Would the DNC listen if Dem grass rooters threatened to strike?

[BurtWorm]

I realize that by far the members of this board are ABB. I thought I was until I kept getting pummeled with demands to take the pledge. After you've been hit with that for the thousandth time or so, it begins to dawn on you: these people are scared!

They want to whip everyone in line because deep down they know that ABB-ness alone is a pretty flimsy concept to hang a campaign on. The range of ABB-itude is pretty wide, when you get right down to it. Of course with Lieberman out of the race, the range has narrowed. But even without Lieberman, ABB could be a recipe for more Imperialism Lite and Corporatist Mush Surprise.

In my view, it's come down to "Safe" (Kerry, Edwards) vs. "Risky" (Dean, Clark, Kucinich and Sharpton). Notice the difference between the two groups? Do I have to spell it out for anyone?

I am sympathetic to the desire to go for Safe, especially considering the alternative in the General Election. I am totally sympathetic to the desire to not screw up the nomination to the point that voters outside the party get turned off. I'm a Democrat, unfortunately, so believe me, I understand.

But I would like to propose to others like me here at Democratic Underground (emphasis on the Underground!) that now may be the perfect time to stage or threaten a "strike" to make sure the DNC and the remaining candidates get the message that the party better remove the log from its eye and get serious about a number of issues. These are mine:

* Electoral reform: protect the integrity of the democratic process, promote participation, make representatives more responsible to voters, less responsible to corporate donors.

* De-imperialize US foreign policy. End unilateralism in every form, including armed actions against and even boycotts of "enemy" nations without consent and assistance from other nations. Prefer diplomacy always. Aim toward demilitarizing the US budget.

I'm sure others can add to this list, but those, as I say, are my basic issues.

What would a "strike" entail? Perhaps something like a refusal to sign Terry McAuliffe's ABB pledge would do the trick, if the refusal were e-mailed to the DNC. Imagine DNC being swamped with refusals from thousands on their e-mail list! Would that send a message? Can we make them sweat? Would we begin to see real effort at self-reform within the party?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. no

Of all years to strike, why this year?

Haven't we learned anything from Nader, at all?

[BurtWorm]

2. This is the year to get them to listen!

That's why. ;)

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. I doubt they are worried

If liberal, progressives, radicals, ect - really wanted to influence politics they would do what the libertarians are planning to do - pack up and move into one state and take over the government there.

Until then, the progressive message is too thinned out across the country to be any main driving force in the party.

[King of New Orleans]

25. What state

are the libertarians planning to move too?

[BurtWorm]

36. New Hampshire.

For real.

[FreeperSlayer]

6. Bush Out!

Period. Out. Bush bastards out!

[Mel]

21. sure is

the year to get them to listen. I'm not taking no stinking pledge.
I was one of those people that worked 2 even 3 jobs during the Clinton years just to get by.
I refuse to give up or give in out of fear and continue to let corporations Military-industrial complex run our political system, making our laws, spending our money, and sucking at the government tit bunch O' Welfare Queen Corporatistas!

I for one am sick of paying taxes and not getting affordable health care, education, and housing.

[MaddogTerp]

62. Pledges! We don't need no steeenking pledges!

especally if it ends up being for Kerry Bushie Lite

[MrBenchley]

7. I agree

let's keep our eyes on November. It seems pretty clear the voters are deciding what they want.

[Atlant]

15. It's never a "good" year to strike; this year works as well as any for me.

> Of all years to strike, why this year?

It's never a "good" year to strike; this year works as well as any for me.


> Haven't we learned anything from Nader, at all?

Yes. We learned that the Democrats better shape up or
the left WILL leave. Unfortunately, while WE've learned
this lesson, the Democrats haven't learned it (yet).

Atlant

[bahrbearian]

3. I'm with you

any one of the Dem's can win it' so why not the most progressive one's...Dennis or Dean

[morgan2]

88. agreed

I never really liked the Dem. party as a whole. Always willing to compromise too much to win. Its really depressing how no one will vote for the best candidates even in the primaries. All this, I like so-and-so because I think he can beat Bush is so petty. The person who can best beat Bush will also most likely win the primary, so why do so called intelligent voters, such as the people here, not support the candidate they like the most. It sucks because in the long term, if candidates such as Kucinich get only single digit support at best, they will always be considered unelectable. How can you shift the country without taking some chances? You can't always take the so called safe road. People get fed up with taking the road in the center, don't feel like voting and nothing ever changes.

[LuminousX]

4. Reforming the party

The best way to do this is to demonstrate our value and do more to get the candidate elected than any other group and THEN make some demands. Get them addicted to what we can give them first. I don't think they appreciate what we have to offer.

Really, if the grassroots weren't divided 3 ways, this would have been a no-brainer win for us.

[BurtWorm]

10. No! Make the demands now! Make them work for our vote!

They could sweat a little. ;)

[LuminousX]

13. Their guy is winning without us, though

they are pretty sure that they can take our votes for granted, that is because they can.

I say take the role of the drug dealer. Get them addicted. You can't tell me the DNC isn't slobbering over the Dean money raising machine. Give them a taste of it. Hold one grassroots fundraising effort for the candidate, demonstrate just how powerful we are - then we can start making demands.

[Atlant]

24. That remains to be seen.

> Their guy is winning without us, though

That remains to be seen. But even if he does win, there's
still the small matter of the House, the Senate, the State
Houses, and the Governors' chairs, places Democrats have
been losing in droves for years now.

Atlant

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. We CAN buy influence in the DNC!

http://www.democrats.org

Gather checks and BUNDLE them, just like the CEOs do. Fact is the DNC is *very very weak*. They are ripe for a takeover by the likes of DU.

[Leilani]

113. That's the best idea I've heard!

Money talks. Not the People.

Do you think we can raise enough to keep them bribed?

[HereSince1628]

34. Its a strategy of the "South" - - act huffy and get attention

Ever hear a candiate say, "and with a voice that sounds like this I can win in ALL (code for SOUTHERN) the states!"

I am not so stupid as to think reforming the party would be easy. In fact it'll be damned hard to wrestle things like superdelegate status out of the hands of the high and mighty.

But if _all_ the democratic delegates at a convention don't have the same authority we have a 'democratic' party in name only.

[edzontar]

55. You are so right!!!! We were divided on Dean vs. Clark Vs. DK

While the Zombified, business as usual wing of the party, exemplified by Kerry, rolled us over and moved to protect the "powers that be."


