Are you in the UNDERGROUND or just visiting?

[Q]

For those of you that don't know the background: many of us came here to commiserate with like minds after the 2000 election was stolen. We were normal (well, maybe not normal), everyday Americans with a shared experience of just having witnessed the first bloodless coup in America's 200 + years.

But worse than having lost an election where our side won the popular vote was to watch the poor excuse for a human being and 'president elect' prance around like a spoiled boy king. He ranted about having been a pilot and oil man even though his Poppy bought his way into the air guard and ruined every business he had ever touched. America became George's 'business' and he ran it like he was a ruthless CEO instead of a humble leader of a great country.

So we watched, wrote emails and called our representatives to show them that they had our support. We begged our leadership to not lay down and be steamrolled by the Bush White House. We couldn't believe it as our leadership time and again approved his radical nominees, voted for his democracy destroying legislation and basically did nothing as he used executive orders to fund the church and plunder the environment for his friends and supporters.

Knowing what Bush was all about and his disdain for America and Americans...it made it even harder for us to accept that our party was under the control and direction of the so-called 'moderates'. We didn't necessarily know the right direction to take...but we did know that the extreme times in which we found ourselves called for more than moderaton . Many of us felt that moderation in a time of RWing Extremism was nothing more than betrayal to democracy. It wasn't David v Goliath...it was Don Knotts v the Terminator.

So I ask that the Moderates try to understand where we're coming from. Many of you have called us radical, extremist and the 'fringe element' of the party. But we're Americans and Democrats just like you. The only difference is that we believe that America has no future if it stays on the present course and that the only way to fight extremism is with uncompromising loyalty to the American people and their Constitution.

There have been many heated discussions between Liberals, Progressives and Moderates on this board. You should know that we don't hate you or think you're any less of a Democrat because of your moderate positions. Many of us do however think you're wrong about wanting to compromise with fascists and are being a bit naive about what confronts our nation and party. We would rather work with you as political allies than against you as opponents within our own party.

America...not necessarily just the Democratic party...needs all of our help right now. It won't matter if you're Republican, Democrat, Liberal or moderate in a country that gives only lip service to elections and civil rights. The more we concede...the more we compromise with fascist bullies...the closer we get to a country that none of us will recognize in four years. So join us now and fight the good fight. There will be a time for moderation and bipartisanship after we return our government to a servant of the people instead of their master. Your children and grandchildren will thank you for your service to your country.

Take care and have a wonderful Sunday.

Note: edited for clarity and moderation.

[atommom]

1. Well said. I'm a relative newcomer, but very happy to be here.

;)

[Q]

3. Welcome...

...and you've come to the right place if you want lively debate and a different perspective on what's reported in the mainstream media.

Nice to meet you.

[atommom]

10. Thanks! This site has been one hell of an education!

I mean that in a good way, BTW.

[IStriker]

69. Me too.

Was a lurker and came here to seek consolation after the 2004 election.

[Katidid]

154. Me too, too

Ditto and thank ya'll for being here. I have been pretty lonely and despondent out here in East Texas. :hi:

[Nordmadr]

121. I have been

tracking this site for about 6 months but only just recently became a member. I would probably be classified with the more liberal members of the Democratic party (I'm actually registered Green) but voted Kerry. I think our Country is in the middle of something very big and it is right under our noses and most people don't even know about it. Energy and resource competition (running out much faster than people think), the collapsing dollar, our Asian owned debt, and more are all combining to set us up for a ride we can't imagine. Meanwhile, Krusty the clown continues to run the show. America better wake up before the alarm goes off, because by then it will be too late.

[Q]

143. Didn't get a chance to say hello...

...so I thought I'd do it now.

The most difficult thing to figure out is WHY there is no formal opposition to 'Krusty the Clown'?

Is it even possible for Americans to wake up without the help of a loyal opposition party and a free press? We could even do without a free press for a while if there was an opposition to point out the absence of a free press. Or we could temporarily do without a loyal opposition if we had a free press to point out the absence of a loyal opposition.

But we can't make it without either.

[Nordmadr]

144. Part of the problem is

in my opinion, the two major political parties have too much in common. They serve many of the same corporate interests. The neoconservatives have hijacked the Republican party, so the liberals need to hijack the Democratic Party. I here revolution mentioned in places like this board, but most people are prepared to just go with the status quo, and assume the government, corporations, etc. have their best interests in mind. Now that is just plain foolish. Furthermore, the current state of affairs in the world are almost too bad to believe, so people choose NOT to believe them. Talk to people about energy depletion and you'll get, "Well it can't be that bad" or "the government will do something". Do some research, you will be surprised. It is the same with many major issues. The problem is when you start to put all the pieces together. 9-11, Iraq, Patriot Act, the Euro overtaking the dollar, stockpiling of oil reserves, Countries vying and jockeying for energy supplies and contracts, the Russian government takeover of Yukos, and more. We are barely meeting current energy needs, but not building new refineries. Not building new tankers. Why?

No one wants to lead an opposition, because the basis for the opposition is a whole lot of bad news people don't really want to know about or believe. They would rather here about Brad and Jennifer's break-up, than what would happen to the economy if oil started getting traded in Euros. Ok, I guess I my done with my rant. I would encourage people to look at the big issues. If those don't get dealt with soon, the other stuff won't matter.

Sorry if I sound like a "Chicken Little". It is just what happens when the blinders come off.

[Nordmadr]

145. Oh and...

Thanks for the welcome!:hi:

[wildeyed]

2. It always seems more like a battle between idealist and

pragmatists than liberals vs. moderates to me. And I don't see it as conceding, I see it as picking your battles. But whatever, we need to find a way to defeat the RR, and arguing among ourselves won't do it.

[Q]

9. You're right of course...

...I'm simply using those labels that most are accustomed. There are many ways to frame this debate. It could be realist v idealist.

But we've heard of this 'picking your battles' before. Some see it as a rationalization for politicians not wanting to get their hands dirty doing the hard work of democracy.

The very point of being an opposition party is to fight EVERY battle and do your best to win every time. This is my complaint against the 'moderate' strategy of choosing only the easy battles where there is less of a chance of getting 'bloody'.

You'll never see the Right 'pick their battles'...even when they were in the minority. Even small victories were important to them.

[wildeyed]

38. But if you fight EVERY battle,

you will be too tired and too fragmented to win any of them. I don't think we should choose the easy battles, either. We should choose the battles that define us as Democrats.

And you are talking about what the Right did to gain power. The leaders might be pittbulls, but their base didn't spend all their time criticizing them, either. The base got organized, ran for school board, wrote letters to the editor. What defines the RR base in my mind, in addition to their narrow-minded hateful bigotry, is their hard work and discipline. So if our leaders can learn from their leaders about leading, maybe we can learn a few things about following and supporting.

We, the dem base, need to choose battle on the local level that we can be involved in and support our leaders a little. For instance, I am working to enact same day voting legislation in my state. I believe that this a stealthy way to increase dem voter participation in my state. And it could have an impact in 2008. And it is more productive than complaining non-stop about what butt-heads the dems are.

I think that everyone who complains endlessly about our elected officials should be required to run for public office. Once they have done that and have a more realistic view of what it takes to win and hold office, then they can bitch endlessly. And I am not saying that there isn't allot that our leaders do that merit complaint, just that their jobs may be a wee bit more complex then some people here give credit for.

[Q]

53. Agreed in part...but we're not simply competing with another political...

...party on an even playing field. For all intents and purposes...we're fighting against what looks to be a fascist government and for the very survival of democracy. I realize that many would consider this hyperbole...but considering that the Bushies no longer think they're bound by the Constitution or international law...we're up against a force never seen in American politics.

Politics as usual can't be the right approach to fight right wing extremism: aka fascism.

[wildeyed]

55. I agree, it can't be politics as usual.

And politics as usual for the dems is to be really splintered and bickering among ourselves. We need to band together, liberals, moderates, realists and idealist, into one tight fist and bash these narrow minded, greedy, bigoted ideologues back under the rock they belong under.

Actually, I think most of us are in pretty close agreement on the issues, it is just tactics we disagree about.

[DaedelusNemo]

114. What are the differences?

I hear the DLC and 'moderates' on one side and liberals, progressives, and populists on the other. From what i can see the DLC gets its moderate label on the basis of its position on corporations (although in fact the majority of the american people think that corporations are getting away with too much.) There are, of course, other ways of being moderate, such as on social issues, or on guns. Are there a large number of non-DLC moderates? Do they break down into large categories? What's the difference between liberals, progressives, and populists? - they seem to be used synonymously. What are the other groups? How do unions fit into this? Are the teacher's unions in a different position?

What are the differences here, really? Corporate policy, foreign policy, social issues, what else? Let's get this lined out and do some polling and find out where we are on this stuff. Let's try to get past the catchphrases and to the details so we know just what we're disagreeing about. I bet for the most part it's less than we think.

