brother / Sister; secession is the only answer, but people

are so apathetic, i'm sure it'll never happen. Progressives in america will just continue to let themselves be screwed by the repukes and by their own 'leaders.'

[IndianaGreen]

97. People voted for Ronald Reagan...

who proceeded to bankrupt the country, and to sponsor the future Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan, not to mention giving WMDs to Saddam to kill Iranians.

The fault lies not in the candidate, a moderate Democrat and a fine Vice President, but in the fact that the moronic electorate voted for Raygun. They got the bloodbath and the huge deficits they wanted!

[IndianaGreen]

95. People voted for Nixon and...

we ended up with 58,000 dead Americans and a million dead Vietnamese.

The fault lies not in the candidate, a true war hero, but in the fact that the moronic electorate voted for Tricky Dick. They got the bloodbath they wanted!

[AntiCoup2K4]

73. Oh, that's rich... a DLC'er making a joke about Skull & Bones

And who was it who selected a Bonesman as an "electable" candidate??

[Telly Savalas]

64. Exactly: both sides are doing a great job of helping the GOP

This infighting is inane.

The Left vs. Right nonsense distracts from the fact that we need to focus on having candidates the electorate can relate to. Both Joementum and Kucinich would have had their asses handed to them by Bush if they had won the ticket. This isn't because they were too Right or too Left respectively, but rather because they both make Dukakis look like a man of the people. Most voters aren't policy wonks, they just want someone they think they can trust.


People can bitch all they want about the DLC running the party, but it doesn't change the fact that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has about 50 seats in Congress. It also doesn't change the fact that about half of the Democratic caucus in both the Senate and House voted against the Iraq War Resolution. This means the center/right wing of the Party would be foolish to ignore the needs of the left. At the same time, it means that the DLC doesn't have control of the party so progressives shouldn't be so quick to jump ship, especially when the life raft doesn't stand a chance at winning elections.

One of the biggest reasons the GOP has had so much success in the last decade is that their members see past their differences and work together. Our lack of unity is killing us. You hear more folks bitching about fellow Democrats than Republicans here. The phrase "circular firing squad" has become a cliche around here because it's such a perfect description. It doesn't matter how far Right or Left the party is, with this sort of infighting, we're doomed.

[Walt Starr]

35. Don't worry, you won't be leaving the Democratic Party

It's planning on leaving you.

[TrustingDog]

45. leave all parties. They both stink.

[Walt Starr]

50. We're almost solidified as a single party state

The Republicratic-Democans have almost solidified single party status in America.

[TrustingDog]

53. it's not a party, it's a wake.

[UTUSN]

58. You Wanted to Leave Long Ago, and Before You Were a Member n/t

[chomskysright]

61. Roemer is anti-abortion

[sherilocks]

91. OMG you are right!!!!!!

Look at this voting record:

http://www.issues2000.org/IN/Tim_Roemer_Abortion.htm

If this guy becomes the DNC chair, I WILL leave the party. Have they gone mad? First Reid, and now this.

I've been a Democrat all my life, but it is no longer my party if Roemer is at the helm.

[IndianaGreen]

99. Reid likes Scalia

and Roemer is anti-choice. You are not leaving the party, the party left you!

[ElectroPrincess]

111. Didn't Scalia once, in a moment of true madness, comment

how orgies were A OK? What a maroon!

No wonder our country's going to hell in a hand basket with Scalia and Thomas serving on the Supreme Court - our "moral compasses".

YIKES!

[IndianaGreen]

134. Scalia wants to overturn the Miranda decision

In his little Mussolini mind, Scalia wants the State to have the power to torture detainees until they confess to whatever crime the State wants them to confess. Scalia is one creepy character!

[w13rd0]

62. Most independents and centrists I speak to...

...their problem with the Democratic Party isn't that it isn't moving rightward, it's that it MOVES all the damn time, demonstrating a COMPLETE LACK OF PRINCIPLE and that they'll say and do anything to get elected. Sure, the GOP does this too, but they've learned how to cater to their right wing base in codewords and hidden legislation, while still making a token effort to reach out. Everytime the DNC/DLC "re-images", it adds to the public perception of "flip flopping" and being unprincipled...

[JI7]

63. i think the Democratic Party is just not the place for some

i don't get outraged or feel these people are not on my side even though they may not be my personal choices the way some of you feel.

so it probably is best if some left the democratic party. especially if something like the person who is dnc chair is enough to make you leave.

[Telly Savalas]

65. If progressives can't even take control of the Democratic Party...

how do they expect to take control of the nation?

