Is the Democratic Party the B-Team of Corporate America?

[Al122]

Todd Chretien, the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Califoria, has a very interesting article in the current issue of International Socialist Review on the state of today's Democratic Party (for the full text go to http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/b-team.shtml)

Now before some of you out there blow a gasket let me clarify a few things. I am a registered Democrat and generally vote that way. However, in the last New York City Council election in my district, I worked for and voted for the Green Party candidate and here's why. Peter F. Vallone, Jr, the "Democrat" in the race was not only cross endorsed by the Republican Party but also the New York State Conservative Party. Mr. Vallone is an outspoken supporter of the PATRIOT Act which he said was "a large part of the reason why this country hasn't been attacked again," authored a bill making it illegal for anyone under age 21 to possess a can of spray paint and also supported a move by city officials to stop several artists from painting graffiti on fake subway car panels at a Manhattan block party.

By contrast, the Green Party candidate, Jerry Kann called for giving tenants greater representation on city's rent guidelines board, a one cent tax on all NY Stock Exchange transactions that could have raised billions for education, health care and housing needs and greater local democracy by making New York City's community boards (which have input on things like zoning etc.) into elected bodies. During the sole debate we the people were treated to Vallone said that "there is never a good time to raise taxes" and ridiculed Jerry Kann's ideas for democratic reform. With Vallone being a well-funded incumbent, receiving millions in contributions from city real estate developers, I knew that Jerry Kann didn't have a prayer of winning the election. But I supported him anyway because he was at least talking about the issues I cared about and offering proposals that I would have liked to seen enacted.

My suspicion is that this is a problem that many of us progressive/left Democrats run into. Is the Democratic Party entitled to our votes, even thought it doesn't offer true party membership in the European sense? Even if it chooses to run a candidate I consider to be a total reactionary?

OK for those of you who have made it this far on to the Chretien article. Here are some relevant quotes:

"the Democratic Party has yet to pose clear alternatives to the Bush gang on most of the day's key issues, from Iraq and immigration to public schools and health care."

"Today, the Democratic Party's leadership is more right wing than it has been at any time since the 1950s. There are still old school liberals in the party, but they have been pushed to the margins by an aggressive pro-business leadership. In the mid-1980s Bill Clinton and Al Gore helped launch the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in order to dispel any perception that the party was bound to any "special interests," by which they meant civil rights and women's organizations and trade unions. Twenty years later, the DLC wing of the party can claim total victory. This is a powerful fact that anyone who aims to push the party to the left must explain.
Real power in the Democratic Party is shared between conservatives like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Dianne Feinstein and centrists like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry. Liberal Democrats like Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and John Conyers are locked out and hardly register in the party's calculations."

And perhaps most relevant in terms of my diary's title:

"While Republicans continue to raise more money than Democrats, the gap is much narrower this year as big money and big business decides to hedge its bets. According to Brody Mullins, writing in the Wall Street Journal Online:
The shift includes backers of the Republican Party in the insurance, pharmaceuticals and tobacco industries, such as American International Group, Wyeth, and Reynolds American, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan tracker of campaign contributions.
Most companies say they give political donations to candidates who support their businesses, regardless of party affiliation. But corporations also tend to channel funds to politicians they think will hold power. So any shift in corporate campaign giving toward Democrats could signal that businesses believe Democrats will have more sway in Washington after the 2006 midterm elections or the 2008 presidential contest.
This only goes to show that while masquerading as the "party of the people," the Democrats stand for "Plan B," that is, Corporate America's alternative when their preferred Republicans can't sell their program any longer."