[wildeyed]

115. I don't even know what I am.

I call myself a liberal in the general world, but that is mostly a reaction to the dirty 'L' word thing the RR has going on. When people bash moderates on DU, I consider myself a moderate. But, as per my earlier post, I think I am more a pragmatist than a moderate.

All of our petty differences mean nothing when they are compared with our differences with the current admin. I hope we can work it out, exercise some maturity and discipline, recognize that we are all going to have to compromise a little on tactics and then go get 'em! I would LOVE to be in a position where I thought that my differences with members of my own party meant squat, but we are ALL so far underground right now, that it is not really relevant.

[DaedelusNemo]

129. We need to figure out the differences so that we can address them

Right now, it's just a big undifferentiated mass of resentment. All the squabbling takes place on the ground floor and never gets anywhere.

[moggie12]

58. Very, very well said

Getting mobilized at the grassroots is the best revenge! And I VERY much agree about choosing our battles. I would like to see the Democrats take a tough stand on a few very important issues instead of aiming their BB guns at every issue that crops up. We're like gnats now, buzzing around and fussing a bit about every single thing but inflicting no major damage on the Bush juggernaut. My preference would be to launch two major media campaigns over the next few months: One against Bush's SS reform and one for election reform.

That's my two cents added to your dollar's worth of insight.

[DaedelusNemo]

110. And yours as well

But i think we're also going to have to deal with the tort reform and tax reform issues as well, unless we plan on laying back on those and letting Bush steamroll them. But certainly SS seems first on the plate, and absolutely sustain a push for election reform until it happens.

[ret5hd]

116. maybe so. but the RR seems to fight every battle w/o exhausting...

social security
tax cuts
religion
abortion rights
evolution
outsourcing
war
torture
judges
patriot act(s)
etc etc etc

maybe the repugs just got more stamina than we do? maybe we need to get ourselves to the gym.

[wildeyed]

117. Maybe we do need to get to the gym.

And it is clear that they have more stamina than us. You gain stamina through training and discipline. The RR has done that and we haven't. We need to get working if we plan to catch up and save this country.

I guess the point of my post was that, instead of ripping our leaders and each other to bloody shreds every chance we get, maybe we should concentrate on doing things that are actually productive. Like taking back our local school boards or enacting voter reform. If our leaders get strong support from the base, maybe it will enable them to fight more battles.

And if you don't like what our leaders are doing, run for office yourself and do it better. I might even vote for you if you present a compelling enough vision.

[Debs]

118. You dont only

Fight the fights you can win, you fight the fights that need fighting

[wildeyed]

123. Excellent!

I'll be depending on you to lead the charge!

[Eloriel]

51. Good point,

and I don't really see that these differences of opinion here make it difficult or impossible for us to fight our REAL enemies, either. It can be unplesant for those who don't like conflict, confrontation, or lively debate (and all those DO make some people acutely uncomfortable), but for the most part they're relatively harmless AFAIC.

[wildeyed]

57. I know.

The group I work with in the real word is extremely diverse. I registered voters at a homeless shelter with a libertarian over the summer. Weird, but we did allot of good.

[NMDemDist2]

4. kicked and nominated

I had hoped that I could relax at this point of my life after being active in the 70's and again in Gulf War I

I am dismayed by the sheeple whose laziness and lack of curiosity have led us here

[Q]

20. I marched and protested in the 70s...

...and also thought that this generation could pick up where we left off. But then came Bush and his neocon thugs. None of us could have predicted this. But we must do what we can now that it's a reality.

[Pepperbelly]

5. I'm soooooo underground that they'd need ...

laser x-rays and a fucking telescope to find my ass.

:smoke:

[fortyfeetunder]

138. I have to stay underground.

Career preservation.

[wyldwolf]

6. You're insulting flame post has a few things wrong or misleading

True, Democratic Underground was started in response to a MODERATE Democrat (big "D" democrat in the DNC) having his win stolen.

But as someone who was here in late spring/early summer 2001, I can truthfully say there were always moderates here.

The subject of how "left" one was seldom came up because we were all united against Bush. Then the further left people began attacking the moderates and have never stopped.

The funny thing is, when we attacked back, they reacted with surprise - as though they didn't expect it.

So, for those of you who don't know the background, here is all you need to know:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with. - - From the DU rules

And if I could add one rule from the playground: Play nice. If you hit someone, they're likely to hit you back.

on edit: Quick edit, there Q, taking out the part you said moderates called you "extremists" and the like. Glad you did that. Because you neglected to say that the further left called moderateds names lik "traitor" and "republican" FIRST.

[OKNancy]

11. I've been here since

2001 and never in my dreams would I have thought I was a moderate...until I was told I was because I'm pragmatic, and will not abandon the Democratic party ( and I hate Nazi/Bush over- exaggeration and other such histrionics)

[wyldwolf]

13. so true

Most people I know on a personal level in the real world consider me a liberal as do I. But people like Q showed me that I must be a moderate.

[Q]

39. Don't take your Qs about being a moderate from me....

...take them from this government.

If it's true that moderation means compromise...how do you rationalize compromising with a (Bush) government that thinks compromise is a sign of weakness? That laughs and says that they consider bipartisanship to be 'date rape'?

How can you even think of compromising with those who want to destroy you?

[moggie12]

59. Yes, yes! (shaking head up and down in agreement...)

I've only been here since Dec 31st but I almost left for good on January 2nd after being "flamed" for saying something I believed to be pragmatic. I've come to appreciate and understand what many on DU are saying, but I still think there's a lot of exaggeration and histrionics, as you put it, that undercuts many otherwise valid arguments. It's a shame, I think, because more pragmatic, moderate types are being driven away from DU at a time when the Democratic Party needs to rebuild.

[Q]

12. I really tried hard not to be insulting...

...and attempted to choose words that expressed my opinion without being 'flame bait'.

I'm indeed sorry you're offended.

[wyldwolf]

15. Q, it really doesn't matter

This is just a discussion forum with little or know impact on the real world of Dem politics - thank God!

But as more and more people come to see the show here from the NY Times and rightwing radio, posts like yours (on a daily basis) will just reinforce the notion that the party isn't united.

[Q]

17. Why pretend that the party is 'unified' when it most obviously isn't?

You're acting like it's some state secret.

Our country is in peril. If two events of election fraud and aggressive war without cause hasn't shown you that...then we need to understand this to be part of the reason for the divide.

[wyldwolf]

19. we know it isn't

why confirm to the enemy that it isn't?

[Q]

24. I get the impression that the 'enemy' already knows it...

...and that we could better fight them by trying to find a unified front instead of dancing around each other and pretending that everything is okay.

Let's talk about the Iraq war. Let's talk about election reform. About the plunder of our treasury and rape of our environment. There must be a common ground that we can reach?

[Cheswick2.0]

29. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

That's what I would tell Cinderella's ugly step sisters and that is what I am telling you.
If the remarks don't apply to you, why get so upset?

[Q]

31. I may have used the word 'moderate'...

...but my thread is more about 'moderation'. That is...taking a moderate approach to Bush/Neocon extremism.

I penned this thread very early this morning. It's not perfect but I tried to be fair. Again my apologies if I put some words in the wrong places or gave the wrong impression.

[xultar]

7. "And then the Moderates came to the Underground..."

You know what. I'm sick of this BULLSHIT!!!

Ya'll can keep this I'm outta here.

[wyldwolf]

8. no, stay. BS like this has to be fought here

...if we don't, we'll have a Dem poised to win a national election and people like Q will be screaming "traitor" and "fascist" at him or her from the steps of Capitol Hill.

edit to include "or her"

[Q]

16. I would never call a Dem a traitor of fascist...

...and you've nicely demonstrated part of the problem between progressives and moderates. Why accuse me or anyone else of these things?

And wouldn't it be my first amendment right even if I DID want to scream something, anything from steps of capital hill?

Part of the discussion we should be having is why some want to silence the left of the party.

[wyldwolf]

22. you have like minded people in your wing of DU who use those terms

And wouldn't it be my first amendment right even if I DID want to scream something, anything from steps of capital hill?

Yeah, so? You wouldn't see the damage it would inflict, though?

Part of the discussion we should be having is why some want to silence the left of the party.

Who?

[Q]

26. There are no 'wings' of DU...

...just thousands of people with different perspectives.

Free speech should never be thought of as 'damage'.

What you don't seem to understand is that I want Democrats to win and have voted a straight Dem ticket for 30 years. I wouldn't be here discussing the issues if I wasn't concerned about the future of our party.

My reference to being 'silenced' was to a post where someone threatened to leave because of my opinions on this thread. It's about the DLC's attitude and vindictivenss towards liberals and progressives...intimating that we're 'traitors' and 'unpatriotic' for not supporting the 'war on terror in Iraq'.

It's not much more complicated than this: we simply want the Democratic party to be the party of the people and not the corporations. We want a say in the direction of the party and we want our votes to count. You know...the stuff of basic democracy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Hey, almost all us "far left fringe types" shut up and supported

the "electable" candidate this time, and even worked for him. This moderation was going to win the day. But oops, Kerry was so "moderate" that he wouldn't even defend himself against an outrageous slander, he tried to out macho the Texas pseudo-cowboy, and he sounded like a bureaucrat instead of a visionary at his rallies, and then he conceded before all the votes were counted.

