Standing up for Democrats

[ProSense]

The GOP/RW/neocons are working to defeat liberalism. The goal for liberals and progressives should be to defeat right-wing ideology and bring more people around to understanding the merits of liberal values.

As some on the left claim altruism, they seem bent on destroying the credibility of the entire Democratic Party, believing an ideal progressive Democratic Party will immediately emerge! That's the problem with idealism: it assumes that all people will come around at the same time, and once they do, flaws in character and judgment (bribery, corruption, etc.) will cease to be a factor. I believe truth does win out eventually, but not all truths win out at the same time, all corruption is not exposed at the same time. If truth wins out today, does that mean another candidate will never again come along and use bribery as a way to try to win the day? And possibly succeed? A Green Party member is accused of taking a bribe. The PA Green Party joins forces with the Republican Party. These are examples of how power, even the desire for it, corrupts.

Democrats need to support candidates who stand up for Democratic values. The Democratic Party is not the Green Party or Libertarian Party. Ron Paul isn't a Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a liberal Democrat, but he was challenged by the Green Party. Why? Here is a snip from an article (Don’t blame Greens if Wellstone loses) that criticizes Senator Wellstone, but shows the hypocrisy of such criticism:

Others on the left have pointed to McGaa’s support for the war in Afghanistan as a reason to dump on him. But while this critique is correct, many of the same people slamming McGaa are willing to overlook Wellstone’s support for the "war on terrorism" and his vote for the USA-PATRIOT Act.

When it comes to the Democratic Party there are valid criticisms, sometimes accompanied by meaningful solutions. Then there are wholesale attacks, those that are simply designed to prove how unworthy of support the Democratic Party and its leaders are. The attacks usually aim to prove, despite evidence to the contrary, that some of the Party’s most progressive leaders are not progressive enough!

Removing corporate influence from politics is a progressive goal. Denouncing those who are advancing this ideal is rhetoric. In 1997, Senator Kerry wrote the following Campaign finance reform bill and introduced it along with Senator Wellstone (it was reintroduced on a couple of other occasions, with various sponsors):

S.918 Title: A bill to reform the financing of Federal Elections. Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 6/17/1997) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 6/17/1997 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY AS OF: 6/17/1997--Introduced.

TABLE OF CONTENTS: S.918 Clean Money, Clean Elections Act (Introduced in Senate)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning June 17, 1997
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Money, Clean
Elections Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

Sec. 101. Findings and declarations.
Sec. 102. Eligibility requirements and benefits of clean money
financing of Senate election campaigns.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements for expenditures of private money
candidates.
Sec. 104. Transition rule for current election cycle.
TITLE II--INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES; COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

Sec. 201. Reporting requirements for independent expenditures.
Sec. 202. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 203. Limit on expenditures by political party committees.
Sec. 204. Party independent expenditures and coordinated expenditures.
TITLE III--VOTER INFORMATION

Sec. 301. Free broadcast time.
Sec. 302. Broadcast rates and preemption.
Sec. 303. Campaign advertisements; issue advertisements.
Sec. 304. Limit on congressional use of the franking privilege.
TITLE IV--SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES

Sec. 401. Soft money of political party committee.
Sec. 402. State party grassroots funds.
Sec. 403. Reporting requirements.
TITLE V--RESTRUCTURING AND STRENGTHENING OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION

Sec. 501. Appointment and terms of commissioners.
Sec. 502. Audits.
Sec. 503. Authority to seek injunction.
Sec. 504. Standard for investigation.
Sec. 505. Petition for certiorari.
Sec. 506. Expedited procedures.
Sec. 507. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines.
Sec. 508. Power to issue subpoena without signature of chairperson.
Sec. 509. Prohibition of contributions by individuals not qualified to
vote.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 601. Effective date.

The complete 81 page document

Snip...

The following year, a re-elected Kerry was in another lonely position as one of only five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. The measure would remove practically all special-interest money from House and Senate campaigns. (Kerry's colleagues were Wellstone, Leahy, John Glenn and Joe Biden--all Democrats.) "Kerry was totally into it," says Ellen Miller, former executive director of Public Campaign, a reform group pressing for the legislation. "He believes in this stuff."