Chretien then goes on to show how the party has blown two recent opportunities to take maximum advantage of the Republican's historic low standing with the American people. The first of course is the party's failure to embrace the position on the Iraq war taken by a majority of Americans. For evidentiary support Chretien points to a July Gallup poll that shows roughly 2 out of 3 Americans desiring a U.S. exit from Iraq with 31% saying that they want the exodus to begin immediately.
Chretien then points to the current imbroglio over immigration as a missed chance for the Democrats "to ride the wave of popular anger against the Republicans." Here's how he put it:

"Faced with this opportunity to stand up for civil rights and usher in a new mass phase of the labor movement, the Democrats rushed to defend President Bush from his own party. Instead of voting for legalization for all, Senate Democrats voted on May 25 to back Bush's anti-immigrant legislation by 38 to 4 (with independent Bernie Sanders adding his vote for Bush), giving Bush what he needed when he couldn't get it from his own party."

And here's the kicker:

"These betrayals have not gone unnoticed by immigrants. The Pew report notes that while support for the Republicans collapsed, there was no commensurate rise in support for the Democrats. In fact, Latinos' rating of the Democrats' immigration policies fell from 39 percent to 35 percent, while the number of Latinos who believe that neither party has good immigration policies rose from 7 percent to 25 percent."

Chretien's conclusion is that the American left has no choice but to abandon the Democratic Party and build a new movement "from scratch, or at least from a historically weak starting point." My own belief is that the two major parties have so conspired to rig the system in their favor (in terms of ballot access laws, access to debates etc.) that there is little chance a third party will ever be able to get off the ground barring a catacalysm along the lines of the pre-Civil War sectional crisis that gave us the nation's only successful third party, the Republicans.

No, I think the only answer (although Chretien himself is critical of this approach) for progressives/liberals/leftists to follow the strategy laid out by the newly formed Progressive Democrats of America. Create local chapters in every one of the 435 congressional districts, run people for district leader, state committee, take over as much of the party machinery as possible from the bottom up and force the DLC/corporatist branch of the party to deal with us.

Then and only then will there be the possibility of fundamental change in this country.

[Greyhound]

1. Welcome to DU.

I have mostly recovered from the third degree burns received from calling it the Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party, so I hope you brought your asbestos underware for this post. It can be very risky to point out the obvious flaws in our party's positions as they cover for each other.

OTOH, they may just let it sink into obscurity since today is the ABC 9/11 propaganda day. In any case, keep fighting the good fight. :toast:

[AJH032]

16. I'm sure the (far) righties say the same thing

only instead of the "Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party" they say the "Republican Wing of the Socialist Party" (or something to that effect) as they probably view the Republicans as too "liberal."

[Greyhound]

17. And yet all of the evidence indicates just that.

You don't think it strange that Clinton didn't accomplish one single initiative that benefited working people, yet every corporate giveaway that came along, got full Presidential support and passed easily?

[AJH032]

18. right...

So the increase in healthcare coverage, the (record) increase in jobs, the increase in education spending, the decrease in crime, the decrease in dropout rates, and of course, the decrease in poverty throughout the United States, did not benefit working class people, at all?

Oh, and probably the largest corporate giveaway of them all, the bankruptcy bill, was actually vetoed by Clinton. I'm not saying Clinton was perfect (disagree with him on NAFTA), but your original claim is incorrect.

[Greyhound]

19. I started to write and cite all the statistics showing how the major

"accomplishments" you speak of in his administration were little more than shoveling huge piles of cash into corporate coffers while reducing quality and accessibility for the sheeple, fudging numbers to make things look better than they were, the disastrous treaties he not only signed, but advocated, the destruction of the IT industry just as it was starting to realize its potential, etc. when it occurred to me that you are likely not any more interested in hearing about his failures than the minions of the cabal are interested in hearing about their leaders utter failure.

Bill Clinton was a fair-to-middling President with good intentions in the beginning, but what he actually did while in office heavily favored corporations and the wealthy over the average citizen. Of course if we use the current regime as a comparison, he was indeed the second coming of FDR, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson, all rolled into one. I just have higher standards.

He didn't do anything, that I know of, that previous administrations hadn't done, but that doesn't make it right or fair. "We suck less" has been the rallying cry for the Democrats for far too long.