I could get behind a true centrist who had a vision that he could convey to the voters and the guts to fight for that vision. I don't need to live in the North American version of Sweden, but we need candidates who will go beyond "me too-ism" and mere damage control against the predations of the Republicans. I want to see candidates who can perceive the real needs of this country and make simple yet compelling proposals to meet them.

This "whatever you do, don't offend the Republicans or the corporate donors" approach is a guaranteed loser.

[Q]

14. You would leave because of one poster's opinion?

Or in your self-righteous indignation are you trying to chill a discussion about this topic? Threatening to leave in BIG BOLD LETTERS...you hope to have this tread shut down. So be it...I can always write a more politically correct version.

Why not debate instead of leaving?

[RC]

25. Bye.

Don't let the door hit ya.

The current criminals in power has so distorted what is really Left - Center - Right, that Center is to the left of a lot of people here.

We need to get our perspective back. For starters look at Europe and the Scandinavian countries. Where are they on the political landscape? We need to look at our own history for references, also.

Q is much more correct than wrong here.

We are or are suppose to be fighting a group of people that has absolutely no concept of fair play, no empathy for anyone, where the rules and laws only apply if and when they say they do. It's not how anyone plays the game, it it winning at any cost for them.

The only way we, the American people and the world, are going to win out against these criminals is to out number them and stand up to them using their own laws against them.

We cannot continue to appease them. They must be fought and exposed at every turn.

Appeasement comes from a moderate position. Moderates by nature seek compromise. In more enlightened times, this is the way to do business. Not now, not with these criminals in power. With them Compromise is a sigh of weakness. We cannot win out against them by appearing weak to them.

[Q]

27. I don't want you to leave...

...we need your input and perspective. I deleted the paragraph that seemed to have offended you in an effort to have you join this discussion.

Don't leave. Fight for what YOU think is right.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. "You know what."

That's an interesting statement. I don't actually know what. Is what a person, a set of facts or a location? What makes you think I know what?

[moggie12]

60. No, no, Xultar, come back -- this is a good discussion

Q wrote a great post. He was trying to explain why he's so upset. And Q, if you're reading this, I noticed that you edited your original post "for moderation". Good for you. I've been trying to do that lately, too, instead of typing something while feeling angry/frustrated and shooting it off. You may be more to the left than me, but I'd choose you over a real RW type any day. I'm glad you wrote what you wrote because talking about differences is the first step in figuring out how to all get allong together.

[GreenArrow]

18. take a good hard look at the "extremists" on the right

Does anyone actually think THAT is going to be effectively countered by "moderation?"

[Hugin]

21. Well said Q.

I have the difficult task of being a relatively conservative
(note lower case "c") person with a liberal mind. I suppose that
makes me a moderate. However, I am very aware that for me to live
the life of my choosing without interference. I must grant others
the freedom to live their lives without interference from me.

It's a little, all but forgotten, thing in modern times called
tolerance.

Currently, I'm feeling guilt in my tolerance though. Maybe if
I'd acted sooner those who are currently interfering with our
pursuit of happiness wouldn't have gained power.

Not sure how to deal with it.

I should have said, "No." Much louder.

[Hugin]

30. Additional thought....

I was scanning over what I'd just written and was reminded of
something I'd read once:

"You'll understand reality when one morning you wake up and
find someone has drawn a line behind you."

I guess I've woken up and seen that line.

This side of the line is definitely UNDERGROUND, my friend.

[classof56]

45. Good quote--very relevant in these truly troubled times.

And welcome to DU. Glad you chose to go underground with us!

Tired Old Cynic

[Q]

33. I'm not sure there was any way to predict what the Neocons...

...did to our nation. But it looked like a coup: a sudden and sometimes forceful takeover of a government against the will of the people.

It makes it even more difficult to find a way to fight this neofascism because half of the country is asleep or actually condones our country having an insane leader.

[Catchawave]

23. I feel your frustration Q.....

and thanks for highlighting the problem with the entire Democratic Party, not just DU :)

As for me, I learn from everybody's views here, which is good training for discussing politics with my conservative friends, if I have too!

Was it Will Rogers who said..."I'm not part of any organized party, I'm a Democrat"

[Q]

32. Moderation was never out of place before the Bushies took office...

...and it has to be said that moderation indeed does have a place in modern politics. But now that 'everything has changed' and you're either 'with Bush or you're with the terrorists'...we have to find new, more immoderate ways to fight his anti-democratic ways.

[Catchawave]

94. I agree about moderation....

...and I think, personally, that American Politics "jumped the shark" with allowing Karl Rove, et al, 'jihad' McCain and Cleland during the 2000 campaigns. And get away with it !

What's sad for the Dems, the (2004) election would have been a slam dunk for the 'pugs (no offense to pugly-dogs) if it weren't for the Michael Moores, Jon Stewarts, MoveOn's and others who spoke out when the DNC was too busy telemarketing mo' dem dollars?

I was with (cyberally and locally) the Edwards campaign from birth, and what hurt us, was "it was never to be negative and our strength was positive"....and it KILLED him, including the DNC pretty much agreeing with the 'war hero' dollars Kerry was sucking in....

Sorry, didn't mean to rant....but much left to discuss, hey?

[steve2470]

34. Q, you and your founder friends are the people who will be

thanked in the history books and by my son and my grandchildren. I thank you. I was 100% naive until I wandered in here last fall. Then, voila, the scales fell from my eyes. I was a very liberal Democrat in the 1970's and became more moderate as the years went on. Nixon was bad. Reagan was bad. Bush 41 was, well, lesser bad. Bush 43 will go down in history as corrupt or moreso than Warren Harding and as fascist as Abraham Lincoln was during the Civil War, but FOR NO GOOD REASON. Lincoln did what he did to save the country and he succeeded. Bush does what he does to reward his cronies and to ram the fascist RW "Christian" agenda down our throats. Again, thank you !

[Q]

36. We're in very different times than those of Nixon, Reagan...

...and even Poppy Bush. While it could be said that Nixon and Reagan were simply awful presidents who served the Republican party instead of the people....Bush serves himself and his pirates first and last.

America has NEVER been confronted with this type of self-serving government. We have never seen this kind of intentional destruction of our infrastructure and bankrupcy meant to strangle the lifeblood from every policy and program that serves the people.

And it's not as if we haven't been warned. The RWingers have been very upfront and honest about their intentions. Perhaps it's time to take them seriously and respond accordingly?

[watrwefitinfor]

35. In response to all of the above

I am so reminded of all I've read about the failure of the left and the moderates to form a united front against Hitler and the fascists in 1930's Germany. Remember how that ended?

Nuff said.

Wat

[Q]

37. Very relevant point...

...and welcome.

Do we know why the left and moderates were unable to form a united front against the fascists? Perhaps there is a lesson in their failures?

On edit: I remember how it ended but I'm not familiar with the debate that took place between the 'left and the moderates' at the time. Anyone know something about this?

[Hugin]

40. Yeah! More info please. n/t

[watrwefitinfor]

47. I said I am reminded of what I read...

...not that I remembered it! :-)

As I recall, it had a lot to do with failure of the leading left organizations in Germany at that time (Communist Party, Socialist Party, labor unions, etc) to provide any leadership in building a united front, engaging in divisive polemics against each other instead - refusing to cooperate. Hitler took major advantage of that, using policy and propaganda to further divide them and to isolate them from the masses of Germans. He was ultimately able to arrest and kill off the left leadership in Germany. By the time he invaded Poland there was no one left to mount a protest.

You don't have to agree with their politics to absorb the pertinent lessons. And it seems to me we need to be learning - fast.

I cannot cite any particular source. William Shirer comes to mind. ("Rise & Fall of the Third Reich"). Contemporary writings by various members of the left of that era - I'm sure some of this can be found online. The movie "Julia" (Vanessa Redgrave, Jane Fonda) hints at it retrospectively.

Thank you for the welcome. I have felt at home here for over a year now, since I found DU.

Wat

[Hugin]

48. Great!

Thanks Wat!

It's unnerving current events remind you of a dark phase in history.
But, it's true and yes... Time to break out the history books. (links)

[Q]

49. You seem to have retained...

...much of what you read.

Two things stand out:

- failure to provide leadership in building a united front

- divisive polemics against each other instead of refusing to cooperate

But sometimes the divisiveness is the result of one faction not understanding or being able to condone others in their own party 'cooperating' with what appears to be fascism.

If we are to form a united front against the Bush government...shouldn't all of us at least be able to agree that we're confronted by a common enemy and danger?

[watrwefitinfor]

62. "If we are to form a united front against the Bush government...

...shouldn't all of us at least be able to agree that we're confronted by a common enemy and danger?"

