Left and Republicans: joining forces to wage war against the Democrats

[LoZoccolo]

Remember when Nader was having Republicans work to get him on the ballot?

Remember when he was taking contributions from Republicans? Did he give them back?

Remember when Al Sharpton was taking financing arrangements and talking points from Roger Stone, a Republican operative?

These aren't speculations and ramblings, these are real things that happened.

[wyldwolf]

1. Can't wait to see how this thread develops!

[ZombieNixon]

2. This should be interesting.

On DU, I'm fairly moderate. Outside DU, I'm a left-wing extremist.

What do I think of Nader: most of his ideas are good, but incredibly impractical. I used to like him, but 537 votes made me hate him forever. He's a hypocrite who does not practice what he preaches (he busted a union among his 2000 campaign workers). I think he wants to make the world go to hell and blame the Democrats so that America comes running to Saint Ralph in 2008. Not gonna happen.

What do I think of the DLC: I wish they wouldn't sleep with corporations so much. I don't think it's a matter of hating the organization, so much as Al From. He just bothers the hell out of me.

[coloradodem2005]

3. This is pretty bad.

The problem is that the Democrats can't leave anybody disaffected but they do.

[ulysses]

4. interesting

coming from the guy who wants to invade Iran.

Wolfowitz et al thank you for your support.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

7. I'm sorry - you said "maybe"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1520112#1520317

Alert away.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Apology accepted. n/t

[ulysses]

9. what, no alert?

Here I was afraid that I wasn't being abject enough for you.

And your original post is still interesting given your willingness to give the Bush admin *any* credence whatsoever on foreign policy.

[LoZoccolo]

10. It might be interesting.

It's unfortunate that this administration is in power, but withdrawing from foreign affairs for four years would be disastrous. I'm not going to say I would support that just to impress some people I don't know on a message board.

[BlueManDude]

5. LoZo you are right on

I've followed some of the stuff you've been posting and I'm with you 100%. There are many liberals here who still see no difference between the parties. They would love to see the demise of the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

11. another interesting observation as this thread develops

...without denying the premise of the original post, someone attempted to hijack it and make it about the Iraq war. Yet, it is the same GOP who allied themselves with the left, as presented in the examples, who INSTIGATED the Iraq war.

So, the instigators of the Iraq war are helping the left defeat Democrats. Self-defeating for the left.

[ulysses]

12. you'd have a good point here, wyld,

if the left hadn't voted for Kerry and downticket Dems in November. Nader is old news, irrelevant. The issues Q brought up in his thread are ongoing.

[wyldwolf]

13. yet, as usual, Q's post is void of any specifics - just generalizations

At least the orginal post in this thread shows precident for his premise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Moderates and Republicans: Joining forces to make the Dems irrelevant.

Remember when Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman and the rest of the "moderate" Democrats voted for the war?

Remember when Joe Biden called for "Enlightened Nationalism"?

Remember when DLC champ Zell Miller spoke at the Republican Convention?

Remember when Hillary supported "Faith Based Initiatives"?

Remember when 6 of the 8 Democrats voted for Condi Rice?

Remember that Harry Reid is anti-choice?

Remember all the times that the "moderates" voted for Republican bills?

Remember the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections when "moderates" lost the elections?

[LoZoccolo]

15. Sure there are simliarities on some issues by some Democrats.

However there are still differences. When the left works to get Republicans wholly elected, there is no difference between a Republican winning a majority and a Republican winning because of a plurality caused by a further-left splinter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. There is no difference between a Repug voting for Bush and Dem.

As so many of the Dem "moderates" do. Please inform us how voting for the war, the Patriot Act, Condi, etc, helped the Democratic Party, or hurt Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Sure there is.

They still vote for things that the Republicans don't.

And if that's not true then you're gonna show me a Democrat that votes in lockstep with the Republicans every time, right? (Other than Zell Miller, who probably still doesn't.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. So?

Does that give them a pass for voting with the Repubs?

[LoZoccolo]

39. Depends on what kind of pass.

A pass on criticism? No. At election time? Yes.

Will you look at what you're saying? You are proposing punishing them for voting with the Republicans on some issues by letting Republicans win completely. I am getting very tired of people not noticing this themselves before they say this kind of stuff.

[Cheswick2.0]

78. The votes for IWR, the Patriot Act were WRONG

It would be bad if they voted for legislation that wasn't unamerican and immoral. I won't excuse voting for bad legislation because with the republicans in charge of everything, there really is no good legislation.
Tell me what good legislation democrats voted for which republicans did not since 2002?

[wyldwolf]

19. as usual...

... a very narrow definition is used for "Democrats" to make your point.

Remember when Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman and the rest of the "moderate" Democrats voted for the war?

Been completely debunked here over and over UNLESS you just don't understand what the vote was actually for.

Remember when Joe Biden called for "Enlightened Nationalism"?

Remember when FDR and Kennedy did much the same?

Remember when DLC champ Zell Miller spoke at the Republican Convention?

Remember when Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clinton (both of them) and EVERY OTHER Democrat DIDN'T?

Remember when Hillary supported "Faith Based Initiatives"?

One Democrat's possition. Remember when Kucinich supported a ban on flag burning and supported the Iraq Liberation Act?

Remember when 6 of the 8 Democrats voted for Condi Rice?

Remember when John Kerry, someone you criticized above, DIDN'T?

Remember that Harry Reid is anti-choice?

Remember so are many Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich (wait! He "conveniently" changed his position on the eve of his presidential bid!)

Remember all the times that the "moderates" voted for Republican bills?

Shall we go back through the history of the senate and house and find similar actions from further lefties?

Remember the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections when "moderates" lost the elections?

I thought those we stolen by Diebold?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Debunked? In your dreams.

"Been completely debunked here over and over UNLESS you just don't understand what the vote was actually for."

Are you relying on the "Duh, I didn't know Bush was going to war" defense? Or, the "I have reservations but I'm voting for it" whimper?