[mycatforpresident]

68. Why not start a People's Party?

I've been a lurker for awhile...but I've been thinking (I almost hurt myself) and thought I'd throw an idea out there. It may have been done already, but here goes:

In order to reach a certain level politically, it's almost certain that one has to gain the trust of some aspect of Big Business, cheat a little and lie a little. Or a lot. Then, to move on, a person has to have the right connections (other liars, cheaters and BB friendly folks) and jockey for a position. So what the voters end up with is the dreaded "lesser of two evils" syndrome. Even Wellstone wasn't immune.

We know we have the volunteer and monetary resources (Moveon, etc.) to support any candidate we choose, but many of us are scared to put our money and time into a person (Nader) who seems a little too radical to suit the needs of all progressives. It seems like a waste, yeah?

So, if all the dissatisfied Dems and Indies got together, signed a common statement of beliefs and hopes for our country, put time, money and energy into bringing the movement together-Voila! Instant People's Party. And the best part is, you could choose your candidate from within the party...and they've already signed the agreement not to lie, cheat and steal. If we don't like 'em, we just get rid of 'em the next go around.

You know, I'm doing a lot of complaining and not enough doing. Maybe our right to a revolution is at the prime moment to be exercised...

[bling bling]

70. I love your idea.

I think someone who has the time, ability, and people skills to give legs to your idea would find a lot of people would jump on board.

[Disturbed]

77. a People's Party?

You are welcome to join us Greens. With a few million progressive Dems perhaps we won't be a little blip any longer. ;0)

[bling bling]

78. I've already started thinking about it.

I feel like I'm an unrepresented Democrat lately. The increasing talk of the DNC moving to the right is pushing me away. I don't feel like they value the same things I value anymore.

Do you have any links to good sources of info on the Green Party?

[mycatforpresident]

79. The problem with the Green Party

is that they are already labeled by a lot of centrists. There is no way is H-double-hockey-sticks most middle of the road Dems are gonna join the Greens.

What we need is a party built on an electronic platform...something that starts small, builds, and then WHAM! Like a tidal wave, we're strong and hit the election process. The powers that be have been fearing just this sort of revolution...why do you think they suppress Greens at debates? They're scared of the truths they may tell. Nope, gotta start fresh.

[Liberty Belle]

81. I wish Dean would start a new party.

With fighters like Edwards & Arnebeck.

[mycatforpresident]

85. You want to ask him?

I will if you will...

[Liberty Belle]

116. I'd wait and see if Dean gets named DNC Chair.

If that happens, there's hope to save our party.

[bling bling]

86. If you develop a new peoples party or find one

let me know. I thought you're idea sounded great. Right now it's not really an option, though. I'm going to research the Greens a little more in the meantime and see what they stand for.

[NightTrain]

129. Here's a link to a good Green Party website.

www.greens.org

[Touchdown]

105. Why not just resurrect Bull Moose?

Teddy's party was a progressive "people's party", and it should have appeal to nostalgic GOPers as well.

[mycatforpresident]

114. Genius...pure genius...

Credibility established, push a little farther to the left...perfect...hmmm.

The common standard has to be less about taxes and abortion and more about reestablishing our democracy. If the general public happened to be well informed, people might be very interested in such a thing.

Do you think it's a workable solution, really? Or are we just really interested in complaining and sitting around on our duffs these days?

[robbedvoter]

157. Working Families party - exists in some states.

Put on the ticket Dem candidates - I voted on their slate for years.
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/

[eridani]

74. If you don't want to support DNC, you can still be in the party

I intend to support my local Dem organizations, DFA and PDA. The national party isn't getting a dime from me--all my money will be devoted to building the local base necessary to get people like Roemer out of top leadership positions. Given the delegate composition at the national convention, I think we can succeed in time even if we don't get Dean as chair this time.

[sherilocks]

92. I'll be right behind you. (when you leave)

Tim Roemer's voting record on abortion related issues:

http://www.issues2000.org/IN/Tim_Roemer_Abortion.htm


Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research.

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

[umtalal]

93. The more I read about what the shit they want to do, the more I think

about leaving.

It is making me cry.

[greenohio]

107. If they don't elect who I want for such and such...I'm out of here.

If I had a dime everytime somebody said that on DU, I could run for president.

[Forkboy]

115. Then a lot of people would definately be outta here!

[greenohio]

140. Don't tease FORKBOY

[Jax]

118. Which party?

:shrug:

Jax

[ElectroPrincess]

109. After 22 years of support, I'm with you ... the Democratic Party

Has left the PEOPLE of the USA in favor of their CORPORATE MASTERS.