Next time out, we have to be UNIFIED and refuse to compromise.

[Sushi-Lover]

68. This is exactly what should be done

I have been thinking about this, although more in terms of Howard Dean and us Dean supporters. I think the best way to have an influence (in the event that Dean loses) is to stay together as a block. Donate and work for the nominee as a group. In fact, I think Dean himself should actively campaign for the nominee in the GE. The way to have influence is to show that we are, for lack of a better term, worth pandering to. I'm still hoping I can vote for Dean though.

[BurtWorm]

108. That's the idea of this strike I'm proposing.

To send a message, loud and clear to the "leaders" of the party that there's a bloc of us who can either help them get their guy elected...or not!

[Iverson]

8. I'm sorry. That's unacceptably far left.

However, you are invited to be quiet and support who you're told to.

[Tesha]

140. Tee-hee!

Uh, OK. :)

Tesha

[NNN0LHI]

9. Listen. You had better remember who the enemy is here. Its Bush! n/t

[BurtWorm]

12. Bush is an enemy, no doubt about it.

But there will be more Bushes down the pike if the Democrats don't get some spine and heart.

[MoonRiver]

14. Yeah, and his name is Jeb '08.

[Cocoa]

28. Kucinich has spine and heart

but instead of supporting him, you're writing him off.

[BurtWorm]

41. If I can't vote for Dean in NY on 3/2, I may vote for Kucinich.

What makes you think I'm writing him off?

[Cocoa]

54. why Dean before Kucinich?

because he's more ELECTABLE? Isn't that what you're complaining about?

It seems you're writing him off because you think a strike will be necessary. Kucinich is not declaring defeat yet.

[BurtWorm]

71. Because Dean speaks the truth forcefully.

He's proven not to be so very electable.

I've seen some support from this idea from Kucinich supporters. They're in the same boat a lot of us Dean supporters and Clark supporters are.

[Cocoa]

77. Kucinich supporters like the idea of a boycott of the election?

Seriously?

I find the idea of a boycott to be irreconcilable with the way I understand Dennis's philosophy, as manifested in his Dept. of Peace proposal.

He places negotiations ahead of threats. He's fighting his way to the convention, where he can get his ideas on the agenda. I don't think he'd ever condone the idea of a boycott, which is the equivalent of throwing a bomb, especially when his fight isn't over yet.

[BurtWorm]

80. Who said anything about a boycott?

I'm talking strike, as in, we will not do heavy lifting for you if you don't sweeten the deal for us. We will set down our sledgehammers and stop work unless you come meet us half way. Do you think you can get along without us?

Now if it's just me with this attitude, then I don't blame all ABBers from laughing in my face. But it isn't just me who feels ready for this kind of action. I think a lot of Dean people feel this way. I see some support from Kucinich people for this. And I've seen support from Clark people for this.

If the DNC and whoever the party nominates thinks it can get by without us, then good luck to them. But if they know they can't, what can they offer us to keep us on board?

[Cocoa]

81. I thought that's what you meant by a "strike"

i.e. threaten not to vote.

The way you describe it, I think a better word for what you're propoing might be a "slowdown." :-)

[Mairead]

86. So could you put that into operational terms?

Because I too thought you meant sit out the election.

[BurtWorm]

109. No. I mean a work stoppage.

We won't work for their candidate. We won't pledge for their candidate. We won't give money to their candidate.

Implicit in a strike, however, is a threat or promise (depending on how you look at it) to hold steady even through the worst. Let them make of that what they will.

[RobinA]

129. Ummmmm, Kucinich Supporters

Now, would this be the guy who did a 180 on his abortion views to make himself more palatable to the average liberal? So much for purity.

The fact is, if you want to change things, you have to get elected first. Lefties went on strike in '68 and we got Nixon. I'd like to see some evidence that this sort of refusing to vote for the party's candidate makes the party change the platform. You want change, you elect the guy and then make sure he needs your vote to be re-elected. This is one thing that keeps Bush turning far right. Think that moron cares if gays get married? I seriously doubt it. But his supporters do so he does too. Has the Nader fiasco made the Dems shift to the left? I hardly think so. There's no one in office who has to respect liberal causes of face a loss.

I'll stick with my guy Kerry. I like his voting record and his support of liberal issues. Dean, in my opinion, is nowhere near as liberal as Kerry.

[BurtWorm]

131. Ideology is totally beside the point.

I criticized Kucinich a few months ago for being at the head of an essentially racist coalition on Cleveland's Westside during the anti-busing years. Kucinich himself, as far as I know, never pandered to this group using their code words, but he did fight for them as their elected representative on the Cleveland City Council. I get the impression that he views the representative's role as essentially to be a mirror of the constituency in some respects, that is, to fight for them, advocate for them, watch out for their interests, as they themselves define them. It's a position I'm not totally comfortable with, considering how close to demagoguery it can be; but I respect the principle that an elected representative actually represent his or her constituents.

It's not ideology that counts. It's principle.

[edzontar]

61. The people I consider to be my enemies are those who pilloried

And prescuted my candidate and my colleagues.


I will NEVER ally myself with them, or help their misbegotten candidate in any way beyond pulling the lever in the general.



Other than that, the deal is done, all bets are off, and some things can NEVER, ever, be forgotten---or forgiven.

[LuminousX]

17. Bush isn't the enemy, and if you believe he is

you aren't seeing the real enemy. The real enemy is the culture warriors who have created the environment where someone like Bush could even be elected in the first place.

The only way to defeat that enemy is through grassroots efforts. It is an enemy we have to fight house to house. America is the new Stalingrad and the costs are just as high. Bush is a sympton of a greater disease. We can treat the sympton and leave the disease or we can cure the disease.

[MoonRiver]

23. Just checking. You do understand that there will be NO Dem grassroots

anymore if * gets another 4, don't you? Any dissent against the Royal * Family will be swiftly dealt with. Once the fascist coup is fait accompli, I for one will never be seen on a "Democratic" message board again. Guantanamo doesn't appeal to me even for an extended vacation.

[LuminousX]

37. Bush is Grendel, I'm concerned about Grendel's mother

If Bush gets another four years, it won't be the end of Democracy. You do realize that even in the most fascist nations, resistence still occurred. Things are dire, but it is important that we aren't trading one group of oligarchs for another group of oligarchs.