"Remember when FDR and Kennedy did much the same?"

So? Does that make Biden right because FDR and Kennedy were wrong?

"Remember when Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clinton (both of them) and EVERY OTHER Democrat DIDN'T?"

But, backed his policies on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Remember when Hillary supported "Faith Based Initiatives"?

"One Democrat's possition. Remember when Kucinich supported a ban on flag burning and supported the Iraq Liberation Act?"

Again. So? Does that make Hillary's position right?

Remember when 6 of the 8 Democrats voted for Condi Rice?

"Remember when John Kerry, someone you criticized above, DIDN'T?"

Yet again. So? So does that make the other six votes right?

"Remember so are many Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich (wait! He "conveniently" changed his position on the eve of his presidential bid!)"

Does that make their position right?

"Shall we go back through the history of the senate and house and find similar actions from further lefties?"

Please do. And, the left excoriated them at the time.

"I thought those we stolen by Diebold?"

You're welcome to your thoughts. Mine are that the election was lost because the Democrats offered little but a watered down version of the Republican agenda.

[wyldwolf]

26. remember, the distinction was being made between "moderates" and Democrats

If Biden has something in common with FDR and Kennedy, your reasoning makes them all "moderates."

Was the vote on "Go to war or not?"

Are there ANY far lefties in the house and senate who did not back his policies in some fashion?

Hillary is one democrat. Not the party

The other 6 votes on Rice are 6 democrats, not the party.

Hello pot? Meet kettle. Your position on moderates is just a red herring.

Your reply made my point - the party can't be judged on the action of a few or on the basis on one or two issues. Or maybe it can be in your world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. One or two issues.

How casually you dismiss such things as the war in Iraq and women's rights as "one or two" issues. Equating them to something like naming an airport or building a road.

Biden, Kennedy, and FDR were all wrong in the idea that the USA should, in effect, "pick up the white man's burden".

Hillary may be one Democrat, but she is being touted as a presidential candidate.

"..the party can't be judged". Sure it can. I judge the Republican party on the basis of a few issues and the actions of a few. I also judge the Democratic Party on the same basis. If the "leadership" chooses to continue to bend over for the Republicans, you can bet your butt, I'm going to judge them.

[wyldwolf]

29. not casual, just factual

Equating them to something like naming an airport or building a road.

In your world. Bwahahahaha!

Red herring.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. You do like that term, don't you?

"Red Herring". How does your "factual" stance defend the fact that the Democrat "moderates" voted for the war, for keeping the occupation in place, for Condi, for more "defense" spending, for the DOMA, for the "partial birth abortion" ban, etc.

But, why all the defensiveness. You've won! The Democratic Party has become the "moderate" party of the center. What matter that a few of us disgruntled "radicals", "idealists", "utopians", complain? After all, what can we do? Withhold our votes from the "New" Democrats? Join, or form, a leftist party? After all, we could only get a few percent of the votes, right? The "moderate" center is the "majority" of Americans and they have displayed how eager they are to vote for "moderate" Democrats. Right?

So, if we bitch and moan about the "moderates" and conservatives in the the Democratic Party, we'll only be influencing a few people.

As the DLC keeps telling us, "we need the center" to win. Well, you've got it. What's your concern about a few loudmouth lefties?

[wyldwolf]

31. I've used it twice, and it applies perfectly to you

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Yeah, right. Perhaps the "Red" part.

But, there seems to be something missing in your response to my comments. Like...answers.

[wyldwolf]

34. your answers are red herrings

You demonize moderate dems for doing what those in your camp do. A pefect red herring.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. My camp? Pray tell, what would that be?

I "demonize" any Dems for supporting Republican causes. Apparantly, you support them for doing so. They vote for Republican initiatives, i.e. the IWR, Welfare "reform", NAFTA, the "partial Birth Abortion" ban, etc, and you rationalize, and excuse their votes becuase they have a (D) after their names.

Do you believe in anything? Or, are you merely conditioned to accept whatever they sell out on?

[wyldwolf]

73. how about a list of Dems you demonize for that, then

Your camp is the purist far left.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Don1]

64. Repub talking points are what poison the Dem party

You have a great point. Moderates in the Dem party are bending over for Republicans. And why not? Moderates are moderates exactly because they try to balance their corporate funding with their constituency's happiness. (Example: Feinstein). Their platforms are therefore in the middle. They waged war in Iraq to appease their defense contractor buddies, but at the same time they minimized consituency concern by handing the final war decision to Bush. They now point the finger at Bush for the decision and most Dems buy their feigned war innocence hook, line, and sinker.

In the past, moderate politicians in the Dem party have not worried about their constituency not supporting them with votes, because their voters have always been brainwashed by the corporate-controlled television news. The balancing act, however, will now be more difficult for them. A significant portion of their constituency now turns to alternative news media. That's us and that is our power. We are active together often in putting political pressure on the Dem party itself to be less moderate--to stop bending over for Republicans and corporations--to put 'We the people' first, just like it says in the Constitution, the cornerstone of our nation.

Have the moderates or the left supported the war? Have the moderates or the left supported the Patriot Act? Have the moderates or the left supported Condi Rice? Will the moderates or the left support all of Bush's nominees for his cabinet? Will the moderates or the left support social security privatization? Being more 'moderate' (or in the case of this thread, attacking the left) does not serve the interest of the Dem party. It does, however, serve the corporations and the Republicans.

[sherilocks]

76. One member of the DLC opposed the war

that I know of, at least. Bob Graham.

Here's his voting record: pretty good, I'd say.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Bob_Graham.htm

Member of Democratic Leadership Council.
Graham is a member of the Democratic Leadership Council:
Mission
The DLC’s mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC’s goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Bob_Graham_Principles_+_Values.htm

Some Democratic members of the DLC are far too conservative to suit me, but it's probably best not to paint all DLC members with such a broad brush. I'm going to miss the senator.