[AJH032]

20. okay, and in response

"..."accomplishments" you speak of in his administration were little more than shoveling huge piles of cash into corporate coffers while reducing quality and accessibility for the sheeple, fudging numbers to make things look better than they were, the disastrous treaties he not only signed, but advocated, the destruction of the IT industry just as it was starting to realize its potential, etc. when it occurred to me that you are likely not any more interested in hearing about his failures than the minions of the cabal are interested in hearing about their leaders utter failure..."

That's acceptable. However, without anything to back these statements up, you shouldn't expect a rebuttal from me either. I would like to note, though, that although you assume I'm not interested in hearing about (your opinions of) Clinton's failures, I stated very clearly in my last post one thing that I strongly disagree with Clinton on (NAFTA), and I could list some more as well. If what you assumed of me was true, I probably wouldn't have done that.

"...Bill Clinton was a fair-to-middling President with good intentions in the beginning, but what he actually did while in office heavily favored corporations and the wealthy over the average citizen. Of course if we use the current regime as a comparison, he was indeed the second coming of FDR, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson, all rolled into one. I just have higher standards.
He didn't do anything, that I know of, that previous administrations hadn't done, but that doesn't make it right or fair. "We suck less" has been the rallying cry for the Democrats for far too long..."

These are your opinions and viewpoints, and of course you're entitled to them, much as you're entitled to your perspective on the Democratic Party. I simply disagree.

[Greyhound]

21. Fair enough. In the subject of the last post I wrote write and cite.

I just didn't want to waste hours putting it all together to have it wasted.

[Peace Patriot]

2. I tend to agree with you entirely on the solution--democratization of the

Democratic Party--and with both yours and Chretien's analysis. The Democratic Party leadership--that is, the Senators and Governors and chief House leaders--is Corporate Plan B. (I think I might except Howard Dean--not sure about him). And I am a lifelong Democratic Party member and supporter (lo these 40 years of voting and activism). It angered me that we had no choice but Diane Feinstein in the Dem Senate primary in Calif, and in the fall, I will likely be voting for a Green against a Democrat for the first time in my life. I even stuck with Clinton-Gore after NAFTA.

But you do not mention the key to all: The Democratic Party leadership's MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE as Bushite corporations took over the tabulation of our votes, with electronic voting machines featuring TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--during the 2002-2004 period--a fascist coup (and THE fascist coup, in my opinion) engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (now indicted or resigned in bribery scandals), and abetted by Bilderberg 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd, with the entirety of the U.S. Senate Democrats (with only two exceptions*) voting FOR it.

And still there are only the slightest of whispers--from a few--of objection to electronic voting, and they merely whine that maybe the touchscreens (no paper trail at all--unrecountable, unauditable vote "tabulation") are not okay.

Jeez.

And here are the corporations that the so-called "Help America Vote Act" benefited, with a nearly $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; they are run by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich.

These are the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy.

SEQUOIA: The third major election theft industry player, which hired Republican former Calif Secretary of State Bill Jones, and his chief aide, Alfie Charles, to peddle their machines--in an outstanding example of the highly corrupt practice of "revolving door" employment.

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

So, all I can figure is that, a) the Democratic Party threw the 2004 election (I simply don't believe that they were ignorant of who was "counting" the votes, and how**); and b) on the whole, they like Bush's war, tax cuts for the super-rich, torture, spying, ripping up the Constitution, the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, corporate welfare and U.S.-based global corporate predation, and even if they don't like some of these things--or say they don't--this off-the-charts Bushite corporate fascism makes THEM look like "liberals," when in truth, they are corporatists, and about as far right as they can get without being outright fascists.

I don't see what else can be concluded from their acquiescence to Bushite SECRET corporate vote "counting."