Seems to me to be the job of effective leadership to show people that. Without being divisive. I think those who do understand it must of necessity be in the forefront of building any united front. Historically it has been the left who was able to do this (when it was done), for the simple reason I suppose that they were the ones who could best see the need and provide the leadership. (I think of A.N.S.W.E.R. and the mass demos they organized before the invasion of Iraq.)

There is an essay by Bob Fritakas & friends on their website that discusses some of this, without ever mentioning the words "united front." It is an insightful and inspiring article in many ways. His discussion is somewhat limited to the movement for election reform, which is only part of the larger struggle. But some really helpful sentiments and ideas are laid out that apply to the whole. Will Pitt is also doing a good job along those lines. (Sorry, I can't do the links but easy to find.)

I don't feel I can adequately define "united front". I think we were part of a very effective one (though we didn't call it that) in the run up to the elections. The Democratic Party, the Greens, and most left & progressive groups ceased their most divisive rhetoric and worked together to elect a man the left didn't even agree with. This is an example of the sort of common front it might take to defeat what we have to defeat. At the same time, it seems important for the left to maintain their own identity, and state their own goals, within the framework of any united front, but without tearing it down.

I understand the discussion in this thread has been about leftists and moderates on du, but it seems the same things might apply in both this narrow forum and in the broader society as well. In order to defeat an enemy like this, don't you have to unite with all who can be united with? Whether here on du, or in the Congress, or wherever...

I also think I'm better with questions than answers, so I'll leave it at that for now. Must go.

Wat

(Edited to change phrase "common front" to "united front".)

[Hugin]

65. Thanks Wat. n/t

[Q]

70. This does apply to society in general...

...and not just progressives and moderates.

But if you take a closer look at what we need perhaps more than anything else...it's LEADERSHIP. Not just someone that calls themselves a leader...but someone who leads by example.

For instance...Kerry could have led by example by standing up with Boxer and others protesting election fraud.

A true leader doesn't leave to others the important tasks of democracy...he does them himself. Otherwise he can't truly call himself a leader.

I had hoped that the Liberals, Progressives and Moderates could put aside the fight about who should be king of the hill and work together for the good of the party and nation. But it seems that they want something different than what we want.

[leanin_green]

132. It seems that some of that front has shown itself.

When the Libertarians and Greens came together to challenge the vote fraud the beginnings of that front was begun. We could learn a great deal from their example.

I've been here since late 2003. Personally, I have enjoyed the lively, cutting, irreverent debate between members here as I lurked from thread to thread. As for moderates, we need their voice of restraint from time to time. Moderation is the natural stance for the mind that seeks balance and peace. Extremism in any form, given enough reign and time, creates imbalance. May I suggest that the conservative movement in it's infancy was the natural political evolution to excesses from the left? Nothing can get traction unless there is enough ground for it to move. Now we have witnessed the extreme imbalance of the right. The earlier movement was hijacked by many of the current architects of the mess we find ourselves in today. In order for the political ship to right itself again there needs to be an equally effective wave/tide of left leaning ideals. Moderation at this time is not the voice of reason. We still need their voices to help quell the rage that many of us feel, to remind us of our shared goal, and to keep us from becoming the counter expression of the very thing we loathe in the right.

To sum it up. I would like to share an experience I once had in downtown San Francisco during the 1980's. As my ex and I were walking along the streets of the heart of downtown on our way to the Opera House to see a ballet matinee, one of the many "street people" made his way to us as we walked. This fellow was resplendent with an impressive array of dish-shaped tin all over his grimy coat, including a rather impressive one on top of his head. As he stopped in front of me he leaned in, looking first left then right, and quietly asked, "Have you heard the transmissions?" To which I answered, "Not lately, what have they been saying?" We continued in this vain for sometime until, satisfied that I wasn't of those to be mistrusted, he walked away. As we began to walk on to the ballet my ex asked me, "How can you just calmly talk to people like that?" I stopped, gently laid my hands on her shoulders and emphatically said, "Because we are all just one experience, event or misfortune away from being him. Perhaps I'm just creating some kind karma, just in case." It is time to be kind to all points of view here and in our Party. I believe that is what I hear you trying to say Q and I support you. However, I also believe that these times call for more extreme action.

[Debs]

119. What I know about it for certain is

In the US leftist groups especially socialist groups were fighting for a 'second front' against Germany long before we went into the European theater. For instance the 'Hollywood 10' were just such a group and were imprisoned for not naming names in the HUUAC committee, others were deported for being members of such groups

[izzybeans]

73. As a newbie I'm about to ramble...

not sure what you mean by Underground-specifically with regard to the general topic of the thread. Personally, I fear the person who feels to be "the" authentic "whatever", it carries with it the same danger of purity that other exclusive categorizations bring. Me? I've Never been a fan of someone who wore their authenticity on their sleeve or wanted me to prove mine. It's self-defeating for building a workable consensus in my opinion.

If you find me authentic or not (or yourself for that matter)either way I must agree with this sentiment about the divided left. I'm not sure I totally agree with Q, but I do "feel the pain". Coming to this forum was the first time a truly grasped how divided the left had become. But over what? I am baffled by the "flaming" of people on this forum.<period>. The trouble with compromise or the lack thereof is that it always centers on something that IS negotiable. I don't think people here are too clear on what they are negotiating (and many aren't doing so in good faith).

The notion of "no compromise" is also troubling to me. What if the facts disputed our position (whatever issue we are taking up)? Where would we be then? What is part of this fact? Yeah we've got the numbers, the narratives, and etc. that swing truth-with a small t-our way. But what if our hardline position doesn't fly in a populist polity? Is that not a fact? What then is the next step? How can we swing things our way in the future? To me things are much more open-ended then what most of the debate on this forum allows for. But the trouble with the open part is its openness-- and in that opening we all sit here arguing over procedural matters when most of us in fact agree on the issues. How to proceed? Isn't that a better debate to be having. OK I just found my point. There is little disagreement on this forum about matters of belief. But everyone is flaming each other on actionable strategies. Why?:grouphug:

[Hugin]

78. Thanks for the ramble Izzy. n/t

[Throd]

122. From one newbie

to another, I really like the points you made. The ideological litmus test of purity leaves me squeamish regardless of where it comes from.

[Q]

125. Welcome...

...first we have to agree on framework for discussion. It's my position that there's nothing wrong with moderation or compromise when the government is working as separate but equal branches and checks and balances are utilized so that the executive branch (in particular) doesn't take more power than granted by the Constitution.

All of this presupposes that Americans want to maintain a Democratic Republic and representative government.

The 'little disagreement' that you speak of is actually a general complaint from the 'left' side of the Democratic party about a so-called centrist faction of the party working with and pandering to the Bush government. This isn't about strategy...it's about selling out the party to interests that want to see progressive politics weakened and then eliminated as an obstacle to the creation of a corporate state.

All that remains in the way of their total takeover of our government are those who still believe in the 'old' (progressive) Democratic party of women, workers and civil rights.

Look what the Bushies (with the help of corporate Dems) have been able to accomplish (destroy and rebuild in their RWing image) in just four years. No matter what the enablers and compromisers tell you...they couldn't have done this much damage without some help from 'new' Democrats.

How can we compromise with those within our party that don't even want us IN the party? How can we turn our backs as our party condones civil rights abuses, illegal wars and tax cuts for the rich while the 'commoners' get the crumbs that fall from their tables?

[leanin_green]

133. Your right in many respects izzybeans, however. . .

things have gotten completely out of hand. Our way of government has been taken away from us. I am increasingly amazed as to how many here keep putting forth the idea that change can come about through the established means we have used for our entire history. Those ways were effective when we still had the power of the vote. But we don't anymore. Why can't we see that? The more we march, the more faces we give these nuts to watch and make lists of. When we expose ourselves publicly we give them what they need to round us up in the future, and they will, believe me. Just read this and consider the possibilities:

http://www.tbrnews.org(click on archives, go to number one-hundred and six and click on "The Iron Hand" article).

I say this because, as their power coalesces, this plan is on the books to be instituted against any perceived threat to their hold on power. Trust me, if they believe they are being threatened, they will not hesitate to create the scenario needed to implement such a plan. That's when the voice of moderation will be out the window and it will be too late.

[Gman]

41. I found DU in early 2001 too

for the very same reasons outlined above. I agree with probably most moderate positions on the economy, taxes and business, but I also agree with most liberal/progressive positions on social issues. I think that the the points on business, the economy and taxes are the points on which moderates and libs/progs disagree the most. These issues are the points where there must be discussions and some kind of consensus reached between the two. Both sides must be willing to listen to the other and accept that the other considers these beliefs to be correct, therefore they must be respected. I think a consensus can be reached that will make it easier for all sides to work together.

[Hugin]

43. Interesting you think so...

"I think that the the points on business, the economy and taxes are the points on which moderates and libs/progs disagree the most."

I didn't hear anyone complaining about those items under a moderate
Democratic administration.