[Angelique]

79. You were on a roll .. but then your choo choo jumped the track..

""Remember the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections when "moderates" lost the elections? "" SHEEEZE... You think GORE, KERRY.. were/are considered moderate to the masses.. that is were we lose elections.. sorry. We are never going to regain the power if we don't allow ourselves to see the big picture..

To the RED STATES, the last 2 candidates were socialist, establishment, or Limousine Liberals, hiding in phony Black-sheep clothing. Dean was an outright Liberal, and I can't say I disagree That gave us the best chance to articulate an honest, clear message that most people would embrace if they heard someone that could explain it out of true belief, without fear of being caught lying..

[Zensea]

16. It has a theoretical base, whether you agree with the conclusions

The left that is communist, for example, would of course wage war against the Democrats and the Republicans because they see them as being representatives of bourgeois politics.
Marx wrote about this in the German scheme of things 160 years ago.

I think Nader openly admits to this. His vice presidential running mate, Camejo, certainly does.

Examples of specific individuals are handy, but not really needed to prove this.

[Elidor]

20. Wish I had a dollar for every thread about how the left

Is destroying the party–the left, in this case represented solely by Nader and Sharpton. Bonus points if you tell us that the left must move toward the center and become more "moderate."

[wyldwolf]

21. I'd be even richer if I had a mere dime for every thread...

...about how the DLC is destroying the party - threads which typically are broad generalizations void of substance.

Sort of like the one this thread was a response to.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. Remember when DLC'ers were posing as Deaniacs just to start shit?

:eyes:

You guys need to crawl back under your rocks in From's back yard and stay there.

[wyldwolf]

25. no, perhaps you can point those threads out?

[LoZoccolo]

40. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Document or retract.

[Tigress DEM]

27. Aww, we can take 'em. There's been turncoats from day 1 n/t

[Guaranteed]

33. The Democrats, or the DLC whores?

Honestly- who CARES about the loser DLC whores? What in the hell have they ever done for us? What, exactly, do WE owe THEM???

[LoZoccolo]

38. I do, as well as most people here.

So you're saying it's OK that George W. Bush* won this election?

[Guaranteed]

55. No, that's what the DLC whores think, who you apparently care

about.

[LoZoccolo]

57. You don't get it, so I'm not going to go on. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

58. This is senseless on so many levels.

Yes or no: you are telling me that John Kerry ran for president to let George W. Bush win. Yes or no?

[Guaranteed]

60. I'm sorry, did you say that Kucinich tried to sabotage the

Kerry campaign because he wants Bush to win?

[LoZoccolo]

62. No, I didn't.

My argument really doesn't rely on anybody's intentions so much as their effect. And Kucinich eventually supported Kerry.

[robbedvoter]

35. After an unprecedented coalition behind your candidate - regardless

of our beliefs, after the disrespect he showed all of us by conceding so fast and being AWOL on jan 6, it's sheer chutzpa for you to make these analogies.
And also, the best way to blow to smithereens any hopes for such a coalition in the future (which you probably subconsciously want since, deep in your heart, you know your boy doesn't get another go)

[LittleClarkie]

36. I can't tell you how relieved I am that you are describing behavior

And not calling for action.

You scared the peepers out of me for a minute.

[American Tragedy]

41. You make it sound very... calculated, LoZoccolo.

Intriguing.

Most people here have attributed these strange alliances to misguided idealism on the part of the left-wing, not a deliberate attempt to undermine the Democrats.

Why would they do something like that?

[LoZoccolo]

42. I don't view it very conspiratorially.

I think there's always schism towards the fringes, and perhaps with the numbers in the 2000 election showing that it could decide an election, there maybe was a little bit more effort invested by the Republicans to take advantage of the schism. If you wanted to pull tricks like these, you really don't have to have assigned the players in it to their roles - you could simply look for people who fit a useful role already, and magnify or steer them somewhat.

[jonnyblitz]

43. I thought the Democrats were supposed to BE the left...

guess not.

[IndianaGreen]

44. DLC are not the "only" flavor of Democrats, they are Republican Lite

and they have been waging war against the more liberal Democratic base for years. But now we find this neolib rabble screaming at the top of their collective lungs out of fear that after giving us so much electoral failure, they are about to get dumped from control of the party.

[LoZoccolo]

45. There is no "liberal base" as you would probably define it.

Were there one, Dennis Kucinich would have swept the primaries.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Most primary voters identified with Kucinich's position on the issues

unfortunately the majority of them were persuaded by party stalwarts, pundits, and the MSM that the only way to win was to vote for a war hero, Mister Electable from Massachusetts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. That's the way I saw it, too

As an advocate for Kucinich, I would be rich today if I had a thousand dollars for everyone who told me, "I love Dennis's ideas, but I want to vote for someone who can win." That was the single most common comment I heard when trying to persuade people.

Voters were making their choice, not on the basis of their own beliefs, but on the basis of what they thought other people believed.

I'm sick of Dems whose greatest fear is offending the Republicans dissing the leftist Dems, Greens, and others who swallowed their distaste for Kerry's IWR vote and came out in record numbers to door knock and phone bank and do visibility work and attend rallies for him (at least in Minnesota).

If you keep this up, you're going to have to rely on your beloved swing voters to do all that work.

[TankLV]

49. Yep - you got that right in a nutshell.

I unfortunately did the same.

ABB.

Never again.

The Dem party has to EARN my vote the next time around. I will never again be told to "sit down and shut up" as the original poster is suggesting.

If those who think like the original poster don't like it, then too bad. Then they've lost me already without even trying.

I held my goddamn nose when I voted for Kerry because of all the STUPID things he did and DID NOT DO!

I and many others will NEVER make that mistake again.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Wait a second - every other candidate did better than Kucinich! Not just the war hero or the general! Don't you think the best guy that everyone really wants should at least get close to as much as the other guys who weren't the war hero and the general? And not one or two percent? He did worse than everyone!