[MoonRiver]

45. I won't be a participant. At that point I become apolitical.

I'm doing my best to get the bastards out by voting for the Dem candidate NO MATTER WHO. I would vote for Dean or Lieberman (were he still in) rather than give my vote to *. But this is as far as I go. Look for my fairwell post the day after if and when :scared: * steals or even wins another one. I like undergrounds that are nice and safe and easy, not dangerous.

[Atlant]

94. Agent Orange is Agent Orange, whether spread by Bush or the DLC.

> You do understand that there will be NO Dem grassroots anymore if *
> gets another 4, don't you?

Agent Orange is Agent Orange, whether spread by Bush or the DLC.
Either way, the Democratic grass roots are dead.

Atlant

[Mairead]

87. Yes, the real enemy is the system that allows a Bush to rise

and gain power. That's what we have to overcome, because just getting rid of Bush isn't going to do it--there's a functionally infinite supply of psychopaths available to take his place.

[Atlant]

18. No. The enemy is the cohort of people behind Bush.

And many of them wear a "D" on election day.

Atlant

[MoonRiver]

11. I didn't even belong to the Democratic Party (or any political party)

until Selection 2000. What makes me ABB is an overwhelming drive to get * out of his stolen White House. If we can do that, AND, reform our electoral system so it's not just possible for 2 parties to compete, I'd probably go for the Green Party. This country is a long, long way from that state of affairs, though. Until then we simply must stop this fascist take-over of our country.

[Fleshdancer]

16. Very interesting concept but....

if the DNC weren't willing to listen to the concerns of the Greens in 2000, why would they listen to another group of Democrats who go on strike in 2004?

Granted, I know many people who voted Green in 2000 probably wouldn't have voted at all if Nadar weren't in the race, but there were many Democrats who voted Green as well as a form of protest.

Now look at our Party. Instead of taking a good hard look at 2000 and asking ourselves why our party splintered the way it did, we sat there and blamed the Greens for voting their conscience just as much if not more than we blamed the Republicans for stealing Flordia.

So now what?

At the end of the day, a strike will be written off as either voter apathy, youthful ignorance, or sour grapes. If we're going to work hard at having our voices heard, I think our best chance would be to stage something big at the convention. I don't exactly know what yet, but it's an idea in progress I guess. Any thoughts?

[Atlant]

22. If the Democratic Party loses enough elections, they'll either learn or...

> Very interesting concept but if the DNC weren't willing to listen
> to the concerns of the Greens in 2000, why would they listen to
> another group of Democrats who go on strike in 2004?

If the Democratic Party loses enough elections, they'll either learn
to listen or die out.

Atlant

[Fleshdancer]

39. but I'm not fully convinced I want that

It's probably just a knee jerk reaction on my part, but the idea of the Democratic Party dying out is a bit scary.

My Party, like my Country, is something I want to feel pride in again. I think there's a lot of good still remaining in an organization that is broken and in need of fixing. I believe in it enough to want to fix the problems. I just wish there was a clear, concise answer on how to do it.

[Atlant]

49. It happens. There aren't many Whigs around any more. :-)

> It's probably just a knee jerk reaction on my part, but the
> idea of the Democratic Party dying out is a bit scary.

It happens. There aren't many Whigs around any more. :)
The Republicans supplanted them.

The Democrats could also be supplanted by a party more-attuned
to the actual desires of the progressive, liberal electorate.

Atlant

[RobinA]

130. Yes, But...

<<<The Democrats could also be supplanted by a party more-attuned
to the actual desires of the progressive, liberal electorate.>>>

there'd have to actually BE a progressive, liberal electorate in large enough numbers to field a credible candidate. I don't see any evidence of this at this point. Which is not to say there won't be one day. If the monstrosity currently in office can't be voted out, I doubt there's much of an opposition out there capable of being very effective.

[Atlant]

134. Survey after survey routinely shows that the American electorate is...

Survey after survey routinely shows that the American electorate is
QUITE liberal, aligned with many of the ideas that seem to be too
shocking for the Democrats to contemplate (like universal health
care).

The reason we don't see this is because it is in the interests of
the Corporations (incluidng the media corporations) to keep us
from seeing this. And the fat cats who run the Democratic Party
and the DLC certainly aren't going to risk THEIR cushy jobs to
"push the envelope" by trying out some progressive ideas. The
last time the Democrats went out on a limb was the 1964 Civil
Rights legislation, and that enabled the rise of Republican
power from that moment onwards; they're certainly not about
to make *THAT* sort of mistake again! :(

Atlant

[markus]

46. Yes, come very specific thoughts

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. If our nominee is pretty well settled in just a few weeks, that will be in advance of many state conventions (but perhaps not in time for many percinct/district/county ones).

My question to the Dean core after Tuesday night (and to a few friends in the Kucinich camp) is, what do we do at the district caucuses in a few weeks? Do we caucus for our repspective candidates (and possibly fail to reach 15% anyway in many districts), or do Progressive/Reformist democrats form a non-candidate caucus and try to carry it all the way to the national convention.

Frankly, if every Dean and Kucinich voter in North Dakota attended the upcoming organizational meetings, we would take over almost every district delegation in the state. Hell, we only need 50% of the delegates to pick a new chair, national committee persons, some of the elected superdelegates, etc.

The congressional delegation also counts on the convention to be a free media event for themselves. That could, however, be predicated on some discussions about how they have voted in the past, and how they might vote in the future.

I think it would be counter productive to threaten to not endorse somebody. However, the prospect that such a grass roots revolution might have on a primary challenge in two or six years might give them pause in future voting.

[BurtWorm]

117. You make excellent points, markus.

The real grass roots work of showing up and being counted--and holding officials accountable--at the local level has to go on.

The presidential election is an opportunity, though, because all eyes are on it. This one in particular. Does the DNC really want to win this? Will the nominee? Are they going to need us to do that? How will we know unless they make it clear? How will they know we know they need us unless we make it clear?

[bigtree]

19. Grass rooter

Sounds like a potted plant.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Ya mean like Chicago in 68?

It'll probably work now about as well as it worked then.

[BurtWorm]

31. Not like that. MC5 broke up.

I'm thinking this would be a more internal thing--grassroots Dems sending a message to the leadership that their votes should not be taken for granted.

[Doomsayer13]

26. No. Last time they did that, Nixon won

many liberals refused to campaign for Humphry, giving Nixon the victory and extending the war for 5 more years.

[Iverson]

29. So were the pro-war Democrats right?

Is that the lesson of 1968???