Tell me more. :)

[Gman]

74. You didn't hear of anyone complaining about these items

under Clinton because Clinton handled these things much better than Bush has. Clinton helped create a system of tax credits to drive the behavior of business. Bush has gutted these tax credit provisions, and business reverts to it's old ways which are often unethical/immoral and/or illegal.

[Hugin]

85. Wow...

Very clear.

Thanks Gman.

[leanin_green]

134. The phrase "a friend to business" simply means. . .

CORPORATE LACKY.
Simple business and commerce are one thing, but the current climate of "business" creates more problems than it solves. I agree with the Greens on this point. We have to take away the "individual distinction" that corporations have under the law to operate as individual entities with the same rights as you or I. This needs to be looked into. The idea of competition is so archaic in today's world as to be almost like dinasours. We'll go the way of the dinasours if we don't learn about the concept of cooperation. Why do we need to build empires anymore anyway?

[Q]

46. We most definately need a consensus before we can move forward...

...but there seems to be conflicting ideas about 'business, the economy' between factions in the party.

By reading their online website...the DLC moderates seem to want business to largely go unregulated and an economy driven by the market and unrestrained by government. Their answer to 'universal health care' is to give 'incentives' to corporations and other measures that would basically give us the same economy that the Right wants to give us: supply-side, trickle-down.

The DLC moderates also rant against 'big government'. But government is only as good or effective as its leadership. We should be able to agree that certain things in our society need regulation and restraint by the people's government to prevent them from becoming a force that works against their best interest.

What we desire is a government of, by and for the people. But what does this mean? It means a government that regulates use of OUR environment. That guarantees free and fair elections and a free press. A government not beholded to corporate lobbyists for campaign cash and long careers. It's not difficult to imagine what a good government looks like. But it WILL take resolve in trying to solve problems...not as political parties...but as Americans.

[Hugin]

50. Hmm...

I ain't no DLC type moderate.

I firmly believe in informed regulation.
I firmly believe in a responsible government's ability to see to
the health of it's citizens.
I firmly believe "The Market" can only drive the economy where there
is truly competition. (Doesn't exist in our current Megamonopolistic
economy. See: The Media for example.)

I can't believe we're even discussing "Big Government"... That's
a RW issue. Leave them to gibber on about it.

Yes, last I looked we were promised, "A government of the people,
by the people, and for the people." It perished though. Looks to
me as it was a victim of apathy and indifference.

The environment? Well, That's a whopper of an issue. Better to break
it down into sub issues. Like. what's likely to kill us. How do we
maintain diversity? As we were so recently made aware (the tsunamis)
not all features of Mother Nature are benevolent. On the happy side
of nature. How do we make it flourish? (and us along with it?)

There... It's a small start.

:)

[Q]

52. I hope that...

...I didn't imply that you were a DLC moderate. But I felt it was important to point out the differences.

Perhaps apathy and indifference DID have something to do with the end of true representative government...but it didn't help to have our country and Constitution usurped by a cabal of wealthy, corporate elitists.

The best way to make mother nature flourish is to leave it alone whenever possible. And we can't allow corportatons to exploit it with impunity. Our natural resources are suppose to belong to all of us...not just the few who have enough power and money to use it for only their benefit.

[Hugin]

54. No implication...

Q, I didn't take what you were saying as an implication I was a
DLC type. :)

Quite frankly, I don't see much Democratic in the DLC.

It wasn't until very recently that I was made aware what I thought
was a Representative Democracy. Is in fact a "Republic". A point made
shockingly clear with the Ohio Vote in the legislature last week. It
was then I realized I wasn't represented. One Senator? Who do they
represent? Certainly not the people who voted for them. They were
acting in their own best interest.

I'm not sure what a "Republic" is... But, I'm going to look it
up to see just what the responsibilities of legislators in a
republic are. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like it.

[Hugin]

56. Entitiled to vote?

As I suspected...

(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Hmm... Sounds like money talking to money to me.

I'd like to know exactly when I lost my two cents.

They seem to have forgotten about that "representative" part. They
need to be reminded exactly who they represent. Little hint: It ain't
a corporation... They don't vote.

[Q]

67. Another problem we seem to be having is that...

...every time someone from the 'left' complains about the DLC selling out our legacy...one of their defenders makes accusations that we're so far out on the 'fringe' that we don't really understand what the party needs to do to 'win'. It beats me how they can say that after the last two losses and the fact that the party has never been in this bad of shape.

They blame all the ills of the party on the 'liberals'...but when is the last time a liberal or prrogressive has even had a voice in the party? Depending on your perspective...it's at least several decades. Or perhaps they're suggesting that our 'whining' from the sidelines is losing elections for them?

The good news is that we're not 'losing' elections by all that much. I believe we could pull enough voters over to our side if we can get the DLC to stop driving them away.

[Hugin]

76. I agree...

I must admit I've rarely heard anyone who's supposedly on the
"fringe" say anything I'd consider "fringe-like". Outside of
a few what I call Boutique Issues. It's mostly common sense.

[leanin_green]

135. Much of our Party has been infiltrated.

The RR declared war on the "liberal elite" as they perceived it. Any good war strategy includes ways in which to infilitrate and confuse the enemy. Like the architects that created the current ideology hijacked the Republican Party, I believe, they are currently at work trying to hijack our party. They are good at what they do and we need to be better. Perhaps we need to develop some good "dogs" to sniff out the "terminators."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Actually, this is considered a "representative democracy"

as opposed to a direct democracy.

A republic is simply any country without a monarcy.

Come to think of it, we may not even be a republic anymore when Bushboy gets through with us. :scared:

[Hugin]

77. Well...

Lydia,

I was under the impression our "representatives" were there to
implement our opinions by making them heard.

The fact the few were sent instead of the many was merely for
convenience.

Instead the representatives act as if they have some sort of
bestowed power which relieves them of concern for what we sent
them there to say.

I don't view them necessarily as leaders. More of a conduit.

In a straight Republic. The representatives are usually members
of an aristocracy.

Is there a chill in the air? :scared:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. They are still a representative democracy in form, if not in substance

The type of government you're referring to is called an "oligarchy." I would definitely agree that our country is becoming an oligarchy.

A republic can be anything from France (which has a functioning parliamentary system) to North Korea (a dictatorship). France and Germany are republics, while Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are not, because they have monarchies. North Korea, South Korea, and China are republics, but Japan is not, even though it has a parliamentary system.

[Hugin]

83. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :) n/t

[DaedelusNemo]

113. Use environment as a local issue

What's in YOUR water? Check at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=224560

If the answer horrifies you, you've got a local issue. People who can be blase about 'the environment' are viscerally involved when they find out they're drinking poison because some local business can't be bothered to clean up after itself.

A larger democratic push supporting all these local efforts would do a great job of getting out a Democrat message on the environment that puts itself squarely one the side of people and that people can feel personally involved with.

[Gman]

72. For example...

I don't think anyone in the DLC wants business largely unregulated. "Largely unregulated" to me implies a company could sell a bag of broken glass to children as a puzzle with impunity. I don't think anyone favors that.

The bottom line regarding business (to me) is this: Business must be allowed to function with as few restrictions as necessary. "Necessary" is what needs to be discussed and where the opinions will differ. This is where the consensus should be built while keeping in mind that without flourishing business, we can't fully fund the programs that we want to see such as quality education, universal health care along with all necessary social programs. Someone has to pay the tab on these. The more people working and paying taxes and the more companies that flourish and pay taxes, the more we are able to fund these programs. There is no other way so it is in the best interest of all (libs/progs and moderates) to have a healthy business environment.

I offer the above for discussion.

[Hugin]

79. Broken glass... LOL.

Thanks Gman,

I agree. Consumer protection is important.

You're also correct thinking the details of business and how it's
transacted is of concern to everyone.

How's about... "The Devil's in what's necessary."?

[Hugin]

88. Still laughing...

about the broken glass thing.

What makes it even better is that in the current hands off
business environment. I can see some Wallstreeter proposing
the broken glass puzzle as "The Toy" for next Christmas.

Yow!

Now, I'm really shaking. :scared:

[Gman]

128. I can't take full credit for the "Bag O' Glass" puzzle

that comes from a very, very old Saturday Night Live skit when Dan Akyroyd (sp?) played this sleezy guy on a talk show trying to convince the host why his bag of glass product was not dangerous. It was sometime in the mid-70's. Shows that product safety and corporate attitudes toward regulation and safety were an issue even back then.

[DaedelusNemo]

111. That's pretty much true but..

When we're arguing which regulations are necessary, it's not enough to simply say 'as few as necessary'. On a lot of things, we have way too much regulation. On some things, we need more, and those may include the bigger problems right now. Indeed, there are some sectors that have become so unregulated as to actually hurt the economic interests of the whole sector - take how the accounting rules were loosened up, for example, helping Enron and others to do what they did, which included blowing a huge crater in investor trust and scaring money out of the market - hurting many of those who had thought loosening the accountability would be swell.