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Also, if what you are saying is true as well, then wouldn't Kucinich have been winning polls before the Iowa caucus as well, and then wouldn't we have seen the bottom drop out or have seen steady decreases in support over a year?

Some people say that what you just described as happening to Kucinich happened to Dean - yet still what happened to Kucinich didn't look anything like what happened to Dean.

There's would be no way we'd win if this sort of nonsense was in the heads of our strategists. You really have to be here now and operate in reality - no, really, you do, because the problems we have are real, shit like people getting their heat cut off and not being able to get medical care - if you want to affect change. For real. If you spent as much time coming up with practical things as you do trying to make vague or unprovable assertions that are supposed to guide us toward your agenda, we would be in a little bit better shape.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Most Democrats opposed the war in Iraq while most Beltway types

were kissing Bush's ass out of fear of being made to appear as terrorist lovers.

Didn't you notice what a miserable failure the Democratic platform was when it came to taking a moral stand on Iraq? Didn't you see Medea Benjamin, a delegate and Kerry ABB supporter, being dragged from the Convention floor for daring to unfurl an antiwar banner?

[LoZoccolo]

54. So do you concede all the stuff I just posted?

I don't see anything about it in your post. I'm going to bed.

[IndianaGreen]

59. I concede nothing, and I reject everything you posted!

The Democratic insurgents against the DLC should adopt Mao's dictum:

We shall support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.

[LoZoccolo]

61. Why am I not surprised you advocate Mao strategy?

Strategies involving large-scale loss of human life in pursuit of little-tested ideals seem to be a recurring motif.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Mao won!

and he totally did away with the old regime, as we must, if we are to rid America from the scourge of Conservatism.

[LoZoccolo]

65. He put millions of people in the ground as well.

I'm afraid I'm beginning to see why you probably wouldn't care if the Republicans are allowed to start a bunch of wars and kill people through neglect (or if millions of people get nuked as the result of massive nuclear proliferation, but that was another thread), unless you're just sending me on a wild goose chase.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

70. Yes, I would object to that Mao-style tactic.

Your positions have become incoherent in more ways than I care to take the time to explain right now.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

109. I'll say it again

Kucinich had a perfect opportunity to show how much support he could gain from Democrats when he ran head to head against Kerry in Oregon. Kucinich was here for weeks. He went to dang near every city in the state, all over the state. He showed up in red areas. He met with the people.

He got 18% of a very liberal Oregon Democratic base. So the Democratic base isn't even as far left as Kucinich, which ought to tell you where the rest of America is at.

And most Democrats supported resolving the situation in Iraq, the inspections process and working with the UN. They supported the IWR too, because in October 2002 it was presented as a unifying voice, not a mandate for war. We can thank the left that that got twisted around too.

I can be all for single payer and college for everyone and the rest of it. But I'm not going to bash Democrats who know they have to deal with a populous that isn't where I'm at. I do not understand why the hell the left can't figure that out.

[eridani]

117. That was after the nomination of Kerry was a foregone conclusion

[rman]

99. with MSM controlled by GOP, sure

-

[TankLV]

48. Simple solution: Embrase the "left".

Then the Dems would only have ONE front to fight.

The Dems will have to EARN my vote this time around!

I hope they "get it" in time.

[Tinoire]

51. What?! You mean standing in the center of the road isn't working?!

The poor, persecuted misunderstood Center now has both the Left and the Republicans joining forces to wage war against it???

Well, HALLELUJAH! :bounce: Finally! An admission that Centrism is bringing about the destruction of the New Democratic party. I can smell the Promised Land already now!

Be still my beating progressive heart and tell me it isn't my lying eyes. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect this admission so soon.

Does this mean we can now count on Centrists to stop standing in the middle of the road where they're getting run over?

Please Virginia. Please say it's! so :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


;)

[LoZoccolo]

56. I take it this is a joke.

Because if you don't get it, it doesn't matter. I don't feel like putting the time into it.

[John_H]

67. Sweat not the one percenters, for they shall inherit

uh....I don't know what they're going to inherit, but it certainly isn't going to be the power to transform the lives of the people whose lives need transforming. Outside of Internet message boards the radicals on the left have no juice whatsoeversince, unlike their rethug fringers, do not have access a Jaysus equivelent with which to muscle their more moderate bretheren into submission.

Let's take your examples--sharpton und Fidelity Ralf: They managed to compile a grand total of votes not even worth computing. Plus, Sharpton and Nader don't even represent the left. They represent their own lust for visibility and influence.

We may love our one percenter DUers (at least the ones who are actual one-percenters and not freeper trolls causing a tiny bit of trouble) but they're not going to ripple our pool of intraparty love any time soon.

[IndianaGreen]

69. WP: Bush won just 30.8 percent of the total eligible voters.

While 40 percent of eligible voters stayed home on election day. Clearly this shows that the business-as-usual 2 major parties have failed to connect with a significant number of Americans.

Story here:

Election Turnout in 2004 Was Highest Since 1968

By Brian Faler
Saturday, January 15, 2005; Page A05

The final numbers are in -- and turnout in the 2004 presidential election, it seems, was a bit more impressive than previously believed.

The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported yesterday that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968.

<snip>

The organization also found that Kerry ran behind his party's statewide candidates -- governors and senators -- who were up for election in 30 of 37 states. Bush fared much better, winning fewer votes than Republican candidates in just 16 of 37 states.

The report noted that although turnout reached new heights, more than 78 million Americans who were eligible to vote stayed home on Election Day. The group estimated that Bush won just 30.8 percent of the total eligible voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

[wyldwolf]

75. this is how it has alway been

The only thing it "clearly" shows is people are apathetic when it comes to voting. Always have been.

But your article actually paints a better picture:

The final numbers are in -- and turnout in the 2004 presidential election, it seems, was a bit more impressive than previously believed.