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. No. I think the lesson of 68 still isn't gotten

Norman Lear got it and created PFAW but it then was taken for granted. The lesson from 68 was to organize and promote candidates at the congressional level that would promote the policies of the liberal wing of the party. TO SOME degree that did occur, but for the most part the left is so diverse in it's issues that all it can do is meander from issue to issue all the while diluting itself.

[BurtWorm]

63. Between you and me

all I want to do is make the DNC and the nominee sweat. I want them to realize that they can't take the left for granted. They have to give me soemthing positive to vote for besides ABB, and it isn't "a message of hope" from Edwards, and it isn't "electability" from Kerry. I know Kerry has progressiveness in his background, but I don't trust what he's been doing with it since deciding that he wants to be president, which is shoving it far into the background. I want him to bring it front and center. Stop pretending to be a blue-collar duck hunter and be straight and real with us. Stop with the politically expedient ambiguities and tell is from the gut what he believes. And apologize for the damn war and Patriot Act votes. I'd accept an encoded apology, if he wanted to deliver one.

[MaddogTerp]

70. You may be right about that, but

Norman Lear is still a freak.

[BurtWorm]

48. The object is to use this fear to wake the party up.

I don't want them to frighten away people who aren't "Left." But I don't want them to take the Left's vote for granted. I want something in return for my vote. I want an end to business as usual.

[Cocoa]

27. why not use the primary system instead?

How about expressing your support for the "risky" candidates by supporting them?

I just read about Kucinich promising to stay in it until the convention, and force the war onto the agenda there.

Why abandon Dennis by ignoring his fight? Why not join his fight instead of assuming he will fail?

[BurtWorm]

33. I'm voting for Dean if he makes it to March 2.

If not I will have to think seriously about an alternative.

[Cocoa]

44. Kucinich is stronger on the two issues you hold so dear

If you're going to threaten a strike over voting machines and U.S. militarism, why would you prefer Dean to Kucinich? Dean is nowhere on those things, Dennis is leading the fight.

This is why I think the DNC would ignore such a threat, they would assume the threaters aren't totally sincere, that they're just throwing a tantrum because Dean lost.

[BurtWorm]

51. Dennis is in the fight, but I wouldn't say he's leading it.

There's more energy similar to mine in the Dean campaign now. But if Dean goes, I'm considering Dennis.

PS: A person with a Kerry avatar has no business lecturing me on who my preference should be! You've made your own bed. I'll make mine, thanks!

[Cocoa]

58. sure he's leading the fight

He's proposing a 15 percent cut in the defense budget. How big a cut is Dean proposing?

And I'd consider the Gulf War, which Dean supported, to be an example of the kind of U.S. imperialism that Dennis is fighting against.

[BurtWorm]

64. What's with the Kerry avatar if you're a Kucinch supporter?

I don't get that. How can you guys cross that line so unproblematically and have troubles with Dean?

[Cocoa]

72. It seems obvious to me

I know a lot of people have problems understanding the concept, but in fact it's possible to support one candidate and still greatly respect others.

Maybe this is too much "nuance" for some people. :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

105. They seem opposite to me.

:shrug:

[Mairead]

59. No, Kucinich *IS* leading it.

But, like La Revolución, it's not being televised. He was the one who led it in Congress, and that's pretty good evidence. Kucinich did the work, Dean got the press. Sadly, we've been indoctrinated such that we now only believe the press--if it's not on national teevee, it's not real.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Yes. Now is the time to reform the party.

Long overdue. Alas, the apologists for the bush collaborators will threaten us with the bush bogeyman and most will fall for it.

[CWebster]

32. It is unbelievably pathetic.

The desperation of the appeal without addressing the underlying problem. How long do they expect to rope us in on this alone---with each election the plea becomes more shrill and insistant - posturing as the candiates they condemn and destroy, while mouthing generalized Democratic rhetoric amounting to droning platitudes and tired promises. For three and a half years they dismiss and vote against constituients interests and then present themselves as most "electible" to beat Bush after being subservient to him and destroying those who did stand up? Why should they be rewarded? They hate the democratic wing of the Democratic party because they know it will be less likely to jump on board to support what it has been railing against for the past 3 years. We should keep the fucking pressure on and not line up and send a message.

I could be convinced to support Gore. I won't back Kerry come hell or high water. The line in the sand is drawn.

[Fleshdancer]

42. now that was a good post

I don't have much to add, but I just wanted to say that I agree with everything you said.

[BurtWorm]

53. Amen!

:hi:

PS: That was extremely well put. How many Kerry and Edwards supporters were in the streets one year ago, making a stand against the war Kerry and Edwards helped make possible?

[Mairead]

85. Well, you're not so hot on the "Democratic wing" either, regretably

Since you persist in identifying it with someone who has a poor logical claim at best to the label. So why would you expect others to do what you won't do?

[CWebster]

97. What I have to say to you I said in #79

You are a true believer of Dennis Kucinich, I am not. I think he spouts off a good game but often when it came down to making a strong stand, he was silent or waged petty attacks during the debates. I don't like him. I don't like his history on Choice and his covenient conversion just prior to announcing his candidacy, I don't care for some of his rigid moralizing views on things like flag-burning and voting for Clinton's impeachment. I find him somewhat removed, distant and shrill, and most of all I hold him in contempt for directing his supporters to his friend, Edwards, in Iowa. That was a shameless calculated move. Personally, I don't like his airy new agey style either. He is just not my type.

[Mairead]

103. So give up on the 'Democratic wing' rhetoric. That's all I said.

You're welcome to be for Dean until your last breath and beyond; for all I care you can be buried next to him if his spouse doesn't object.

But he has little or no claim to the 'Democratic wing' rubric, and honesty should compel you to admit that. If anyone is Wellstone's inheritor, Dennis Kucinich has out and away the most defensible claim.

In trying to defend Dean you create interpretations that are not supportable when examined ('conversion just prior to announcing'), you make charges ('waged petty attacks') that are mote vs beam issues, and you reveal a sense of grievance and entitlement ('I hold him in contempt for directing his supporters') that you'd be among the first to castigate in someone else. I find that more than a little saddening.

[markus]

35. The DNC will listen when we elect DNC members who stand up to status quo

The DNC are your state chair and vice chair and national committee man and woman, along with federal elected officials, etc.

Hey, you get the lizards you vote for. If you're not planning on attending your party's organizational caucuses and state convention, then, well, lizards will be lizards.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. YES! Strike

at least threaten to. My sig becomes more true everyday.