I'm supporting the GREENS! Amen.

[satori]

117. Don't leave

I left the Democratic Party in 2000 after Gore did not protest the S election by the Supreme Court. I voted Nader in 2000 and Nader in 2004 because I wanted to vote my conscience and I could vote for Nader because I did not live in a swing state but in New York a State that no doubt would go to Gore or Kerry, so my vote did not count in this state anyway.

But with the Democratic Party being so beaten down by the Republicans, the liberalism of the party has to become stonger. People will be saying what is all this liberalism stuff anyway?

I am now officially a registered Democratic voter again. Start a new group within the Dem party or join PDA or Deans group DFA.

The Greens are too socialistic. I personally think it is just a front group for the Communist party. The Greens are mostly made up of Moore Indymedia anti-Semitic types, whom think that socialism is the answer to our social evils.

I'm actually happy that I am a Dem again. For the past 20 or so years the dems mostly ignored liberalism now they cannot ignore it because frankly liberalism has been and will be the only political philosophy that has the tools to fight the religious fanatics in the Republican Party that are now the powers that be.

If you were a hardcore Democrat and not a liberal I would encourage you to just switch to the liberal Democrats in your own party.

Turn Left...the home of Liberalism

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/liberal.html

[welshTerrier2]

122. "The Greens are too socialistic."

welcome to DU, satori !!

what do you mean when you say the Greens are "too socialistic" ... what parts of their platform do you disagree with?

also, are you saying they are anti-Semitic because they oppose many of the policies of the Israeli government or because you think they don't like Jews?

and as far as staying with the Democrats or leaving to join some other party, maybe the Greens, stay tuned ... i haven't made a decision yet ...

[satori]

123. The Green Platform

I agree with the Green platform but not with the tactics of the Greens to achieve the goals of the party.

For example I am a pacifist, and some of the most powerful antiwar tactics done in this country and around the world were done by spiritual minded people that belong to many different faiths such as Buddhist, Christian, Sufi, and Jewish.

The Greens and groups like ANSWER dismiss anyone that belongs to any of these groups as being counterproductive to the cause. But if you look at the record of the Greens and groups like ANSWER that they say one has to organize under and follow to stop a war for example they have failed on just about every thing they do.But liberalism groups have a long history of success here is a brief example from the Turn Left website http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/libgood.html

However if you look at the history of spiritual minded anti-war groups they were the primary organizers that actually probably stopped the Vietnam War. Turn Left does not even go into this but do you you know the image of the antiwar protesters burning draft cards during the Vietnam War that inspired a whole generation during the 60s? They were Catholic workers from the Dorothy Day movement. The Quakers are other groups.

Most of them say that they don't hate the Jews just the Zionist Jews.
But that is untrue, they could care less if a person is a Zionist Jew or a Jew they hate both.

[welshTerrier2]

126. anti-Semitism, Vietnam, Democrats and Greens ...

i'm not really sure where to begin ... i'm really not very familiar with the "tactics of the Greens" so I can't comment there ... i will say that I have not liked much of what I've seen from ANSWER ... it's not clear why you associate ANSWER so closely to the Greens ...

from a purely anecdotal read, I can say that I don't believe that the Greens I know "hate Jews" ... i can tell you that when you use phrases like "most of them say", it raises a few red flags with me ... i'm always skeptical about generalizations like that ...

and as far as the anti-Vietnam movement goes, and I speak from first-hand experience, I think you've overstated the case for the role of "spiritual minded anti-war groups" ... first of all, it's not entirely clear to me that the peace movement actually shortened the war ... i'd like to believe it did but that war ended long after the largest, most vocal anti-war protests took place ... and while I have no reason to take anything away from any of the religious groups that participated, I think it's important to understand that the anti-war movement was an extremely broad coalition of people and groups ... to mention Catholic workers and Quakers (i did draft counseling with the Quakers) and ignore the Free Speech movement, the protest music, the youth culture embodied in the "Woodstock generation", the draft itself, certain mass media including TV shows like "All in the Family', and even certain politicians like Eugene McCarthy seems to lack an appreciation for the breadth of the movement ...

a few last points ... i'm still not sure what you meant saying the greens were "too socialistic" ... i'm also not sure why you think they are not either pacifists or at least believe in non-violent protests ... i don't think ANSWER called for violent protests either ... so, as far as anti-war protests go, i'm not sure exactly what problem you have with the Greens ...