[John_H]

97. Greeen, Reform, Socialist, and Constitution party members always

bring up this statistic to make the argument that goes like this "We may get an insignificant number of votes, but if we were at the top of the ticket all the apathetic non-voters would suddenly fall over themselves to get to the polls."

This argument is not only unsupported by facts--it's flat our bizarre. Non-voters have had the chance to flock to the polls for Nader and other 3rd party candidates every recent election. Where were they? Second, there is no evidence I'm aware of that the ideology breakdown of non-voters is significantly different from those of voters. Third, most non-voters are not only no voters but also non-pay-attenion-to-politicsers. If the major parties cannot get them to vote with hundreds of millions of dollars, what makes anyone think that third party candidates can do it, even if we all wrote them huge checks?

[BoristheBewildered]

68. Is this where we get punished for going ABB?

:shrug:

[xchrom]

74. since when were nader and sharpton the left's representatives?

is there a date certain for this?
please document.

do you count the contributors to barak obama's campaign as traitors to democratic positions when he supports republicans?
how about feinstein or biden?

moderates are losing their own campaigns and it's weak as water to cast about for someone else to blame.

[LoZoccolo]

77. In answer to your questions.

- They make themselves representatives of the left by positioning themselves as alternatives to more moderate candidates.

- No I would not count them as traitors, as they helped a Democrat win over a Republican.

- No matter what you say about moderates winning, there are still conscious efforts by the further left to get the Republicans elected. It's almost a form of violence, to threaten us with a right-wing government that they feel will do harm to us.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. It's been a while since we had a "last dying gasp of the DLC" thread

Rock on DC insiders! Vote away our rights, suck up some corporate cash and attack anyone who threatens their little empire.

What I don't understand is, if you aren't working for them L, why do you do their dirty work? What does it get you? Do you really think the the party establisment is the party itself? There are millions of democrats out there who flocked to the polls to vote for Kerry in the primary because he was made to look like the best choice when he was actually one of the worst. Do you think they have any idea of the power dynamics going on? Poll after poll show democrats supported Dean, but came to believe he was not electable, too angry, divisive.... Good work folks. Thanks for another four years of bush and even less power in congress and the senate.

If voters ever understood what was really going on they would not support the do nothing, status quo, party power stucture you defend. (Wooo hoo that's the party that makes me proud to be a member! (not))

There is nothing wrong with being moderate. But seeing liberals as the enemy is just dumb. The problem is not whether the party is liberal or moderate (it is both) but whether the "people or the powerful" are going to run it.

Sharpton and Nader are irrelevant to this struggle. Sharpton for all his speaking ability is is an opportunistic ass and does not represent the left side of the party. It is not because what he says is not correct, because it is. The reason he doesn't represent the left is because he has sold out too often to the right just to get influence or money.

Nader is not a member of the party and had no effect on this election because the democrats used the law to keep him off ballots all over the country. He lost his voice when he chose to spoil the election in 2000. He lost his voice when he took the money and support of the right to get on the ballot and run for office.

So your use of these two people to make your point seems like nothing more than flame bait to me.

Neither of these people are hurting the democratic party. The party is hurting itself by refusing to represent the rank and file members.

[LoZoccolo]

85. I'm at work, but I'll respond to some things.

...so I'll just get this out of the way for now:

What I don't understand is, if you aren't working for them L, why do you do their dirty work? What does it get you?

First of all, I didn't mention the DLC at all in this post. Second of all, it seems to escape your realm of possibility that I might be a genuine moderate (like Dean, who I supported for a very long time), or that genuine moderates that aren't bribed do exist, or that I actually think moderation is a winning strategy (as demonstrated by right-wing support of more radical elements in an effort to make us lose).

What I don't understand is, if you aren't working for them L, why do you do their dirty work? What does it get you? Do you really think the the party establisment is the party itself?

Dean was polling worse than Kerry against Bush* in some of the last polls. Amongst the general population. Democrats that support Dean but think he's unelectable don't vote for Bush* instead of Dean.

If voters ever understood what was really going on they would not support the do nothing, status quo, party power stucture you defend.

Though I only have anecdotal evidence, I'm finding that a lot of big complainers are not really active in the Democratic Party or even in their chosen issues. I actually think there may be a correlation as well - the less you do, the less power you think you have, so the more you complain. If they were active in truly convincing people of their ideas, they wouldn't see withholding their vote as their only chip.

Sharpton and Nader are irrelevant to this struggle.

No they're not. They represent the ideas that more extreme identity politics (the kind that puts forth the ridiculous arguments that were hurled at Dean, and the kind that the DLC was trying to wean us from) and splinterism pushes forward a right-wing agenda, as demonstrated by the right-wing support these two figures had.

[Guns Aximbo]

81. I agree

The fascists have made their way into our party and have helped to make the DNC fractious.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

83. Let me confirm: you hope the Republicans win.

The Democrats are too much like the Republicans, and that's so bad that we should let the Republicans win. Yes or no.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

86. Then explain why Republicans support your ilk...

...without wanting themselves to win?

[MadHound]

89. Ha, that is a nice pejorative term there friend, ilk.

And the fact that you're resorting to using such a term, without addressing my points, simply shows me that even you realize that I'm speaking the truth. Otherwise why would you be taking the lazy way out, calling me names, rather than putting forth your own rebuttal?

Anyway friend, you do realize that the majority of people in this country don't agree with you. Have you looked at the voting rolls lately? Over half the people in this country who could vote, don't. The reason why is apparent in survey after survey showing that these people, who are by and large middle class and lower, mostly coming down on the liberal side of the fence, simply don't feel that either party address' their needs and issues. They feel that neither party, Democratic or Republican, is worth their vote, that things are going to continue as they are, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, no matter who they vote for, so why bother. And looking at the track record of the Democrats for the past thirty years, guess what, they're right!

