The party is going to have to show me something.

[dbt]

I am the son and grandson of Democrats on both sides of my family, but the last three elections (00, 02 and 04) have left me feeling like the cuckolded spouse! I'm willing to work at rebuilding the shattered relationship, but Unfaithful Mate needs to address a few things before I can go on as before:

1. Grow a spine. The "go along to get along" mentality of the last decade or so has gotten us exactly where? You have given bu$h everything he has wanted and he has FUCKED you every single time! (What's that about the definition of insanity?)

2. Lose the Centrism. The more the Democratic Party moves toward the alleged center, the harder it is to tell the difference between us and the Pugs. If the Centrist movement has resulted in more "electable" candidates, why in hell haven't they been getting elected???? Which brings up the next point:

3. Address the vote fraud issue. Here is another elephant in the parlor. There is reasonable cause to suspect that it has occurred and will occur again, yet the party has been shamefully silent about it. God DAMN! If the entire country of Canada can conduct elections with paper ballots, why do we put up with computerized systems that can be manipulated in under five minutes without leaving a trace? Raise some HELL, boys and girls! Every American has the moral right to have her/his vote counted fairly and accurately, yet the Pug-leaning corporations who make the voting machines will NOT guarantee this. Fuck 'em. Back to pen and paper.

Look at it this way, National Donkeys. You tell me that I will be throwing my vote away if I bolt the party. Given your track record over the last dozen years, how am I not ALREADY throwing my vote away by voting Democrat?

Please give me a reason not to walk on your sorry ass.

:freak:
dbt

[Ganja Ninja]

1. Lose the Centrism for sure.

The more we move to the right the more radical the right becomes. We moved to the center long ago. The right just keep moving the goalpost.

[DaedelusNemo]

3. Of course 'centrism' is code for 'corporatism'

The real center is in economic populism, just like it's always been.

[Adelante]

5. This is the part we keep forgetting

Defining the terms our way.

[MoonRiver]

11. I think the grassroots rundraising records set this year via Internet

donations prove we can live without the corporate dough. Just imiagine how many more small contributions would come flowing through the pipeline IF Democrats really stood for progressive causes. It's time to loose ourselves from the corrupt system of corporate bribery. We can do it. We CAN do it. Especially if Dean is DNC chair.

[Starlight]

26. good point n/t

[KarenS]

2. I agree with you on all these points and more.

currently, I am still a registered Democrat but will probably re-register as a Green ,,,,,,

I am disgusted with the entire lot of them ~ being Republican-lite just doesn't do it!!!!

[H2O Man]

4. You raise important points.

And very interesting ones. I would turn one part around, however. We need to show the party something. We need to become the most powerful wing of the party. We -- and I don't mean you individually, as you make clear that you are active -- need to take over the democratic party.

Taking over the party, and becoming a powerful wing, can be done. But never from the top down. We need to take control of our neighborhoods and communities first. That the only way to achieve power.

Joining the Green Party is a fine alternative. However, the Green Party will only become a powerful force when it begins to organize and expand its base in neighborhoods and communities. And then work its way up. Because its not the name -- Democrat, Green, Socialist, etc -- it's organizing around the ideas. And there is no one at the top who is able to do it for our neighborhoods and communities. Only the people that live there can.

[dbt]

7. Well said, H2O Man!

But it sure seems that the top ain't been listening to the bottom for quite a while now. Maybe it just seems like time passes more slowly in Hell.

:hi:
dbt

[H2O Man]

8. They don't.

You are absolutely correct. The top is out of touch. Even those who seem to be good and decent people, like Chris Heinz, talk about candidates that support the US "involvement" in Iraq. The only way that policy-makers can support it is to be out-of-touch to what it is doing to families in Iraq and in the USA. The truth is that their families are untouched by the war.

Chris responded to several people on his thread earlier this week. But he has not responded to any questions about Simon Rosenburg's position on Iraq. There are a number of posts that claim Rosenburg favors US involvement. If he does, let him put on a National Guard uniform, and lead by example. If Simon doesn't want to do what Simon says others should do, then there is no reason for anyone but other wealthy folk that will never come closer to the violence in Iraq than from the comfort of their living room, watching the news, to support him. None.