i've really been torn about whether to remain in the Democratic Party ... frankly, i've been somewhat underwhelmed by most of the discussion I've read here ... I'll be posting my own thread on this in the next few days ... the issues you've raised about remaining a Dem make a good case for one side of the argument, but there's a good case to be made for the other as well ... it's funny, the phrase that comes to mind for the argument that the left should try to take over the Democratic Party is: "if you can't join 'em, beat 'em" ... maybe that's the next front in the war ... maybe not ...

oh, and one last, last thing ... i read the link you provided ... it starts off with the sentence "So what have you done for me?" ... of course, many of the Democrats have been Democrats because of all the things the Party accomplished in the past ... but today we see a Party that not only loses, but it loses after refusing to stand up for many of the things it used to fight for ... it's pretty damned hard to get energized watching a Party you want to represent you keep drifting to the right ... people are being crushed by the right-wing machine; Iraqis are dying; U.S. foreign policy has sunk to a new, immoral low ... but the loud and clear protest from the Democratic Party is nowhere to be found ... more and more, it seems like the only thing the Party wants is to win ... well, that's just not good enough ...

[satori]

128. Greens and ANSWER

Well the reason why I associate the Greens with ANSWER is that for me as a liberal democrat all my life, and as a person that dissents the proliferation of Nuclear weapons I had to research the history of protesting in the United States.

I never even heard of ANSWER in all of my research and from all my experience of ever being a anti-Nuke protester all the sudden especially during the 2000 election of Gore I did some research into Indymedia, and I found them pro PLO pro Palestine and most of the people that congregated around the same issue of hating the Jews and being part of the antiwar crowd were ANSWER and Green members and openly hostile to any Jews or liberals or pacifists or anyone that had a critical question about Nader on the Indymedia Board.

As soon as I mentioned Gandhi and the non-violent movement he started that made real practical changes, they would say things like well Gandhi is not practical, and that a violent revolution by millions of people on the streets to oppose the Zionist Jews is the only way the world can live in peace, and again most of the sheeple on Indymedia really believed that if one simply joins a group they would name ANSWER then the Jewish problem would go away. And Michael Moore was a leader they would always rally behind.

I would mention that I was a liberal and they would say the same ones that worshiped Moore that liberalism has caused things like NAFTA.

I told them that that was the creation of Democrats not liberal Democrats but they would just dismiss me by insulting me by calling me just another one of those Zionist Jews, though they told me that I was not one that they really hate because I was not one of those Jews that are the ones that are in Israel because they would tell me that the only evil Jews are the ones that live in Israel or any Jew that wants to move to Israel, so they would then justify the suicide bombings in Israel to discourage Jews from around the world to go to Israel or to leave. So again I am a pacifist, I am against all wars wars in the name of the left or wars in the name of the right, so I therefore cannot cooperate with groups like ANSWER and the GREENS perhaps not officially anti-Semitic sure as hell don't go out of their way to oppose the violent acts of terrorists like Arafat and the PLO movement.

I then remained them that Arafat the leader of the PLO was the 20th century’s most infamous terrorists and I don't even think I need to tell you the ANSWER from the Moore Indymedia Sheeple groupies.

When I think of the Greens I think most of them now on Moore’s 10 million member mailing list, I think of the anti-Semitic groupies that would flock to him via the Nader Ads that the Republicans paid for in the 2000 election.

[robbedvoter]

143. Agree, That's why I am staying fiercely independent - as I have no

more political representation. (but leave Moore out of this - he is a good guy for many years now).

[satori]

153. Moore Supported Arafat a KGB-backed terrorist

I just did a brief Google on Moore and sure enough he is on the Jewish Defense league's Watch list http://www.jdl.org/position/moore.shtml because of his support of Arafat and the terrorist organization the PLO. http://www.geocities.com/munichseptember1972/the_kgb_man.htm

The Jewish Journal also has an article that says that Conyers and others such as Moore I would guess give anti-Semitic messages to those that want to join the anti-war demos.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=9576

I knew I had a reason to be critical about this so called liberal great hope for the dissent movement and the liberal Democrats. Liberals such as myself don't make deals with people that Moore supports and because they think they know better then me how to protest.

Dissent for me comes from a long tradition of opposing anti-Semitism, from my research of such pacifists as Franz Jägerstätter, whom was an Austrian Christian executed for his refusal to serve in the armies of the Third Reich. See http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/08/09.html

I will not just give up some of the very principles that caused me to become a pacifist because of some populist Icon like Moore on the left whom supports the 20th centuries most infamous terrorist Arafat and the PLO. http://www.geocities.com/munichseptember1972/the_kgb_man.htm

[proudbluestater]

130. You might wander over to congress.org and write Pelosi

because she is the one who is openly supporting him, urging his nomination/election. I wrote her yesterday.