When you have two parties that are both beholden to the corporate interests that line their pockets, who do you think these parties are going to pay attention to? The people who vote, or the people who give them money? Looking at the records of our elected officials, it quickly becomes obvious that money trumps votes every single time.
I'm not the first to come to this realization, in fact friend, it seems that the majority of people in this country have come to that realization also. Why are you so behind the times?

If a party came into power that was not beholden to corporate interests, that was on the left side of the political spectrum, that truly implemented the will of it's constituents, then I think that this party would go for. It would pick up many of those voters, and those eligible to vote, that don't cast a vote now out of frustration with our current two party/same corporate master system of government. And it would sweep overwhelmingly into power, which is what absolutely scares the shit out of the two majors in play now, that they would be out of power. The Republicans are a bit more secure, knowing that the vast majority of non-voters are left leaning, thus for now the damage wrought by another party would fall mainly on the Democrats. But they also see where this could get out of hand and sweep them out of power also.

As to why Republicans support people like Nader and Sharpton. Well of course, it is obvious that they wanted to promote division amongst their "competition" on the left. But such support also gives fodder to those who wish to keep the status quo, it helps to keep those people in line who are thinking of going third party. Such support relies on people like you going "neener neener, the Republicans supported Nader". It is simply another control mechanism to keep the two party/same corporate master system of government from being threatened by real, populist change. And guess what, you're a sucker who is falling for it! Good job there friend in carrying water for your corporate masters!

I would suggest you do some reading and educate yourself on what is truly happening in this society, and then get back to me. A couple of good places to start would be Howard Zinn's book "A Peoples' History of the United States" and Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy". Get done with those two books, and then come back and we'll see if your viewpoint has changed.

[LoZoccolo]

90. There's not much to address.

When someone says that we should fight the Democrats becoming too much like the Republicans by letting the Republicans win, there isn't much to argue about.

The reason why is apparent in survey after survey showing that these people, who are by and large middle class and lower, mostly coming down on the liberal side of the fence, simply don't feel that either party address' their needs and issues.

Bull. Prove it. And why didn't Dennis Kucinich sweep the primaries? Why didn't Nader get more than 1% this time and 3% last time? The "holding out for a liberal hero" story is a myth. Show me those surveys, show me that these people not just support these issues, but will come out and vote despite the fact that they never do.

Besides, if they're not gonna come out for universal health care, you cannot rely on them and they've made themselves irrelevant. They hold 100% of the power to make themselves relevant.

I'm not the first to come to this realization, in fact friend, it seems that the majority of people in this country have come to that realization also. Why are you so behind the times?

That's ridiculous, trying to make me out to be behind the times on the basis of an unproven further-left myth.

And guess what, you're a sucker who is falling for it! Good job there friend in carrying water for your corporate masters!

Universal coverage, cheaper prescription drugs, less dependance on oil, stopping "tort reform"...:boring:

A couple of good places to start would be Howard Zinn's book "A Peoples' History of the United States" and Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy". Get done with those two books, and then come back and we'll see if your viewpoint has changed.

Nah. I've read part of the Zinn book, actually, but I don't feel I need to spend so much time following the advice of someone who is denying the obvious differences between the parties.

[MadHound]

92. So, you're asking for sources,

Yet refusing to read the sources I've provided for you. Howard Zinn and Kevin Phillips are both respected scholars and authors, yet somehow they don't meet your criteria? Why, because they are positing thoughts that make you uncomfortable? Good, that's what they are supposed to do, shake you up, wake you up and make you see reality for what it is. I've given you sources friend, go read and educate yourself.

It is obvious why Kucinich and Nader didn't win, they were shut out of the electoral process. The Democratic leadership didn't put any support behind Kucinich, and the two parties ganged up on Nader to shut him out. No debates, bringing various lawsuits to eat up his money, etc etc. Nice bipartisan effort there to subvert democracy, you should be proud.

And once again friend, you're trying to put words in my mouth with this: "When someone says that we should fight the Democrats becoming too much like the Republicans by letting the Republicans win, there isn't much to argue about." You know as well as I did that I didn't say, or imply any such thing. You are simply putting words in my mouth because you have none of your own. Stop it, for it is disingeous at best. All I am stating is that the Democrats need to go the way of the Whigs, in order to allow a real left party the space to operate and win. I never, ever have said anything about letting the Republicans win. However if the Democrats keep up with this two party/same corporate master business, then yes, the corporations and their conservative minions will have won. And guess what friend, that is the viewpoint that YOU are aiding and abetting. Good job!

[LoZoccolo]

93. The irony you point out is superficial.

Show me the surveys please. It is lame attempts to browbeat people like this that turns me off from the further left. You made a specific statement about why people don't vote, now back it up.

It is obvious why Kucinich and Nader didn't win, they were shut out of the electoral process.

Please name one state where Kucinich wasn't on the primary ballot.

The Democratic leadership didn't put any support behind Kucinich, and the two parties ganged up on Nader to shut him out.

Yeah but all these people are just itching for someone like Kucinich, like you said, right? Did the Democratic leadership send people to stop people from voting in the primaries? What?

A lot of people say Dean didn't get support from the party leadership, yet he did much better than Kucinich.

And no, the two parties did not gang up on Nader. One did. The other threw their support behind him, which is the point of this post and is prima facie evidence against Nader's flacid (and abusive, actually) claim that there's no difference.

All I am stating is that the Democrats need to go the way of the Whigs, in order to allow a real left party the space to operate and win.

You know as well as I do what would happen if people tried that based on what happened in 2000.