The thing we need to do is speak a language that they understand. Logic and morality fall upon deaf ears,at least in most cases where the financial interests of those rich folk are concerned. They don't hear it. Their brain doesn't process the part about families not wanting their sons coming home in a box. So we need to learn to speak a language that they do understand. And that language is power. And that power starts at the grass-roots level.

http://h2oman.blogspot.com

[Eloriel]

19. And one really good way, IMO, to "take over the party"

is to join and also get active locally with your Democracy for America group.
http://www.blogforamerica.com/

[eg101]

6. What about the party's response to Kennedy's "Medicare for all" speech?

Google shows 52 news stories on his speech yesterday, where he called for Medicare and low cost college for all. See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1493847&mesg_id=1493847

Looks like all the party leaders, even so-called populists (snicker) like Edwards and Dean are keeping their mugs out of sight on responding to this speech. Looks like the party is just going to let Kennedy's call to arms sink out of sight.

What a shocking development!

[Eloriel]

20. I don't quite get your fixation on Kennedy's speech

Your continued exasperation that not every other Dem in D.C. fell all over themselves commenting on it. I really don't. You are holding up this specific form of support as if it were the norm, and it's not.

I don't get it.

But it IS humorous.

[eg101]

25. you may find it humorous

I find it revealing. Now we know that the leading Democrats are not really interested in getting these things (Medicare for all and tuition free college) for Americans. Because if they were interested in getting these things for Americans, then surely they would rally to Kennedy's clarion call. But they did not do that, so therefore they are not interested. I am just using this as an example to show you DUers what leading Democrats are NOT interested in.

[stray cat]

9. George Bush, Frist, Trent Lot, Newt Ginrich, another Bush son.

I have my preferences but until anyone else has a chance to keep these guys out of the presidency I will support the democrats or even a moderate republican.

[Ken Burch]

10. I agree that the above types need to be stopped, BUT.....

Not if it means replacing them with another conservative, like we did in 1992.

It's only worth winning if it's a REAL victory.

Victory in name only is not victory at all.

[MoonRiver]

12. But Dems are NOT keeping them out of the presidency.

My frustration with the Democratic Party right now knows no bounds. I'm starting to think that the ONLY way to shake up these corporate hogs (they're not as bad as Pukes, but too damn close on average) is to rebel. Rebelling can mean a lot of things. One is to cut all ties to the Dem party, then officially join, and consistently vote Green or Independent. The other is to vote for Dems but not give them one red cent until they start speaking to citizens' needs. Right now I'm sticking with the second. But I will switch affiliation in a heartbeat if the pink tutus keep dancing to bush's tune.

[dbt]

13. I feel you!

A phrase from George Wallace (shudder!) keeps coming back to me from 1968: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans."

The Democratic Party is going to have to be grabbed by the short-and-curlies and damn soon!

:hi:
dbt

[H2O Man]

14. I think most

of us would conclude, by comparing 1999 to 2004, that there is actually more than a dime's difference.

There are, of course, a great number of similarities. My belief is that in general, multi-millionaires have much more in common with other multi-millionaires than they do with those who make under $50,000 per year.

I think that for a Simon Rosenberg or a Chris Heinz, it's far more likely that they will sit down and break bread with Newt Gingrich than with 99.99999% of DUers. I think the only time that rich folk are likely to roll down the window of their limo to talk to the peasants is when they want our votes. There are certainly exceptions, but they are few and far between, and almost always are people who have some roots in a middle- or lower income background.

The real differences between the parties is found in the values of the middle and lower income families of democrats. That's where one finds what makes America a great nation. We need to redefine America in terms of the values, the beliefs, the wants, and the needs of the middle class and the poor. That's where America's hope for the future is hidden.

[DaedelusNemo]

15. Sounds economically populist

I've been reading through these threads, (and lots of interesting posts of yours), and in one of them you were saying that it's a good thing Dean isn't an economic populist, and i wanted to ask you about that - and then i read this post, which really perplexed me. What's wrong with economic populism, and how does it differ from your post?

[H2O Man]

18. Good question.

I looked through to find where I wrote that, but wasn't able to locate it. I had wanted to find the context, because I believe it was in response to another person saying something I did not fully agree with. Not being able to locate it, I will not be able to put it in proper context; however, I think I can explain it better than I apparently did.

I like the word "populist." And I love what the word actually means. As you know, it is tied closely to not only a politician and/or party that is rooted in the wisdom of "common folk" .... but more, is closely associated with the movement in the late 1800s to focus on the Jeffersonian (and agrarian) values in America, rather than the Hamiltonian and industrial "values." So I'm in support of true populism.

Today, the meaning of the word has unfortunately been blurred. And so there are those who will try to dismiss a Dean by saying, "Oh, him. Well, he's just exploiting some populist bullshit." And that's the context where I think it is very valuable to be able to say, "No, he has a proven track record on these very issues. When need be, he has been conservative. At other times, he has been liberal. He can not be identified as a 'dreamer' without a feel for the harsh realities of today's economy."