Republican - pro-Iraq War. Democrat - pro-Iraq War.

That's a choice?

[Ficus]

47. without using the "IWR vote"

line, tell me which Democratic candidates are for "war." I mean, tell me, that if President Kerry, or Edwards, Clark, or Dean were in office today, he and his administration would have dreamed up this war. The only one I can say who might have would have been Lieberman.

[Mairead]

50. The bottom line: they don't care. Where would we go?

That's the historic justification for giving Black folk the dirty end of the stick: where're they gonna go?

That's why Sharpton flirts with people like D'Amato: to show the DNC that Black folk do have options, and that being screwed is made no better by a phoney smile on the face of the screwer.

So we say: we'll sit it out. And the corporatist DNC say Oh you mustn't do that, Bush will win. But they won't offer us anything, because they win either way. We saw that in the Frisco election: the big guns supported the DINO rather than the Dem-standing-as-a-Green. Ideology is nothing, the label is everything.

[MaddogTerp]

75. Exactly! That's why

That's why I think Dean should seriously consider running as a Green with Kuckinich if Kerry (Bushie Lite) or other establishment Dems (Edwards, Hillary) have the nomination.

as for the black vote, the repukes are starting to make inroads with the rising black middle-class. typical -- as people start to make money, they want the repukes to help them keep it instead of giving something back to those less fortunate.

[BootinUp]

52. scuse me...... *raises hand*

Whats safe about Kerry and Edwards?

[Mairead]

56. If we believe Truman, there's nothing safe about them

but if we believe people really want Bush Lite --i.e., someone who votes with the GOP on major issues while strongly opposing them rhetorically, then those guys are among the safe candidates. And Dean's another. Clark is an unknown quantity as far as having no record goes, but since he's Clinton-connected I don't think we've any reason to believe he's not yet another appeaser.

[BootinUp]

73. Are you talking "electability" or how they govern?

I was asking from the electability POV.

[Mairead]

83. I am too.

If Truman's right about people choosing GOP over GOP Lite, then these guys are a poor choice and will lose because their votes put them closer (I don't want to argue about how close) to being GOP Lite than being Opposition. But if Truman's wrong, and people are willing to accept mere rhetorical opposition, then they're a 'good' choice (for sick values of 'good').

Speaking for myself, of course, 'electability' is nothing but a chimera and I refuse to reify it. For someone to be 'electable', all we need do is vote for them.

[CWebster]

79. I think you often misunderstand this

Dean was the movement that spearheaded the campaign to take our country back, which included taking our party back. It was more than just Dean the physician-politician who started out with an ambition to address the issue of healthcare but was caught up in the political climate and answered the unheeded call. We were alone in the wilderness even before election 2000. Democrats had grown corporate and lazy and they were hounded by Republican bullies. Clinton was crucified and Gore ran handicapped. Since the 2000 election they could barely tread water,cowed and corrupted, caving and cowering--politicians all, and with the exception of Wellstone and Byrd perhaps, not really capable of rising to meet the challenges. So, in enters feisty, somewhat unpolished, straight-talking, no-nonsense Dean. Imperfect, hard-working populist with a record of practical accomplishment and decent priorities. Good enough for me, conventional, yet a maverick, willing to evolve, hopeful, a revolutionary actually. They don't come that often.

Yet, same as it is ever was, he was pilloried by his own, from the Right and the Left. He was ridiculed and mocked and widely imitated. He was crushed as we always crush our highest hopes in exchange for the security of the staus quo; for the safety of metiocrity when we are taught to fear and marginalize those who present us with challenges.

I don't know where I will go now. I know where I will not go, all of this was not for nothing, and I will not turn and embrace those who stood and did nothing only to crush the one who did. I will not tear the Dean for America sticker off my car, but I mourn the passing moment of hope lost.

[BurtWorm]

116. You said it again, CWebster!

So, in enters feisty, somewhat unpolished, straight-talking, no-nonsense Dean. Imperfect, hard-working populist with a record of practical accomplishment and decent priorities. Good enough for me, conventional, yet a maverick, willing to evolve, hopeful, a revolutionary actually. They don't come that often.

It's not about ideology. It's about common sense, Paine style. No nonsense. No more frickin' nonsense!

[Old and In the Way]

57. I'm ABB which means Anybody But Bush....which means I

support any candidate who shows the strength of the Party to defeat Bush...which means Kerry.

And if you really want change, Kerry is the best candidate. He's got the foreign intel experience and guts to take on the shadow government that we really should be worried about.

Is he the most progressive on domestic policy issues? No, Kucinich is more left. But the domestic policy agenda takes a back seat to the bigger fight of purging the fascists and anti-Americans who have insinuated themselves into our government. That is the real fight that needs to occur first. Once we take care of the structural problems in our house of government, then the finish carpenters and painters can tweak domestic agenda programs.

So, by all means, talk about "striking", or voting for Ralph, or whatever floats your elitist boat. Personally, I'll wager 50% of the people on this board who are posting anti-Kerry spiels, are pro-Bush ops. The other half are political virgins who really don't understand the game and the stakes that are on the table.

[Mairead]

65. What change is he offering?

Do us a favor and summarise, in soundbyte format, each of the changes he's really offering, and give pointers to his policy statements that support your contention.

I don't believe Kerry any more than Dean is offering anything substantive, and that's why he's not on my dance card. But I'm open to being shown.

[Old and In the Way]

82. Nah, don't feel like it.

Look into the 1000 or so Kerry bashing threads and check blm or bigtree's refutations with cites. I've followed Kerry's career for 35 years or so and I have no issues or reservations that he'd make an excellent President, much in style to John Kennedy. I have no issues with any of the candidates and I think each has unique strengths and some unique weaknesses....but you will never see me jumping on any candidate bashing thread and I have to question what purpose it serves our interests to take down the candidate who has clearly shown the national strength to be our Party's nominee.

[Mairead]

84. "take down the candidate who has clearly shown the national strength"

It all depends on whether you believe Truman's dictum, I suppose. For my part, I do.

[Snivi Yllom]

60. I think they look at us

and then pick a pimple off their butts, and then they say "you said something?"

[MoonRiver]

66. Who are "they"?

[BurtWorm]

67. That's why these things have to be organized.

That's why I brought it up here, to see how many DUers could do something with this.