In introducing the legislation, Kerry said on the Senate floor, "Special interest money is moving and dictating and governing the agenda of American politics.... If we want to regain the respect and confidence of the American people, and if we want to reconnect to them and reconnect them to our democracy, we have to get the special interest money out of politics." He was also a backer of the better-known McCain-Feingold legislation, a more modest and (some might say) problematic approach to campaign reform. But over the years he's pointed to the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act as the real reform. "It is a tough position in Congress to be for dramatic change in financing elections," says Miller. "It's gutsy to go out and say, 'Let's provide a financially leveled playing field so there is more competition for incumbents.' Kerry and Wellstone were the leaders and took a giant step. It was remarkable."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040315/corn/3

When people are presented with facts that challenged their perception, they resist. Some eventually come around, but what about the stubborn ones who refuse to heed facts? Some will never change because they are like m

In 2004, the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes issued a study, "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters." It reported that 72 percent of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even after the U.S. Iraq Survey Group had definitively concluded that it had none. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters believed that Saddam Hussein had been providing help to al Qaeda; 55 percent believed that the 9/11 Commission had proved that point, though the commission's report had disproved it and Bush had been forced to deny it. The social scientists conducting the survey observed that respondents held these beliefs because they said the Bush administration and conservative media had confirmed them.

Near the end of the campaign, a senior White House aide explained the "faith-based" school of political thought to reporter Ron Suskind, who wrote in the New York Times Magazine: "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

The method described by the Bush aide was an updated version of the insight of the philosopher Francis Bacon, who, in 1625, wrote in his essay "Of Vaine-Glory": "For Lies are sufficient to breed Opinion, and Opinion brings on Substance."

The "separate realities" of Bush and Kerry supporters studied by the University of Maryland extended to the facts of their military records, controversies about which became decisive events in the campaign and case studies in the manipulation of information. Bush had numerous mysterious discrepancies in his Vietnam era service in the Texas Air National Guard, especially being absent without leave for a year. It is indisputable that he never actually completed his service. How he entered his unit through special preference and under what circumstances he was discharged without having finished his requirements was the subject of an investigation by CBS's "60 Minutes." The program's use of documents that could not be authenticated, though various witnesses confirmed the underlying facts, aroused an intense attack from Republican activists and the White House, and the entire exposé was discredited because of the journalistic lapse.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/12/book_excerpt/print.html

I posted this yesterday this

Nationwide, Democrats added more than 60 legislative seats, reversing the 2002 results that gave Republicans more state legislators than Democrats for the first time in a half century.

Democratic majorities in the Senate (24 years out of the past 39 years):

1967 to 1981 (14 years)

1987 to 1995 (8 years)

January 2001 to December 2002 (2 years)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2657617&mesg_id=2657617

So which elections validate this title: "Madison Ave. Ad Exec Reveals How GOP Wins Elections"?

If this is about perception, who created the perception that the GOP dominates elections, and who believes it?

Adhere to GOP rules and give them the opportunity to claim that people's perception driven by their "secret strategy," not voter suppression, fraud and media complicity, is solely responsible for election outcomes since 2000.

Fighting hard doesn't mean fighting dirty or resorting to sleazy tactics! The Repubs have nothing but deception to run on, and those among them who resorted to illegal activities have been exposed and are being dealt with (DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, etc.), despite the GOP's efforts (at perception) to drag Democrats down with them!

Like I said, when people are presented with facts that challenged their perception, they resist.

There are a lot of liberals and progressives in this country who will vote for Democrats. The goal should not be to out sleaze Republicans or throw up phony characterizations to destroy progressive Democrats, the goal should be to elect more Democrats who stand up for our values and educate people about the merits of supporting the Democratic Party.

[ProSense]

1. Fixed broken link! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

2. Once again, you hit one out of the ballpark!

Thanks for the most excellent post. I'm still working my way through the links but this should get some great discussion going.

[MH1]

3. Wow. Great post.

:yourock:

[ProSense]

5. Thanks! n/t

[wisteria]

4. Thanks for all this information. I wasn't aware of some of the things

you posted.

[ProSense]

6. Sometimes the facts get lost in the spin.

The GOP spend their time trying to convince people that facts are spin!

[GeorgeGist]

7. Your point of distinquishing between...

liberals and progressives is the most revealing thing you said.