But I also don't see how we can do anything but work within this highly compromised party to get our country and our democracy back. They have, indeed, split the corporate political pie with their fascist Bushite brethren, and have furthermore helped the corporate news monopolies along toward 100% rightwing-slanted news and political "debate." That was Clinton's doing (the Telecommunications Act). Add to this the farce and pigsty of political campaign contributions, and they have political discourse and government power all locked up, well away from the majority of Americans, who are not only far more progressive/leftist than anyone realizes, but who also would like to--and NEED to--hear new ideas.

Add to this the new corporate control of election results (which combines with corporate news monopoly control of exit polls, which they DOCTORED, in 2004, to force them to CONCUR with the results of Diebold/ES&S's secret formulae), and we have a REAL BIG PROBLEM. Think, American Revolution-sized problem.

Non-transparent elections are NOT elections. They are tyranny. That's what we have.

When a Green is willing to take them on, and we are given a Feinstein as our only Democratic choice, then I think we should look seriously at the Green alternative, and evaluate the opposing Bushite, and make a judgment. Feinstein has done NOTHING--NOTHING!--to earn my respect, other than to put "Democrat" in front of her name. And I'm damned sick of it.

But who to vote for is not our biggest problem. Restoring TRANSPARENT vote counting--and getting rid of these corporate entities who have taken over our elections--is Priority #1, in my view. We cannot do anything--we cannot change anything--we cannot influence anybody in power--and we do not have a democracy, as long as "trade secret" vote counting persists. Rightwing corporations will be choosing who our candidates are, in the primaries, and who wins. And whether it's fascists or corporatists is their choice, not ours.

How do we do it? How do we throw these election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor,' where they belong?

THE ABSENTEE BALLOT PROTEST

I think we have what may be a narrowing window of opportunity to restore transparent elections. I think we need to do it NOW. And I think the way we do it is by MASSIVE Absentee Ballot voting this fall. If enough people vote by Absentee Ballot (and many already are--it's up to 50% in Los Angeles, where they have Diebold shill Connie McCormack as election head)--if all those who despise the Bush Junta (60% to 70%) vote AB this November--we can create sufficient panic and crisis in the election theft industry to FORCE reform NOW.

AB votes are not "safe" either--and will not insure accurate vote counts this fall--but AB voting CAN be a tool for REFORM, and an effective one. A massive BOYCOTT of the machines will put election reformers at the table, with our demand for transparent vote counting, with no "trade secrets" in any part of the system. An Absentee Ballot protest has many benefits, and no downside. It will HELP turnout. It's a great motivator to the disillusioned non-voter--they will be part of a protest to UN-rig the system. It will bring greater scrutiny to how AB votes are handled, and to all parts of the system. A big citizen "vote of no confidence" in our election system will resonate. AB voting, due to citizen distrust of the machines, has been under the radar for a while--but growing everywhere. If the protest is big enough, it WILL be news. The corporate news monopolies won't be able to ignore it.

But most of all, LOCAL/STATE election officials will not be able to ignore it. There is no hope of election reform at the federal level. The local/state venues, where the decisions about voting machinery are still made, and where ordinary people still have some influence, are the most hopeful venues for reform. They are closer to the people. The officials are easier to hold personally accountable for their decisions. And if nobody will vote on their diabolical election machines, they will be made to look like the corrupt fools they are. All that taxpayer money they spent--and nobody trusts their shiny new machines!

The election reform movement has been growing by leaps and bounds--with new groups, books, articles, web sites, lawsuits, many new activists and increased public consciousness--but there is nothing on the horizon to prevent Stolen Election III this November. You wonder why Bush is so arrogant? This is why. They have this "trade secret" weapon that guarantees a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists. He is NOT beholden to us! Isn't that clear by now? Nor are many of our Democratic leaders. THEY have to please the rightwing corporations that control the vote counts.