The fact is, our modern system of long-distance investing absolutely depends on trust; it is simply not feasible for individual investors to run around the country trying to verify the public information. To undermine that trust is to undermine the market that rests atop it.

A lot of the deregulation efforts that have taken place have been disasters. We should recognize when there are potentially conflicting interests. Should we privatize all our water, for example? Or do we rather have a priority of ensuring that everyone can get the water they need to live? If so, the only way to ensure that is with regulation. Once things that are a matter for survival for some become strictly a matter of profit for others, injustice rapidly arrives. Witness the California energy debacle.

Many of our very largest corporations don't pay tax, through various gamings of the tax system. That isn't a problem of too much or not enough, it's just a matter of needing different regulations.

There's an awful lot of people working their days in a cloud or a vat of chemical poisons and getting godawful diseases as a result. We need to do a better job with our labor standards. Part of that may well be clearing out a lot of the underbrush and trying to write a more cohesive standard. We should also refuse to import goods produced with less than some minimum standard of labor (wages of course would need to be relative to local economies, but some standards are in fact the right of every human being.) Some of this is just enforcing what law there already is.

We are in general doing far too much to help the largest corporations, whose whole claim to existence is their unparalleled ability to compete economically. If their business models aren't working by now, we need to stop propping them up. They're plenty big enough to fly on their own, especially considering that these efforts are largely at the expense of small businesses - which could actually use a hand-up on their way to successful self-sufficiency.

I think that there is actually a considerable amount of support on Wall Street for sensible regulation, if their periodicals are any indication - articles proclaiming that the profit margins in various sectors are "unhealthily high"!? While some people stand to gain large amounts from a higher defecit, many more businesspeople stand to lose from it. Bush's favoritism is at the point where it excludes much of the traditional financial base of the party. This is not the time for the Democrats to meet him halfway. A starkly different approach is called for. Accountability. I'm all for simplifying regulations and shredding great gobs of them, but accountability must be preserved, along with whatever minimum standards we expect to live with as a country. In the long run, it's the best thing you can do for the economy as well as for the people.

[Q]

126. Tort reform is meant to negate 'consumer protections'...

...so it might be enlightening to see how many and which Dems support it.

[Gman]

127. Restrictions on the ability to sue or on awards

means business is more likely to do what they should not do. The ability to sue and the possibility of losing is one of the best ways to keep business honest and make it do the right thing. The more a company can lose in a lawsuit, the less regulation that is needed. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others are driving the effort to make business as unaccountable to the average people through the courts as possible.

[leanin_green]

136. I think Tort Reform is another smoke screen.

In their zeal to achieve they're theocratic government they need to remove the ability of the people to redress grievences. Don't believe for a minute that some amendment won't be slipped into any bill on Tort that seriously restricts our rights to the courts. Just to be sure, however, let's load the bench with activist jurists partial to our line of thinking, firstly on the appellate level. You can ususally make out what they are trying to do by listening to what they're accusing others of. How many times lately have you heard about "activist judges" when referring to our side?

[DaedelusNemo]

112. I think we mostly agree on a lot

I think the language we use divides us more than the actual issues behind them. We use phrases that have been given political significance that say more than we want to say when we use them. Who's for "big government", for example?

The market should do what the market can do with as little interference in its workings as possible. But when we have motives involved other than simply efficient distribution - if, for example, we want to make sure everybody can get what they need to survive - then some sort of regulation is necessary. We may still decide that part or all of the cost of acting on our motive should be paid by the society in general and thus offer 'incentives' or 'subsidies' or whatever you want to call it.

Most everybody agrees on that, or so it seems. They'll have their arguments over which phrases are the good ones to be using, but if they get around to describing what they mean to express with those phrases, they usually mean pretty much the same thing.

On the subject of supply-side economics, there is some truth to it. But it's only half of the truth and it's been presented as the whole thing. You have to have both supply and demand, the thumb has been pushed down on the supply-side too long, and our problem is not now any lack of supply, it's the lack of demand. The recent cash-hoarding by many of our largest corporations illustrates this very well. It's not that they don't have money to invest; they don't have anything to invest in. Why? Because there's not enough discretionary income floating around in the general economy to create demand for a new product - it's increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. A market works best when it is both broad and deep.

As for big government, i think it's a basic common-sense position that we don't want a great deal of waste in it, and we don't want it intruding unnecessarily into our lives, and it should stay out in general when not needed. Other than that, it should be precisely as large as necessary to do what we want it for. Obviously, then we have a whole galaxy of nominated 'necessities' to debate, but they should each be dealt with on their own grounds, not just swept under a general blanket statement that we want less of them.

Both these issues share in common that they generally express only half the truth. They take a single factor and present them as the whole concern. The fact that you need a good supply for a good economy is morphed into an argument that the supply always needs to be increased at all times regardless of the demand. The fact that we all want gov't to be as small as necessary is used against any and every program, even those we consider necessary. There's such a thing as too large a supply and too small a government. They're relatives, 'it should be smaller', that are used as absolutes: 'get rid of it all'.

[eallen]

42. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And...

..Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

No doubt, I am what you would consider a political moderate. Even a fiscal conservative. But there is no moderation in my opposition to today's radical right.

[Hugin]

44. Wonderful!

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Hugin]

63. Send beer!

Along with those other things... Could you send beer? ;)

Thx in advance.

[Hugin]

64. Almost forgot...

You can keep Rupert...

And if there's any more like Nicole Kidman to send... Two words, EXPRESS MAIL. ;)

[BrklynLiberal]

71. Sadly, it took me four more years to find DU. I joined just before the

latest coup. I actually found DU in Sept of 2004, but joined in Oct because I wanted to be able to post and see results of the election.
I am happy to have found this place filled with people of common interests and understanding. I only regret that it took me so long to find it. I feel that I missed out on four years of company, challenges and support that I would have really enjoyed.

[proudbluestater]

75. I never heard of DU until last summer at Kerry's web forum.

I joined shortly after the election. There are a lot of sites out there now, but I wanted to join a BIG site to avoid the freeper outbreaks as much as possible. Safety in numbers and all that.

I don't disagree with much at this site. If I find a note I don't agree with, I just bypass it and move on to something that interests me. There are enough posts in a day that I can never read them all anyway.

Great site. I like the fact that with 60,000 and some members, we can make a difference when we put our efforts behind something. We cannot sit back and wait for our leaders in the party to take action. We need to be there nudging them along.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Liberals, moderates, and even conservatives need to unite against the GOP

In my opinion, it's simple. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives (non-neocons) share the same fundamental American values, we just have our differences on certain things, most of them being fiscal matters. The GOP is a threat to all of these fundamental American values that we hold dear, amongst them, the right to vote, the right to free speech, the seperation of Church and state, the right to privacy, and equal protection under the law.

As a liberal, I would be perfectly willing to get behind any candidate (liberal or moderate) who shares these fundamental American values. Things like EXACTLY how much money we spend on what will be sorted out in congress anyway and many viewpoints will be represented.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. But the important thing is that they have to be AGAINST the

Republicans, not just sort of in disagreement with them on the details.

Just as importantly, they have to offer a positive alternative, maybe just two or three points. I suspect that a lot of the coveted swing voters had no personal reasons to hate Bush, were too uninformed to understand why Democrats don't like him, and could find no overwhelming reason in the Democratic platform to support Kerry.

[Hugin]

84. BINGO!

We have a winner!

Now how come I can't write like that?

[izzybeans]

86. seconded

[Q]

87. It would be great if all that divided us at this point...

...were 'fiscal matters'. I believe that the main reason for the division in the party revolves around two issues:

- The Iraq invasion and occupation...and that many in the Dem leadership support it

- That the Dem leadership is getting too 'cozy' with the Bushie Republicans and don't FIGHT them on the important battles

I guess you could say that the Bushies have been successful in driving a wedge between factions in the party. It literally becomes a battle between 'old' and 'new' Democrats: one side trying to hold on to traditional Dem values and principles and the other side wanting to soften positions on everything from abortion to Social Security.

[Hugin]

90. Never!

If this is what they want... Then we've truly parted ways.

"...the other side wanting to soften positions on everything from abortion to Social Security."

You're right about those wedges.

They're implanted by a media controlled by the RW. It's up to us
to communicate among ourselves to either remove them or discredit
them as the unfounded rumors they are.

[Hippo_Tron]

91. The Dem leadership basically regrets supporting the invasion

They do agree that we can stabilize the region by keeping the troops there(something that I'm not sure that I agree with but something that I don't take a side on because I don't consider myself knowledgable enough on the subject to have an informed opinion). Here's another question, though Are we going to stay there as long as we need to create something resembling a stabilized Iraq, or are we going to stay there as long as we need to, to secure US oil interests. That was the big difference between Kerry and Shrub.

Unfortunately I think that regardless of what happens, the sitution in Iraq is headed for the worst and the only thing I can say positive about the re-election of Bush, is that he will have nobody to blame it on but himself (well, maybe Clinton).