[MadHound]

96. The irony is that I keep giving you the sources for my assertions

And that you continue to refuse to look at these sources, that is the true irony here friend. Why are you so dead set against reading them? Are you afraid of the truth? Don't wish to upset your worldview? Sorry, but I'm not going to spoon feed you friend, you have to do some of the heavy lifting on your own, OK

In regards to Kucinich's non support from the Democratic party, well, dig around here in the archives, during the primary season, and it will become obvious that Dennis wasn't their man. No, he wasn't shut out of the primaries, though great pains were taken to marginalize him and to keep his campaign suppressed. And yes, Nader, along with other third party candidates, were bipartisanlly suppressed, not just the '04 election cycle, but also during the '00 one also. Or do you not remember the Dems and 'Pugs ganging up to keep him out of the debates(among other things).

Look, I know that the truth hurts, and that it is hard to accept it, but please friend, wake up and look around. We the people are being had, being pushed around by both parties who are playing a rigged game. Like I said before, go read the sources that I mentioned above, Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of the United States" and Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy" These will give you an excellent insight in the two party/same corporate master system of government that we live under.

Let me ask you one telling question friend. If Democrats are supposedly the party of the little guy, the working man, why would they rip away the social safety net with that travesty known as welfare "reform"?

Go read, go educate yourself to the reality of where our society is going, then get back to me OK. Until then, all you're doing is carrying water for the status quo, and being a part of the problem. I don't have my books here with me, nor am I going to do the heavy lifting for you. It is your responsiblity as a citizen of this country to be well informed, so go and do so.

[LoZoccolo]

98. No you didn't, quit wasting my time.

You said this:

The reason why is apparent in survey after survey showing that these people, who are by and large middle class and lower, mostly coming down on the liberal side of the fence, simply don't feel that either party address' their needs and issues.

Where is this survey? Document or retract. Don't act like you don't know that I didn't ask you to prove this, and take back all this bullshit about me being afraid to read those books. I asked you for a specific source on this specific survey and you took occasion to fuck around and accuse me of bullshit. Part of the reason I don't want to be a part of the far left is they lie like shit all the fucking time. They have to hammer everything to fit their abstract oversimplified story about the people vs. the system, and use any tactic they can try to get away with to do so.

Let me ask you one telling question friend. If Democrats are supposedly the party of the little guy, the working man, why would they rip away the social safety net with that travesty known as welfare "reform"?

Because since the Reagan era these same working people have been propagandized by the right to believe that there is widespread abuse of the system, and tons of these same little guys and working men demand reform.

Go read, go educate yourself to the reality of where our society is going, then get back to me OK.

Lame stalling tactic. Answer my question about the surveys.

[MadHound]

103. Like I keep telling you, in post after post

Go read the books I referred to you. The surveys, the data that you are looking for are there. Do you not understand the words that I'm writing? Go read friend, I've given you the sources, go read! Geez, I'm not going to spoon feed you or do your heavy lifting OK.

"Because since the Reagan era these same working people have been propagandized by the right to believe that there is widespread abuse of the system, and tons of these same little guys and working men demand reform."

Then isn't it the job of the Democratic party to educate the people, rather than simply fall in line and do the same thing as the Republicans would? The fact of the matter friend is that welfare "reform" wasn't supported by the people, until the the pollsters started loading the questions they asked. Again, go to the Zinn book to read about this phenomenon, and educate yourself on this common political ploy.

You keep asking for my sources, I keep giving them to you, what else do you want me to do, pour them into your brain? You have got to take the initiative to educate yourself friend, you have got to have that desire. Until then, you are simply going to continue to fall victim to the propaganda wars that are being waged, and will be ill informed about the reality of our society. I pity you, you wear your blinders so willingly, like so many other people in this country. You've got the Zinn book friend, wake the fuck up and read it OK. How many times do I have to state that?

[LoZoccolo]

105. Lame.

You made it up. There isn't any survey out there that said that people would rather vote for Kucinich but didn't.

[MadHound]

106. No, there isn't any such survey, but then again I didn't make that claim

Did I? Please, once again you're putting words in my mouth. You're debating without knowing the facts, and you're impugning my well known, well respected sources without actually having read them. Speaking of lame. . .

I'm done with you, for apparently all you wish to do is waste air and bandwidth rather than listen to what is going on. In other words, you're perfectly happy to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Congratulations, and good-bye.

[LoZoccolo]

108. Well, it's still unproven.

Have you looked at the voting rolls lately? Over half the people in this country who could vote, don't. The reason why is apparent in survey after survey showing that these people, who are by and large middle class and lower, mostly coming down on the liberal side of the fence, simply don't feel that either party address' their needs and issues.

This should be easy to produce one survey showing this.

[LoZoccolo]

94. P.S. I'm not refusing to read those because I'm afraid.

I just don't feel like I have to read two long books to be qualified to argue with you. Maybe someday I'll finish the Zinn book and read the other one.

[MadHound]

100. You're asking for my sources, I'm giving you them.

It is up to you to do the heavy lifting of reading them. I'm not going to quote them verse and scripture to you first off because I don't have them here with me, and secondly because I think it would benefit your understanding of our current problems if you read them yourself. You don't have to have read these in order to "qualify" for anything, but unless you have read them, you really can't verify what I'm saying, nor truly refute the information that I'm telling you. Thus, it makes arguing with you a bit of a waste, since you really have no clue as to what I'm talking about.

In any case, I would suggest that you read these books, not someday, but soon. They are quite relevant to what is happening in the world around us, and will help you understand it a bit better.

[LoZoccolo]

102. Show me the surveys or shut up.

Or admit you made it up. The surveys are not in those books, nor will I succumb to your lame and insulting stall tactic.

[MadHound]

104. How in the hell do you know that the information isn't in the books

When you haven't even read them? Why should I shut up when I know whereof I speak? If this is all you've got for an arguement friend, then you are indeed in sad shape. You've stated that you've got the Zinn book, yet haven't read it. Go, now, read it, then get back to me, OK.