It's also become very clear to me that the Democratic Party leaders have no intention of restoring our right to vote. At best, they will do token reform, and maybe get rid of the touchscreens (the worst of the electronic voting machines), but retain the optiscans and the central tabulators, which are ALSO run on "trade secret," proprietary software. With these machines--the optiscans--your vote is separated from the evidence of your vote (your ballot), and what is now your "vote"--a bunch of electrons--is "sent" to central electronic tabulators, where it can easily be changed without detection. The evidence of your vote--your ballot--is dumped into a box and is almost never seen again. Even in the BEST states, there is only a 1% audit, and audits of that small a size can ALSO be manipulated. (And many states have NO audit.) Recounts are expensive, difficult and extremely rare. Optiscans may have a slight deterrent value. That's it. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY POSITION--that optiscans are okay. Even Howard Dean buys into this.

ALL SECRET ELECTRONICS must go. All! And if we have to go through a period of old-fashioned hand counting of paper ballots--before an auditable, open electronic system can be devised--so be it. Canada does it in one day! But speed should not even be a consideration--only accuracy and verifiabilty!

Bust the Machines--Vote by Absentee Ballot this November!


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

Notes

*(Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. Go figure.)

**(Fear may also have been a factor. It was the Anthrax Congress, after all. And if that didn't shut people up, the fate of our good Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, would have (and did!). Shelley sued Diebold for the lies they told about the security of their machines, de-certified their touchscreens, and demanded to see their source code, prior to the 2004 election. He was the nationwide leader on election reform. He also provided Californians with a paper ballot option at the polls, and fought the corrupt county officials, like Connie McCormack, who were shilling for Diebold & Co. Shelly was then "swiftboated" out of office in early 2005 on entirely bogus corruption charges--with McCormack leading the pack of jackals after his hide. And the new Democratic Party leaders in the legislature (with a 2 to 1 majority) either hid under their desks or actively colluded in Shelley's demise. There were reports of the strongarming of Democrats with a conscience, to force their silence on the Shelley "swiftboating." These leaders then permitted Schwarzenegger to APPOINT Republican Diebold shill Bruce McPherson as Sec of State. McPherson made the lawsuit against Diebold go away, and has now illegally RE-certified Diebold touchscreens. The message to Democrats across the land was that if you try to oppose this rigged election system, you will suffer the same fate as Shelley did. The Party also placed an "Iron Curtain" over any talk of election fraud. Taboo. Verboten. There is much reason to believe that fear and corruption are both at work within our Party on this vital matter. But I still see no other choice but to work within this Party to un-rig the election system--from the ground up, through local/state election officials and legislators who will be compelled to respond to a massive boycott of the machines.)

[LWolf]

3. While this thread is still active,

I'll say that you bring an interesting perspective to the situation and I appreciate reading and pondering it. I won't comment any further on DU, since this is a protected zone for the Democratic Party. Ok, I can't help but say at least one thing.

If the party faithful could take a step back and look at the bigger picture objectively, they might find some substance to what Chretien is saying.

I'll put my protective gear on now, and see how far this goes.

[welshTerrier2]

4. if you're looking for a clear answer, i ain't got one ...

let me start by addressing what all good lefties should be doing ... yes, I support the PDA model of doing all we can to "fix" the Democratic Party ... and that does not mean that we are absolutely glued to voting for Democrats ... we each have our own breaking points ... frankly, i respect that in others ...

those who vote Green - so be it ... you read the landscape and you make your best call ... but i still think registered Greens are making a mistake ... for now, like it or not, the greatest potential source of progressive power lies with the two party system ... i believe progressives should follow the PDA model and do all they can to move the Democratic Party in the right (ummmm, better make that correct) direction ... there are certainly no guarantees the party will ever truly return to its progressive roots ... i still believe we have to try ...

but i don't disparage Greens or other progressive parties ... and i'm certainly NOT saying people shouldn't vote Green ... that's not at all my point ... but "some distance ahead of elections", there's good work that can be done inside the Democratic Party ... building coalitions with progressive Democrats can be a very positive thing to do ... and building viable third parties is certainly worth considering ... i just don't think one process should necessarily preclude the other ... one might, perhaps, be seen as working hard on the "short-term" battles; the other, perhaps, might be seen as working hard on longer term battles ...