The two factions of the party may disagree on this issue, but I think that given the right nominee we can unite them. Even if the DLC is as bad and corrupt as you say they are, they will still support the democratic nominee even if he/she is a liberal because having a Democratic president is a huge fundraising advantage for the party, which includes DLC candidates.

[izzybeans]

92. Totally agree

I just sat and watched Roemer this morning claiming that the democrats need to be more inclusive of anti-choice policy makers such as himself. I think I'll call Roemer Rove's Wedgie from now on. Perfect metaphor because he's stuck up in the expansive crack of the elephant. Progressives must pick Rove's Wedgie in order to get back to comfortable again. I'll stop with the stupid puns now.

[BrklynLiberal]

93. This is the guy who appears to have the backing of Sciafe isn't he?

[vetwife]

130. There is more than one kind of activist !

Look. The old timers here know me. I am all for discussion and stating positions I stand for as moderate as they seem to you. I think I am very moderate. I have my opinions and the far left have theirs. The far right has their's . No one, absolutely no one should be so like minded in all of their political views that there is no room for discussion and debate.IMO

I have no problem taking other viewpoints and assess. I have no problem disagreeing with the left or the right. Wouldn't it be a strange world if we all thought alike? Engage in conversations with people who don't agree with all you say. Preaching to the choir and downing people who have faith does not win elections.
I think I have gotten my priotities straight.

Moderates have a place.

[Bouncy Ball]

89. I'm very very very very very far left.

And part of the Underground.

But if you saw me, met me? You'd never know in a million years, unless you got me to talk about certain things.

Oh and I think everyone on this forum who isn't a disruptor/freeper is on the same side as me.

[mdmc]

95. Damn Q, you get some high thread counts

lots of posts!

[Stepup2]

96. Interesting

One of the reasons I lurked so long before joining was the due my observation that many posts with tinges of compromise in them always seemed to bring some wrath on the poster.

I don't know what label this will bring on my head but here goes:

Perhaps one of the reasons the Repubs are so successful is that many of them are willing to compromise occasionally on some issues to hold on to power.

Power is what it IS all about isn't it?

Discussion is vital, but where does finger pointing and absolutism get us?

[Q]

99. Republicans are willing to compromise with each other...

....but not with Democrats. Democrats are willing to compromise with Republicans but Republicans aren't willing to compromise with Democrats. Why? Because the Democratic leadership is either working with the Bush government or they're too cowardly to oppose them.

The Republicans are so 'successful' because they're fascist bullies. They don't believe in the niceties of democracy and diplomacy. Do you know why they're this way? Because power is what it's all about. And thus we can see what's wrong with the Democratic party as well.

[Stepup2]

101. Hi Q

I agree with you on the fascist bullies; to a point.

My point is that not all repubs are fascist bullies, and thinking this way alienates people we are going to need if we ever hope to even out the power disparity in this country. I have a few repub friends who did not vote this cycle and were not ashamed to admit to it. This is HUGE where I come from.

As for cowardly Dem's I am with you there too, your response seems to lean to wards the absolutist thinking I was referring to, and imo, this leaves many out of the discussion.

My point is we need to start rebuild and regain what has been lost, and build towards avenues for candidates outside of the current mainstream.

[Q]

102. There are fascist bullies and those who enable them...

...or profit from their bullying. They are NOT the people we'll need to work with to 'even out' the power disparity because they're the ones who won't share power.

I didn't come to the conclusion about 'cowardly Dems' overnight. It's been a gradual process of over a decade of watching the party leadership either collaborate with the GOP power brokers or simply turn a blind eye to what was going on in order to save their careers.

We do need to rebuild. But first we must tear down the ROTTEN foundation and start anew. But how can we regain what has been lost until we know which Democrats are willing to pick up a hammer and help with the rebuilding? There are Democrats who don't want to rebuild the 'old' party of the New Deal and social safety net. If we give them a hammer they will begin to build something else entirely from what you or I may have in mind.

The Party has to decide where it wants to go and find leaders that won't stray from the message or sleep with the 'enemy' to advance their own interests instead of that of the party and America.

[Stepup2]

104. I understand you now

Thanks for the clarification. I am with you 100% regarding your last sentence, especially the "sleep with the enemy" bit.

I struggle with finding the wording which does not alienate people who might be willing to help us pick up the hammer.

Maybe I am too sensitive and pick up "loading" in words not meant to be loaded.

Thank you for your thought provoking posts and honest responses.

[IndyPriest]

97. Do we see a clear and present danger?

I think that's your question, Q. And the answer, really, on the part of many Americans seems to be: not yet. Bush's approval is teetering, which shows some small sign that his hold over our consciousness is cracking. But why isn't the evidence of a clear and presnt danger compelling enough for the country (least, the democrats) to rise up?

I think there are four:

1. The BushCo are master deceivers. They manipulate language, symbol, and myth pitched perfectly for their uses. It's inherently hard to unmask skilled deceivers.

2. Our penchant for the philosophy of individualism makes appeal to the common good seem nearly unAmerican.

3. Americans, by and large, are comfortable, and view threats to comfort as a national emergency.

4. There are very few public places left to gather and talk. One of the reasons DU is as successful as it is is that it creates at least the semblence of a town hall gathering.

[Q]

100. I can understand why the American people don't quite 'get it' yet...

...but I'm still pondering why the Democratic leadership is afraid of opposing the Bushies.

In your list you forgot one thing: the corporate media. Deceivers can't be successful with a free press to expose them...which is why they began buying up the media in the 80s.

I would suppose that many or even most Americans don't use the internet to get the 'news'. Most watch one of the networks or cable news...usually getting only one side of the story. Americans can't imagine or have no reason to suspect that the Bushies control all news related to the 'war' or anything to do with government. It's a sanitized version of events and Bush painted as common folk, hero and fearless leader.And when they do finally hear the truth they won't believe it because they've been told to watch out for 'conspiracy theories'.

[IndyPriest]

106. Media, for sure. It's what I meant by #4

Although I was probably being too compact. "Back when I was growing up" it seemed to me that the media were much more an example of a town hall than mere corporate shills. The media were not the only "places" people gathered to talk. But they were a large open space that has become closed off.

[Q]

109. I see what you mean...

We've always had a corporate media. But with the end of the fairness doctrine in the 80s...Clinton's telecommunications bill in the 90s and Bush's takeover of the FCC by installing Powell's son...dozens of smaller media outlets were absorbed by large corporations owned by RWing ideologues. It seems many Americans don't understand that reporters and 'journalists' are like most other workers in that they report what they're told to report by the owners or they find themselves out of a job.

To make matters worse...many of these media giants are part of an even larger corporation with subsidiaries in the energy and defense industries. If one of their subsidiarites is being paid millions or billions to build warplanes or missile defense systems...they're much more reluctant to report fraud, waste and abuse related to these industries.

This used to be called a 'conflict of interest'...but in new America it's called good business.

[orpupilofnature57]

98. Love having my every short coming, highlighted and usually corrected.

[chrisbur]

103. I was "just visiting"

for the past year. I frequented some other liberal or progressive or whatever sites and just read and lurked. Since Nov.2 I've felt like our country is living in a dreamworld (worse than the last 4 years). I voted for Kerry of course but other than that I've never been involved in politics. Well now I do whatever I can. I write Senators letters, I have their phone numbers programmed into my cell phone. I am going Jan.20 to "Turn My Back on Bush". I'll do whatever I've gotta do now. I am awake.

Someone please tell me that membership has risen sharply here at DU since Nov. 2. Please?

[Q]

105. Sounds like you're doing much more than just visiting...

...and welcome to DU.

And as you found out...it's not a dreamworld...although many of our fellow Americans seem like they're fast asleep.

Thanks for your service to your country by being among those who will turn their backs on Bush & fascism on January 20th.

It's exciting to see so many waking up and taking a stand.

[hangloose]

107. I am now awake, my eyes are no longer clouded with the fog of

apathy. I am an activist and will commit to work for a more open and honest government that is for the people.

[Q]

108. An open and honest government...for the people.

If a politician can't look you right in the eyes and say that same thing and live by those words...simply don't vote for them.

[Debs]

120. I think at this point

Talk of moderation with THIS group of thugs in power is taking a clear eyed, ideological position to a knife fight. Also maybe its just me but the thread seems to assume the divisive attacks are all on moderates from us far lefty liberals, I was in a thread where I was told liberals must be driven from the party. I have definitly seen the attacks go both ways HERE. Its the DLC however that is always talking about the damage those on the left do to the party. I vote mostly dem. I give money to dem politicians. The DLC is saying we cant be the party of Micheal Moore. I dont care if you agree with him but to single him out for such an attack when he did a lot this election for dems is insane. Overall I see a lot more attacks on the left of the party from the center than the other way around. Did I flame back when told people like me should be evicted? You bet I did. I am a fighter, I wont be told by anyone that I am the problem and stay silent. Absolutly lets work together, both parts are needed for a coherent policy push. Working together however does NOT mean I should shut up and put up with attacks against what I believe just because they come from moderates within. Also lets remember this is in house where such arguements SHOULD happen. I am much more circumspect about attacking those on my side in more open forums

[Q]

124. The lack of 'outrage' from those in the center is disturbing

Where's the outrage over Democratic cooperation and collusion with the Bush Cabal?