[LoZoccolo]

107. Because you don't have that kind of credibility with me.

It's not a matter of knowing it's in there or not, it's that I'm dealing with someone who says there's no difference between the parties and that all these people that don't vote would vote for a liberal candidate despite the fact that they vote for no one, not even in the primaries, and that the best way to change things is let the Republicans win (or are in denial that that happened in 2000). No, you should not give an unlimited, indefinate amount of time to everyone who comes up and makes far-out claims. It's a matter of responsibility, actually - I have only so much time to participate in political activism, and should minimize the number of wild goose chases I'm sent on. That's why. Now if you care about your point, prove it, otherwise go away.

[MoonRiver]

110. Thanks for the references MadHound!

If he won't read them I sure will! :thumbsup:

I'm really trying to grasp how our political system disintegrated into it's current despicable state. I was a true blue believer in our Democratic leadership in 2000. Now, all the things that Nader and others have been saying about both parties' corporate connections are really making sense.

I won't vote against my conscience next time. I had enormous reservations about Kerry due to his IWR vote but got on the bandwagon anyway. And frankly I feel a little dirty because of it. I'll be voting for a Green in 2008 unless the Democratic party nominates a true progressive.

[MadHound]

111. You're welcome, they're eye opening books, both of them

And I'll give you a hint on how things came to be this way. It was designed and built into the very founding of our country. Scary now, isn't it. Go read, and be prepared to be both astonished and disillusioned friend, that's what I was.

[MoonRiver]

112. It is very scary to think this fix has always been in.

I guess the next, probably unanswerable, question is where the hell to we go from here? Seems we've reached the end times, and I don't mean biblically. The coup is complete, and I doubt we the people have many options left. We can't have our votes counted, and our politicians are bought and sold to the highest bidder. My father always subscribed to the pendulum theory. It got him through some hard times, and maybe that's what will happen here. This system is broke and it's only going to get worse. Perhaps eventually the collapsing social and/or economic conditions will bring about true reform.

[MadHound]

114. Well, where we go and what we do is the question

The answer is that the people have to do what they've always done in these situations in the past. Matters have to get so out of hand that the people rise up and say enough is enough, and they're going to change things. This usually prompts one or the other major party to at least bring about some concessions in order to pacify their electorate.

Rather though, what I would like to see is public funding of all elections, thus wiping corporate contributions. If all our elected leaders have to listen to is the will of the people who voted them into office, then many more positions would be taken that would benefit us and not the corporations. There are already four states that publicly fund elections, it is something that we have to bring about nationwide though to have a real impact.

[MoonRiver]

116. Good points.

Perhaps our best hope lies in changing the status quo on local and state levels first.

[robbedvoter]

113. Sad thing - 3 years ago, I might have posted like you. I was

in fight fighting Nader, the greens & others who fragmented our voting power.
2 things happened since: Democrats gave W as many wars as he wanted (and will continue to do so), all progressives rallied to the Dem wishy-washy candidate in spite of it all.
You are now adding insult to injury, preventing future coalitions.
People like you are the reason I am no longer a Democrat. You are abject to power and nasty to those out of power (the ones you should be representing). Instead you stick the "middle class' - the most rapidly disappearing constituency, and accuse US - for your problems. Pathetic!

[MadHound]

115. Many many of us were in the position you were in friend

I was a lifelong Democrat, working for the party for thirty plus years, before I could even vote. It was during the Clinton years that I started to really become disillussioned with the party, and everything that the party has done since only added to that.

Many many of us are searching for a different way. I think that the Greens, and publicly financed elections offer us a way out of this madness, but it is going to be a long row to hoe before we achieve those ends. Hopefully we will survive until then.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. I can tell you why Kucinich didn't do better

Media blackout.

Even when he appeared in the nine-person debates, he got the least amount of speaking time.

In Minnesota, where we had a determined and well-organized set of grassroots volunteers to do visibility work and to nag the local media into covering his visits (even so, three out of four TV stations didn't cover him, and this was before the Iowa caucuses), he actually won some precincts in the Twin Cities, took 27% in the area overall, and 17% statewide, which is great, considering that we had few volunteers in the non-metropolitan areas.

Even before the Iowa caucuses, the New York Times' coverage was mostly non-existent, as in "Kerry believes this about issue X (paragraph), Dean believes this (paragraph), Edwards believes this (paragraph), Clark believes this (paragraph), Gephardt believes this (paragraph), Lieberman believes this (paragraph), and Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun are also running." Or, "Here are the candidates' schedules for today: (everybody but Kucinich)." What coverage there was had a definitely snarky tone about it: "Oh, look, a guy who still believes in all that peace and justice stuff. That is soooo 1960s."

Both Kucinich and Dean grassroots activists constantly met up with, "I really like your candidate, but I'm voting for Kerry, because he's electable."

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[American Tragedy]

101. They don't vote because they don't care.

They don't vote Republican or Democrat. However, they also do not vote Reform, Libertarian, Green, Populist, Constitution, Marijuana, Prohibition, or anybody else. If they voted for somebody, politicians could at least discern their political leanings, recognize the issues that they've been missing, and appeal to that demographic.

So then, the fuck are they waiting for? Democracy obviously doesn't work without active participation. Politicians are not going to waste their finite time and resources fighting for the interests and the support of groups of people that do not go to the polls.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. Well said. It's time to face reality.

The two corporate parties do little but perpetuate the myth of this country being a democracy rather than the capitalist oligarchy that it is.

[deutsey]

87. I think the Democrats have done a great job of creating a divide

between Centrist/Right Democrats and those on Left all by themselves. The GOP, as they always do, are only too happy to exploit the division.

Personally, I think the Republicans are scared to death of another Democratic/Left coalition like there was in the '30s. With their electoral successes since the mid-'90s (whether they cheated or not), the GOP has convinced the Dem leadership that the Party needs to move rightward toward the GOP base (which has nothing but contempt for Democrats); simultaneously, the GOP continues hammering at the cracks and outright divisions that have grown in the Party since Clinton in order to help widen the divide between the Party and large parts of its traditional base.

Just my take on it.

Lee Atwater may have died, but his tactics of divide and conquer go merrily on.