so, for now, that's my basic view on the political implications of the OP question ... i have always voted for Democrats and never for a third party candidate ... i'm deeply troubled these days with many things about the Democratic Party ... i'm hoping i can support the '08 Dem nominee in good conscience; i'm not all that optimistic about it right now ... i will NOT be voting for a war supporter and no matter what tap dances are spun, i'm afraid the current crop of "maybes" is just that ...

now, on the issue of the Democrats being the corporate B-Team, that has always been the question on the table ... is there some macro power allowing the pendulum to drift a little left (i.e. to the B-Team) when the A-Team has alienated the citizenry a little too much? is the B-Team sort of a "pressure release valve" that eases things back a notch or two when the natives get restless? to this, i have no specific answer ... it's a painful question to consider ... i just don't know the truth ...

but i raise this question all the time ... here's a list of posts i've made recently that, in one way or another, talk about corporate excesses in this country ... one of the more recent ones asked DU'ers to provide real specifics about how the Democratic Party was standing up for workers to shift the balance of power from favoring stockholders to favoring workers ... there really were no responses that provided the party's positions ...

here are some of the links:
on empowering workers in their struggle against stockholders:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2812133
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2810105
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/94

and on foreign policy (i.e. corporate imperialism):
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/92
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/96

the result of all this is that corporations have destroyed most of our democratic institutions ... they have severely deepened the divide between the haves and the have nots ... they have seized control of the US government and its agendas both foreign and domestic ... and they have brought both the US and the global community to the precipice ...

do Democrats support this agenda? well, the problem is, i don't see them as major opponents of it ... have Democrats spoken about the projection of US military presence all over the world ... the US now occupies more than 700 military bases in foreign countries ... many of these countries are currently in the process of pushing this form of colonization out ... do Democrats speak out against the military-industrial complex that has greatly weakened and bankrupted us or are they too busy convincing Americans they're "tough on defense" to even dare address the issue? have Democrats argued that US foreign policy does little more than cater to mega-corporations? have Democrats made the case against "corporate personhood"? have Democrats genuinely fought to alter the balance of power between stockholders and workers?

make no mistake about it, Democrats fight for health care and minimum wage and OSHA laws and pollution controls and many other "progressive" things ... and i value what they have achieved on many of these issues ... but, and it's a great big BUT, in the end, one must still ask whether they are trying to put bandaids on corporate exploitation ... whether it's their intent or not, the result is that the "pressure release valve" diffuses the resistance but it does not change the fundamentals of power ... in the end, their actions, while clearly better than republican policies, do not deliver real power to the underclasses ... the result? corporate tyranny remains unchallenged in our two party system ...

excellent thread ... k&r ...

oh, and as an extra special, super-duper reward for having reached the bottom of this post, i offer you this most remarkable treat of Friday night madness: http://www.sonnyradio.com/chrisbliss.html ... this guy is very, very far beyond amazing ... crank the audio and watch him go ...

[MH1]

5. Your first "relevant quote" is b.s. so I didn't go any further.

Democrats (led by Kerry and Kennedy) brought us S-CHIP (state children's health insurance program) and Kerry and other Dems have been leading efforts to expand the coverage of that program to millions more children. Kerry, in fact, recently made a proposal that would help expand health care coverage to many millions more adults. (I know it isn't single payer so it is "evil" and "not a dime's worth of difference" to the republican proposal of letting insurance companies fleece us even more through AHP's...:eyes:).

On Iraq, Kerry and others have for a LONG time proposed the most obvious and key element of a solution, that is to have a Dayton-like summit of regional stakeholders (along with a rational timeline for troop withdrawal). Not in the republican playbook, last I heard....but I guess if they aren't loading the troops onto carriers tomorrow it doesn't make "a dime's worth of difference" either.