[xultar]

69. NO, I'm already on strike against the DNC/DLC and the media.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Your viewpoint is such a tiny, tiny minority

it is irrelevant in political terms.

[Atlant]

90. If this is the case, why are "loyalty oaths" posted daily?

> Your viewpoint is such a tiny, tiny minority;
> it is irrelevant in political terms.

If this is the case, why are "loyalty oaths" posted daily (or even
semi-daily) here on this discussion board? If our point of view is
irrelevant, then the loss of our few votes won't matter and no
loyalty oaths need be taken.

The continuous presence of the loyalty oaths suggests though,
that our votes are important. If that's the case, then maybe
our viewpoint should be considered.

Atlant

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. Because

a lot of DUers labor under the illusion that it matters what we say here -- it doesn't. This is entertainment that is totally irrelevant to the real-world campaign.

[The Magistrate]

76. You Suggest A Poor Policy, Mr. Worm

Unity is essential to victory; the tendency of the left to splinter into faction has been throughout history the secret weapon of reaction. They count on it, my friend, and it is never wise to do what your enemy hopes you will do.

Remember that the most dangerous words in the language are "It can't get worse." It can always get worse. The danger is not only that the worst elements of reaction will tighten their grip on our people and our country; it is also that the left will further marginalize and isolate itself from electoral politics, and the mass organization and following required for success in it. Should some "strike" of the left actually cause a victory for the current administration, the result will not be assiduous courting by the Democratic Party, but denunciation and resolve to pick up towards the center sufficient votes to off-set the effect. The left will stand in splendid and impotent isolation, lacking any potential to reach and move the people of the country. An even worse way to meet this end is this: the Party wins without your votes. This is quite possible. There is a real ground-swell against the criminals of the '00 Coup among the people, many of whom have been injured by the actions of these reactionaries, and resent being frightened by lies into a cowardly stampede. If your "strike" should materialize and fail to off-set this movement against the worst of the reactionaries among the people, the isolation of the left will be all the more settled, and the exile doubly bitter.

Those to whom a radical left agenda matters more than anything else number no more than three or four percent of the populace: that is a fact, and must be dealt with. In such a circumstance, you cannot dictate policy, but must seek what aligns more with your desire than some other does, and support it in coallition. In such a position, the only thing that can be done to good effect is to join with others who share at least the desire to block the worst of the enemy from fulfilling their desires. My views and desires, Sir, put bluntly, are a good deal more radical than many might suppose, but my understanding of strategy requires me to take cognizence of what the means available on the field in question might actually achieve. To do otherwise will produce disaster.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[camero]

78. The DNC? No. The Dem nominee? Maybe

I think the DNC is too beholden to the corps to really take that seriously. But maybe the dem nominee would have to campaign on another platform if alot threatened to go Green. Just my two cents.

[Tinoire]

89. I'm on strike as of 5 mins ago. DLC & DNC can KMA. Comparing DK to Rummy?

while it keeps catering to the right? I'm taking my country back. Screw them.

The revolution has now officially begun. Let the DLC televise it.


I give up certain principles to even remain a Dem and the best the DLC can do is give me Kucinich = Rumsfeld? How... disgusting. Screw the DLC and the corporations they rode in on & screw the DNC for being over-taken and cowed by the DLC.

-------------------------------------------


IrateCitizen (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-05-04 01:12 PM
Original message

DLC -- Kucinich and Rumsfeld cut from same cloth


Check out the latest winner from Will Marshall, you're sure to be taken aback.

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | January 8, 2004
Stay and Win in Iraq
By Will Marshall
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252289&kaid=450004&subid=900


Are Dennis Kucinich and Donald Rumsfeld secret allies? You'd think the Democrats' most vocal peacenik and the GOP warlord would have little in common, but both seem to be in a hurry to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Even with Saddam Hussein in the bag and awaiting trial, that's a bad idea.

<snip>

The escalating violence prompted facile and mostly misleading analogies between Iraq and Vietnam. But in one respect, the comparison is apt: The United States is once again waging a classic counterinsurgency campaign in a country whose culture seems worlds apart from ours. Like it or not, America is back in the business of winning hearts and minds.

<snip>

In fact, the coalition needs more of everything in Iraq: more light infantry, more bureaucrats, more reconstruction workers, more civil affairs officers, more linguists, and more intelligence agents. The most plausible way to meet these needs is to internationalize Iraq's reconstruction, so that we can tap the resources of other countries that have more experience in nation-building than we do. Instead, the administration is counting on Iraqis -- just emerging from a quarter-century of totalitarian terror -- to quickly do the job themselves.

<snip>

The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam's security and intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists. Yet the timing of the administration's troop cuts seems dictated by the campaign calendar, not strategy.

<snip>

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252289&kaid=450004&subid=900

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=274595#274805

[Forkboy]

91. Green Party here I come

do da do da

[Tinoire]

92. I can't believe they would stoop so low!

I do not know why I am so surprised and pissed off to see it in black and white. Maybe it's the arrogance.

[Atlant]

93. The DLC despises the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

They'e worked very hard to drive us out.

Speaking for myself, for this year, they've succeeded.

Strike!

Atlant

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

95. unbelievable!

Even I'm shocked!?!?

Well, these are the people that said Corporations are the wave of the future and Unions should be history, so what did we expect? You are always on top of these stories, Tinoire! :)

[Tinoire]

99. Dupe n/t

[Tinoire]

100. Sigh... I logged on this morning in such a good mood

only to read Irate Citizen's thread about the DLC comparing Kucinich to Rumsfeld.

I truly hope they rot so we can take our party back... if there's anything left to resuscitate.

Feeling like a heart-broken woman dragging around the corpse of her dead lover this morning.

I always knew this... We've talked about it but this is so "in your face". The galling thing is that Bush's real crime, his only crime, is that what he did was "so in your face" too.

What arrogant SOBs. All of them. Damn.

Good to see you on-line again :hi:

[Iverson]

102. maybe I should apologize

The ideology of rightward drift is no surprise to anyone.
That comparison, though, was just wackily offensive.

[Tinoire]

111. No.... lol... I hope you don't mean that!

This is no real suprise... The only surprise is how arrogantly "in our face" they are.

This is actually a relief now. They've drawn the battle-line and everyone can clearly see where the DLC stands & what it stands for.

They're making the battle to oust them that much easier because they've come out of hiding.

:hi:

[BurtWorm]

104. "America is back in the business of winning hearts and minds"

Yeeeeeeeccccccch!