This is too much. Clinton cuddling with Bush. Bush cuddling right back. Both congratulating each other on their leadership skills and political manipulations and opportunism. Media now reports that they share a 'warm relationship'. But the problem goes much deeper than Clinton and Bush*.

No one is suggesting that Democrats and their political OPPONENTS have to knock each other out every time they meet in front of the cameras. But we're talking about Democrats glad-handing and cooperating with those who steal elections, abuse civil rights, used 9-11 as an excuse for aggressive war, plan to destroy the social safety net, ignore domestic and international law and have worked together with anti-democratic forces to push through legislation that erodes the rights and liberties of all Americans.

We expected a loyal opposition party but all we got were Democrats having high tea with thugs and despots. What's this collaboration...this collusion...this AFFAIR going on between Democrats and ugly American Republicans? I don't expect perfection from any politician. But I do expect ethics, morality and loyalty to the people from the leaders of the Democratic party.

I can accept the realities of being in the minority party. I can even accept that the Republicans are ruthless and have a character assassination and propaganda machine that would have made Hitler and Stalin envious. But shouldn't we at least be able to expect our party to fight crime and corruption instead of condoning, turning a blind eye or participating with it?

But the really insulting thing is having Democratic leaders tell us to 'move on', 'get over it', 'stop living in the past' and to 'stop whining' about their 'bipartisanship' with the most corrupt government in our history. Worse...some rank and file Democrats are excusing this behavior by saying that it's a good sign that Democrats and Republicans are finally 'getting along'.

Many of the 'fringe element' and 'focus groups' are beginning to believe that the two parties are working together towards a one-party state where policies and agendas mesh so close together as to become indistinguishable. And now that the Neocons and Neodems get their money and support from corporations instead of the people...they plan on removing the Liberals and Progressives completely from the political landscape.

[easttexaslefty]

131. In the underground or just visiting

Up to this point, I have only visited. This site allowed me to remain sane in the weeks leading up to the election. Living east of Dallas Texas, one does not often get to listen to people who believe the same way you do, I did not post however, I am just the shy,quiet, type.

[leanin_green]

137. The shy, quiet type. . .

those are the ones you always have to watch out for in a fight! :toast:
Time to jump in!!!

[Q]

139. The important thing is to keep asking questons...

...and demanding answers.

This government gets away with so much because so many...in both parties...have stopped demanding answers to so many still unaswered questions.

The last generation to confront the government (and win) was in the 60s and 70s. That generation will soon be gone and someone has to take their place in keeping government accountable to the people.

Welcome to DU.

[Q]

140. Jump in and get your feet wet...

...you'll find many good people here that share your concerns, hopes and dreams.

Sometimes it can get a bit nasty...but just say what you believe and believe what you say and everything will fall into place.

Welcome to the reality based world of a nation of, by and for the people.

[Oversea Visitor]

141. I laugh and I laugh

Anyone fighting for voting reform???

[Q]

142. Election reform? They put on a show for us a few days ago...

...for a few hours and now it's back to business as usual in our nation's capital. They're busy thinking about which tux or gown to wear to Bush's coronation parties.

It's a sad thing to realize that the shining star that was once America's democracy has been snuffed out by greed and political opportunism.

[Oversea Visitor]

150. One should not expect that the road be easy

Jan 6th was historical, I watch it all on Cspan live from over here is Malaysia and I also watch the rerun.
I was truly amaze at the amount of media coverage given to that historical occassion. Some of the contents of coverage of what little it get was so twisted. Its a long and tough road to walk, an uphill battle, one that need every Americans who value their rights to come together and fight. Instead I see all this division and its real petty compare to the battle ahead. However there are signs that Bush and CO is cracking and instead of quarreling you guys should be pushing forward, picking your favourite issues and supporting it.

[leanin_green]

151. The quarreling is natural at this stage.

It's the natural process after a traumatic realization. This thing has shook us all up quite abit. Right now we're just trying to shake the cobwebs out of our heads. If you notice, there are a lot less threads about leaving the party. Perhaps many of us have made the choice I have. Although, in spirit, I have left the "established" aspect of the party, I'm still a Democrat with Green leanings. I have adopted a more detached, non-personal observation stance in party matters. It is no longer about Democrat vs. Republican for me. It's more about the people vs. this illegitimate government.

[twenty2strings]

146. I'm there,Baby!!!...

We will win,but we must have real substance. If you have to keep your head down to be an American patriot,then all the more reason. I'm going to guard Dean from the jackals in both parties that are afraid of an educated informed and angry electorate. Hate,NO!...Anger,YES!}( :think: :thumbsup:

[Q]

149. Substance.

...a very relevant word to use in a time when winning has become more important than...well...substance.

Welcome to DU.

[BoogDoc7]

147. Me?

Well, let me give this a shot and see how long it takes before I get banned or something.

I'm not here to troll, trust me on this. I'm not liberal on most things, but many of you would say that I have progressive attitudes - MAYBE - on education and people with disabilities. I'll try to keep my comments related to those subjects. I don't intend to antagonize, either. I like drawing out reality, so I may get a little tiresome because I usually ask TONS of questions when someone posts - especially when they spout of something that needs backing up.

I come here to read the other side. Maybe I'm alone, maybe not. I want to know my opponent and actually change my attitude about something if I'm wrong on it.

I have a degree in history (BA, working on an MA and want a PhD) and hope to teach college one day. It helps. A LOT (especially in filtering the media bias, which exists on BOTH sides).

I would refer everyone to my posts on American Forum, but I think it got hacked before Christmas and hasn't been resurrected yet.

Ah, well. Here goes nothing.

[Q]

148. "I came here to read the other side"

Read on. But make sure that you're actually getting to 'know' your 'opponent' and not the stereotypes that exist to neutralize their arguments.

As to filters and media bias: As long as you understand that there has NEVER BEEN a 'liberal media'...then we'll at least share a context to discuss bias and a state-controlled media.

[leanin_green]

152. History major? Alright, try this.

History is my thing also. Welcome and here's to an open mind.:toast:

Here's my take on the history of this country since 1963. Up until that point in time corporate influence and the military industrial complex had significant but limited power in the seats of government. Eisenhower warned us of their growing influence but we failed to act. As their strength grew, I believe, they were finally challenged by Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The way they used their father's contacts in the underworld to get elected was risky. They stole that election and that is where the anger of Republicans and the right began to simmer.

Let's look at the Kennedy's actions after the election. For the first time in our modern history we had two branches of the government working in complete harmony, the Executive and the Judicial. The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis was the baptism of fire that educated Jack and Bobby as to just how screwed up things really were. Having survived those crises and accepting responsibility for their outcome a precedent of executive responsibility was adopted. Have we seen that since?

After the rather abrupt education about how things workedin Washington their work began in earnest. They began a deadly game of turning on the very ones that put them in power. Soon, Presidential executive orders limiting the intelligence community and Pentagon "black ops"(I don't have the exec. order # but it's been published). The systematic dismantling of organized crime was in full swing. Think about it; picture Bobby standing over the President as he signed bills into law picking up the phone and telling FBI agents already in position to go before the ink was even dry. Can you imagine how this circumvented the lawmakers in the pocket of organized crime who could warn them as to what was coming down the pike? Jack and Bobby threatened the very existence of two organizations, the intelligence and organized crime structures that had acted with impunity up until that time. Soon after, the Pax Americana speech laid out what the vision of the world they hoped to create was about and what it would entail.

Then, November 22, 1963. For me, this was the first coup. Because ever since then we have had one leader after another that have catered to the interests of organized greed, exploitation, self-interest in the guise of national interest using the tools of government to spread their ideas of "free market capitalism" as the American model. Exporting this brand of "Democracy" to other countries, undermining free-will, toppling elected governments, exploiting resources of other nations to feed their own needs, spreading destructive weapons around the globe and exploiting the chaos that follows under the auspices of bring Democracy to these "poor, troubled nations." If any leader dared to raise his head against them, well, just let me say: Martin, Bobby, Malcolm, Evers, etc. And now we have the full expression of this coup in the face of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and friends. These people do things unapologetically, almost openly, as if to say, "what are you gonna do about it?" And what are we going to do about it? Vote? HA! They fixed that too. March in the streets? See if they care. What? Tell me, I'm ready to listen. That's why I come to DU. I need my brothers and sisters of like mind. It's gut check time. I don't believe in violence, but I feel it building in me. And so, I come here.

[Mutley]

153. i joined a few months ago...

and i am very happy to have found this place! Thanks to everyone!

[psychopomp]

155. Very well put, Q

That spirit in which DU began needs to be rekindled! It has been a long road and we have gone through a lot of twists and turns but we are still on the same road.

Just as Underground as ever!