There is an old saying in politics, "you have to dance with those that brung you." Nancy Pelosi has won elections in part because of support by groups like Emily's List that only support pro-choice democratic candidates. For her to come out and shill for Roemer, an anti-choicer is sickening.

We have Reid, is that not enough?

[hraka]

132. If you don't believe in abortion...

don't have one. If you don't believe in gay marriage don't marry one. What is so freakin' hard to understand? One young woman put it best after Oregon's Measure 36 (marriage between one man and one woman) passed. She asked how her life threatened thir marriage.
I agree that abortion is a moral decision. What is wrong is anyone saying what is moral for someone else. I am worried that the Dem party is "softening the image" so that we can get the backing of pro life voters. What happened to intergrity?
We are heading toward a state religion, one that excludes from basic rights of anyone who isn't Christian. Look out Muslims and atheists, you're next.

[Redleg]

135. Jeebus, another person threatening to leave the party.

LOL

[genius]

136. Pelosi is backing him. What else do you know about this guy?

Where does he stand on the other issues? We need to know how far Pelosi and his backers are willing to cave.

[elsiesummers]

137. I saw Bob Borosage say on cspan he'd like David Bonior (pro-life Dem)

and while I see myself as a single issue pro-choice sort of voter (I honestly cannot say I wouldn't vote for a pro-choice Repub) I thought David Bonior would be a great choice.
He's extremely civil rights oriented and pro-worker but weak on CAFE standards (but he's from Michigan). His strength on civil rights is strong enough that in a non-legislative position I would trust him with abortion rights.

I don't know anything about Roehmer except that he was a 911 commisioner.
I think we have to look at the totality of a person's record.

If the candiate is overall clearly Democratic - I'm really not worried about a pro-life Dem erroding the Democratic position on abortion. Maybe this is naieve, but, for example, even though Dick Gephardt was pro-life initially, even though Dennis Kucinich only recently changed his abortion position, I still would trust those two with abortion rights.

If the Democrats erode their position on abortion they face the possibility of losing moderates who are firmly pro-choice who might become swing voters for moderate Republicans.
It will take more than a DNC head to signal a party shift on abortion, IMO.

If the Democratic Party actually shifts their position on abortion - well then I'll become a swing voter.

[JerseygirlCT]

146. Look, Dean has it right:

it's not our message, it's the marketing of it.

We're NOT too far left, and moving right doesn't help. (Besides being wrong!)

We DO have to find ways to talk to a broader range of people and persuade them that our positions will benefit them, and more Americans.

Can't we find a few good marketing people? It seems pretty basic to me. Hell, they can persuade us we need Vioxx and Viagra, they can tell us one brand of toilet paper is superior... there's got to be a way to teach our politicians to talk like human beings TO human beings and make the case.

[robbedvoter]

158. It's the message - and "marketing" is a bad word for it - but I agree

we lack the means to spread ut. But first of all it's the message. What were the dems standing up for lately? War? Stolen election? Social Security? Torture advocates in the government? Where is that line in the sand? What is the ONE principle they cannot give up?

[0007]

159. Here's the whole skinny on Tim Roemer

http://www.issues2000.org/IN/Tim_Roemer.htm

[JerseygirlCT]

160. Not seeing much I love there. Thanks for the link.

[Obviousman]

162. He doesn't seem very good

to put it lightly
William Donohue

[spanone]

163. The democratic party is useless if no different from republicans

This is absurd. What is going to make a die hard anti abortionist come over to the dem party is we 'soften' our view on abortion? Not one fucking thing.

[Geek_Girl]

164. Don't Leave the Party Stay and Fight for It

1.)Don't Give you money to the DNC. Give it to progressive liberal organizations or directly to candidates that reflect your values.

2.)Don't vote or support democratic canidates that don't reflect your values. and In the primaries vote for progressive liberals.

3.)Purchase products from companies that donate to progressive causes and candidates don't purchase products from companies that support centrists canidates or republicans.

4)Campaign for or Run for office in local elections.

They're not going to give us our party back we are going to have to fight tooth and nail for it. But if you leave they have won and their will be no alternative other than one party system wich is pretty much what we have now.

[Lenape85]

168. Does Roemer support progressive ECONOMIC policies

You know, is he for the unions and social security and other good things, or does he confirm our suspicions of being a DINO