PS: The title's a quote from the DLC on Kucinich equalling Rumsfeld. That is not at all my point of view. The Message content is my point of view about the DLC.

[Iverson]

106. the rhetoric of inevitability is essential

If an audience will accept a noxious, though unproven, proposition as true, then there's no need to explore alternatives.

There's no turning back; everything has changed; this is reality; like it or not, that's just the way it is.

How many will turn around and tell their children that they can be anything they want to be when the grow up?

[Tinoire]

112. I know- yeeeech! Utterly disgusting.

Pro-war, pro-occupation. What more do we need?

The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam's security and intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists.

So glad they saved us the trouble of having to summarize their obscenity.

An acronym with 4 letters in it comes to mind. :puke:

[BurtWorm]

115. Ewwww!

The whole thing is repulsive! How did those assholes get so much power in the party? :puke:

[Tinoire]

120. Check this out. Will Marshall of the DLC? = PNAC

charming fellow traveller Will Marshall is fully signed on w/ PNAC.

He started signing their letters as soon as the war started. Before that he was just a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- an acknowledged PNAC front organization.

((Hedda Foil))
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=274595

==

Here's the back-up:

Testimony of
William Kristol
Chairman, Project for the New American Century
Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
April 8, 2003

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to testify once again before this august committee, on such an important and timely subject: the future of NATO. The Project for the New American Century, which I chair, has always supported an American foreign policy that is grounded on strong alliance ties. Indeed, in the Project’s founding “Statement of Principles”— found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm — we argued that strengthening those ties was one of four essential tasks before us if we were to correct the drift we perceived as existing in American foreign policy.

More concretely, we supported the first post-Cold War enlargement of NATO. And we support the pending one. I am pleased that we are so close to seeing that bipartisan vision become reality. And just recently, the Project helped organize two bipartisan statements proposing a key role for NATO in post-Saddam Iraq. (Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit the two statements for the record. They can also be found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm.)

<snip>


Statement on Post-War Iraq
March 19, 2003

Although some of us have disagreed with the administration's handling of Iraq policy and others of us have agreed with it, we all join in supporting the military intervention in Iraq. The aim of UNSC Resolution 1441 was to give the Iraqi government a "final opportunity" to comply with all UN resolutions going back 12 years. The Iraqi government has demonstrably not complied. It is
now time to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
The removal of the present Iraqi regime from power will lay the foundation for achieving three vital goals: disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stocks and production capabilities; establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq; and contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.
To enhance the prospects of success, American efforts in the weeks, months, and years ahead must be guided by the following principles:

Regime change is not an end in itself but a means to an end - the establishment of a peaceful, stable, united, prosperous, and democratic Iraq free of all weapons of mass destruction. We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and that is fully committed to upholding the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be integrally involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.

The process of disarming, stabilizing, rebuilding, reforming, preserving the unity of, and ultimately democratizing Iraq will require a significant investment of American leadership, ime, energy, and resources, as well as important assistance from American allies and the international community. Everyone - those who have joined our coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors - must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes. Any early fixation on exit strategies and departure deadlines will undercut American credibility and
greatly diminish the prospects for success.

The United States military will necessarily bear much of the initial burden of maintaining stability in Iraq, securing its territorial integrity, finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, and supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need. For the next year or more, U.S and coalition troops will have to comprise the bulk f the total international military presence in Iraq. But as the security situation permits, authority should transfer to civilian agencies, and to representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. Much of the long-term security presence, as well as the resources for
reconstruction, will have to come from our allies in Europe and elsewhere - suggesting the importance of involving the NATO Alliance and other international institutions early in any planning and implementation of the post-conflict stage.

American leadership - and the long-term commitment of American resources and energies - is essential, therefore, but the extraordinary demands of the effort make international support, cooperation, and participation a requirement for success. And just as a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is in the region's and the world's interest, it is important that the American-led stabilization and rebuilding effort gain the support and full involvement of key international organizations in the work of rebuilding Iraq.

The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East. This is an objective of overriding strategic importance to the United States, as it is to the rest of the international community - and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that. We offer our full support to the President and Congress to accomplish these vitally important goals.

Ronald Asmus
Max Boot
Frank Carlucci
Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly
Peter Galbraith
Jeffrey Gedmin
Robert S. Gelbard
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Charles Hill
Martin S.Indyk
Bruce P. Jackson
Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Will Marshall
Joshua Muravchik
Danielle Pletka
Dennis Ross
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe
James B. Steinberg
R. James Woolsey

((This statement found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm)

Second Statement on Post-War Iraq
March 28, 2003

We write in strong support of efforts by Prime Minister Tony Blair to "get America and Europe working again together as partners and not as rivals." While some seem determined to create an ever deeper divide between the United States and Europe, and others seem indifferent to the long-term survival of the transatlantic partnership, we believe it is essential, even in the midst of war, to begin building a new era of transatlantic cooperation.

The place to begin is post-war Iraq. There should be no question of our common determination to help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful, stable, united, prosperous, and democratic Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and fully committed to the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.

The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be fully involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Consistent with security requirements, our goal should be to progressively transfer authority as soon as possible to enable Iraqis to control their own destiny. Millions of Iraqis are untainted by service to the Ba'athist dictatorship and are committed to the establishment of democratic institutions. It is these Iraqis - not Americans, Europeans or international bureaucrats - who should make political and economic decisions on behalf of Iraq. Building a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is an immense task. It must be a cooperative effort that involves international organizations - UN relief agencies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other appropriate bodies - that can contribute the talent and resources necessary for success. It is therefore essential that these organizations be involved in planning now to ensure timely allocation of resources.

Of particular concern, the effort to rebuild Iraq should strengthen, not weaken transatlantic ties. The most important transatlantic institution is NATO, and the Alliance should assume a prominent role in post-war Iraq. Given NATO's capabilities and expertise, it should become integrally involved as soon as possible in the post-war effort. In particular, NATO should actively support efforts to secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and production facilities (a task that should unite the United States, Canada and all European allies committed to peace and non-proliferation), ensure peace and stability are maintained in postwar Iraq, and assist in the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and the delivery of humanitarian relief. The Atlantic Alliance has pledged to confront the new threats of the 21st century. No current challenge is more important than that of building a peaceful, unified and democratic Iraq without weapons of mass destruction on NATO's own borders.