Anyone who starts out on this schtick of Dems not being significantly different than Republicans isn't worth any more of my time. And calling Boxer and Kerry "centrists"?? O-kay. Riiiigght.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. How Kerry is a "centrist" and Feingold a "liberal" is what boggles my mind

Seriously, do the Greens just stick names of Democrats on a wheel and spin to see whose name winds up on the "progressive HERO" list o' the week, and whose winds up on the "corporatist DEVIL" list o' the week?

"Progressive" purist labels are so arbitrary and given without any discernable reason, logic, or factual basis - it makes my head spin. Oh, and for all the numbskulls who will no doubt throw out the Patriot Act and IWR as proof positive that Feingold is a "PROGRESSIVE!!!111" and Kerry a "centrist," let me throw two words right back at you: Ashcroft and Roberts. How'd that work out for you? Need I remind you, Ashcroft's margin of confirmation was VERY narrow, so Feingold's support would have mattered. Ashcroft was also the principal architect of the Patriot Act. Hmm!

[alvarezadams]

10. You're right

Boxer and Kerry aren't centrists. They're center-righties.

[ProSense]

14. So is Gore a Republican? n/t

[katinmn]

6. Discussion is good. K&R

[bvar22]

8. How else do you explain this?

Where is the Democratic Party Leadership on THESE issues? These would be a winning platform for Democrats. The silence from Party Ladership is damning.

"In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
<snip>
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

8. Over 60% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL American voters support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

There ARE Progressive Democrats who support the above issues. You can find them here:
http://www.pdamerica.org/


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.


"Every one has a plan...Until you hit them in the mouth." --Mike Tyson

[OneBlueSky]

9. good article . . . what the "centrists" need to realize is that . . .

rank and file Democrats (and Independents) are moving evermore to the left -- and get with the program . . . these are the elected Dems we need to really work on . . .

the right wingers are probably a lost cause (although people like Hillary Clinton are experts at guaging which way the wind is blowing and responding accordingly . . . so who knows?) . . .

[doctor_garth]

11. like Gore Vidal has pointed out so many times

America has always had only one political party with two wings, the conservative wing, known as Democrats, and the fascist wing, known as Republicans.

The Democrats do come up with the very few legitimate representatives of the people once in a while, Paul Wellstone comes to mind. But when this happens, these voices are silenced. We all remember what happened to his plane, don't we?

[nealhughes]

12. I have just started reading Chretien this morning -- very astute assess-

ment of many issues, I must say. I think he is Green only because of a huff at Medea Benjamin over switching over to the Democratic Party, he is pretty hard core when it comes to that sort of stuff. He doesn't buy the "less of two evils" argument. By the way, he was a Jesse Jackson delegate way back in the day when still in college! So he was once a Democrat. Evidently there isn't a viable Socialist organization at party level any longer in the US, the DSA being a "social club" and Bernie Sanders merely being an "independent."

Bringing the party back to the people would absolutely shatter the corporate donors! Why a socialist might even get elected a precinct leader! The DLC would be obsolute -- the horror, the horror...

Come on Chretien, come back to the party!

[dfgrbac]

13. The Answer

"I think the only answer (is) for progressives/liberals/leftists to follow the strategy laid out by the newly formed Progressive Democrats of America. Create local chapters in every one of the 435 congressional districts, run people for district leader, state committee, take over as much of the party machinery as possible from the bottom up and force the DLC/corporatist branch of the party to deal with us."

I don't have a problem with that proposal, but ultimately we will end up again where we are now by doing that unless we add democracy to our agenda. Only democracy will save us ultimately. We the people must assume some power away from those who would take advantage of us. Vote FOR the National Initiative for Democracy! Also check out Mike Gravel's campaign.

[opihimoimoi]

15. We have to take our Party for what it is...Better than the Pub GOP Party.

If we think its been com'ped...do we implode and let the GOP continue their mission of Incompetence? and Malfeasence? I think not.

Otherwise we just vote PUB and wait for the Bad Shit to hit the fan like its been doing for the past 6 years.

[The Magistrate]

22. Locking

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.