Administration of post-war Iraq should from the beginning include not only Americans but officials from those countries committed to our goals in Iraq. Bringing different nationalities into the administrative organization is important because it allows us to draw on the expertise others have acquired from their own previous peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It will also facilitate closer and more effective ties between the security forces in post-war Iraq and those charged with administrating the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq. International support and participation in the post-Iraq effort would be much easier to achieve if the UN Security Council were to endorse such efforts. The United States should therefore seek passage of a Security Council resolution that endorses the establishment of a civilian administration in Iraq, authorizes the participation of UN relief and reconstruction agencies, welcomes the deployment of a security and stabilization force by NATO allies, and lifts all economic sanctions imposed following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.


Gordon Adams
Ron Asmus
Max Boot
Frank Carlucci
Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder
James Dobbins
Thomas Donnelly
Lee Feinstein
Peter Galbraith
Robert S. Gelbard
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Philip Gordon
Charles Hill
Martin S. Indyk
Bruce P. Jackson
Robert Kagan Craig Kennedy
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
James Lindsay
Will Marshall
Christopher Makins
Joshua Muravchik
Michael O'Hanlon
Danielle Pletka
Dennis Ross
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Helmut Sonnenfeldt
James B. Steinberg

((This statement found at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm ))

http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/KristolTestimont030408.pdf

[markus]

124. The Will should be down in Gitmo with the rest of the Bush cabal

eom

[corporatewhore]

96. Hell YEAHLETS DO IT

[revcarol]

98. I am already "striking!!"

Refusing to contribute to the national party until they get back to their roots of support for small business,workers, the environment, a social safety net, not privatizing SS and Medicare in any way...etc.

EVERY envelope goes back to the party EMPTY, with a list of things on which they should have some SPINE!!@!

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

107. No they wouldn't

It wouldn't work.

Frankly I think it sounds like sour grapes because people don't happen to be flocking to your candidate like you have been conditioned to think they would.

I would like to see some reforms in the party too, but I don't care for the Nader-like extortion tactics. I'd rather see the changes from the ground up starting at the local level and building from there. It takes a long time to effect a change and starting at the President level is a fantasy pipe dream. It will never happen.

[stickdog]

110. They want us to die.

We are much more their enemy than Bush is, obviously.

Bush can win; we must be crushed.

[Atlant]

122. You get that feeling too? (NT)

[genius]

114. Lets' get the Republicans to strike. Then we might end fascism.

We are the ones who need to vote.

[MaddogTerp]

118. genius, we're talking other support, not voting...

*obviously*
striking in this context means: not donating, not volunterring, not campaigning. it does NOT mean not voting... though if Kerry (Bushie Lite) is the nominee, I might just do that.

[BurtWorm]

119. You get it, Maddog!

:toast:

[corporatewhore]

123. Kerry never inspired volunteering anyway

[mzmolly]

121. Interesting theory. I do feel Dean supporters are in a position to make

demands. I like the idea of compiling a list from Dean's platform.

I would add Health Care for all to the list... ;)

[John_H]

125. You have a skewed view of the Democratic Party

All of these ideas--although expressed without the Target Brand radical buzzwords like imperialism and demilitarizing will be in the Democratic platform.

The idea of forcing the Democratic party to completely embrace the ideals of the one percenters is par for the far far left's authoritarian course.

[Atlant]

126. I take it you won't miss our votes, then?

(Speaking as an apparent member of the "the one percenters ... far far left's authoritarians)

I take it you won't miss our votes, then (in November)?

Atlant

[John_H]

137. Having done the math, nope.

Since many of you would never vote Dem anyway and since most of you live in states we'll win anyway, and since your numbers seem to be diminishing by the second, I bid you luck, health, happiness, and farewell.

The real question is whether or not, after an organized withholding of support from the Dem nominee, you'll expect the far left to have even the smallest voice in a Demr administration's agenda.

[BurtWorm]

139. That's ridiculous! How do you know where we all live and who we vote for

in other elections?! It's much more likely that the people who are looking to shake up the party are Democrats who are outraged over Bush's selection and enraged over their party's failure to tap into our motivation in the last elections.

Here you are criticizing the "1-percenters" for trying to control the agenda of the party and you're ready to just lop off anyone who disagrees with you about this?

How many percentage points did Gore "lose" the last election in Florida by?

[Iverson]

127. definitional clarification

Can I assume that by "far far left authoritarian" you refer to those who object to preventive invasion? I don't mean the notion that it can be "done right," but rather the principled objection to it at all.

[BurtWorm]

128. PNACers have given imperialism a new cachet

It's no longer a bogeyman, it's now unofficial US policy.

I'm not looking for planks buried in the platform. I looking for words spoken from the dais to the national (and international) audience, and actions daily. Empowering a DNC panel to ensure the integrity of the primary elections--and other internal elections--would be a good example.

[corporatewhore]

132. authoritarian? like the Patriot Act?

[BurtWorm]

133. Haha! Good point, whore!

I mean, Corporate Whore, sir!

[John_H]

136. Here are the clarifications if you're still interested

Patriot act: The Dem party should--and probably will--have in its platform a plank that would let the patriot act expire.

Authoritarianism and the War: I'm afraid that the OP has already proved my point about the authoritarian approach of the far left.

Many Dems are against the war. Some support it. The party will need to hash this out, probably reaching a compromise. An Authoritarian approach might involve a minority forcing the majority to adopt it's position without compromise by threatening to enable those who represent everything the party stands for. Sound familiar?

Yeah, yeah. But your position is the right one. the authoritiarian's best friend is having justice on their side (or sweet Jesus if you're a far right authoritarian)

It strikes me as odd that a number of one percenters think they're one percenters because the other 99 percent is less enlightened than they are. May I suggest the unenlightened notion that one percenters are one percenters because of their my way-or-the-highway, coercive, and authoritarian approach to politics?

[Atlant]

138. You may suggest it.

> May I suggest the unenlightened notion that one percenters are
> one percenters because of their my way-or-the-highway, coercive,
> and authoritarian approach to politics?

You may suggest it. We may, of course, believe you're wrong.

Atlant

[rucky]

135. Supporting Dean/Clark/Kucinich/Sharpton IS scaring the poop out of 'em.

Let's keep doing that. If your guy drops out before your primary - write him in.

We have 4 strong candidates ready to pick up where the party establishment has left us hanging - that's what'll shake 'em up.

[KoKo]

141. You make an interesting point. I have to think about this awhile.........

thanks...