Likewise, we must do better to communicate that have a president who certainly isn't fiscally conservative. If there were a family in our neighborhhod that had been up-to-date on all their bills, and had a nice savings account in the bank, we don't label that family liberal or conservative or populist. We just say they are taking care of business. But then, someone else moves in their house. He runs up huge bills, without paying for them. He spends every penney in their savings account. He takes out huge loans, to live in an opulent style, while failing to feed and clothe the children. He tells the teens that there is no money for college -- he spent it on another new car that only he drives -- that they must join the military to get funding for college. Now he wants you, his neighbor, to co-sign on another loan, and for you to put up your childrens' college accounts collateral to secure his loan.

I think that type of example works better to show what your neighbor, Mr. Bush, has done, than by trying to identify his errors by a simple word.

Again, I wish I had the proper context. I hope I have clarified my position.

[DaedelusNemo]

21. Okay, that cleared it up

The point in the earlier thread would have been not that you were glad Dean's not a populist, as i had read it, but rather that you were glad that he is not as susceptible to labeling - and i certainly agree with that. I mistook your perception statement for a policy statement, which of course only goes to strengthen your point. (I'm not sure which thread it was - i read so many in a row, but i think it was one of the many 'Dean for chair' threads.)

I think you're right that the central problem saddling liberals, progressives, populists (whatever the differences are, haven't been able to find out) is precisely having been labeled as "a 'dreamer' without a feel for the harsh realities of today's economy." And furthermore, that labeling is at the heart of the problem with our national discourse.

I manage to salvage something i can disagree with you on, though, so as not to appear too craven; i think most people understand the economic problems with Bush's policy - they understand being deeply in debt and having to pay high interest payments and all that money going down the hole without accomplishing anything. But they nevertheless support him for other reasons - generally, their emotional attachment to him, their belief he is ordained by God, or their fear that the 'dreamy' liberals won't protect them from the harsh reality of terrorism. When i talk to them, they're complaining about the money, but usually don't believe the dems would act any better about it.

[H2O Man]

24. People often believe

what they are told. They are willing to suspend their own judgement, and accept what is repeated by the "experts" on TV. In such instances, we have to have better examples to illustrate which party is fiscally responsible, and which one isn't .... although in the state and federal governments, we see irresponsibility on both's part.

If there is a thirsty man, and you place two glasses of water in front of him .... and one is clean, while the other is dirty, that man will almost always select the clean glass. When we witness the public picking the dirty glass over and over, it's because they are not seeing the glasses. They are making a choice based upon something other than their own sight, or should we say insight.

I realize that there are many people on DU who are uncomfortable with the idea of "reframing issues." And I understand that we need to do more than simply juggle the facks. We need to peel away the layers of lies and absolute misrepresentation of the facts that politicians have done for decades. We have the ability to present issues in a manner that lets people see things in a new way, in a way that allows them to think for themselves. And I believe that most everyone on DU will be comfortable with people thinking for themselves.

[DaedelusNemo]

31. counterspinning need not equal spinning

I like the fact that so many of us are so allergic to bullshit. That's a hopeful sign. But they assume that the way to fight it - and perhaps because that's the way they have seen it done - is with more bullshit; and they don't want to do that. Right conclusion, wrong premise. Bullshit is best fought by the truth, and that's what we need to use.

But we have to recognize that once an issue has been framed in such a way as to be impervious to truth, you have to step back and dismantle that frame - with the truth - before you can make any headway with the issue wrapped away inside it. To simply keep plugging away within their frame is to play the republican's game while they get to keep score - and that is no way to serve the truth.

When an issue has been mined with a deliberate system of lies, you have to deal with those lies before the truth can make any headway. It's really just that simple.

Eh, we agree. I guess we're just both trying to find a way to express it clearly to those who don't understand.

[H2O Man]

35. Yes, I agree.

I think that we need to focus not only on the best way to say things, but the best place to say them. I strongly beieve that one reason the republicans are able to win as many elections as they do, is because they are able to be better organized on the grass roots level. That is their foundation, and then they build upwards with a consistant message.

Democrats are too focused on the national level. I'm not saying that we should attempt to be a copy of the republican party. Their ideas put people into a mypnotic trance; ours must wake people up. But we need to do it on the same level. The Civil Rights movement was a wonderful example of how we need to operate. Certainly, it is important to study the great leaders, such as Martin. But it is equally important to study the grassroots work. Taylor Branch's wonderful books, "Parting the Waters" and "Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65" come to mind. The effort to wake the American public's conscience had the grass roots as its foundation.

[DaedelusNemo]

38. Agreed; grassroots need to mesh & connect & form base of party /nt

[eg101]

16. Possibly, we should vote for the GOP if we want to reform the Democrats

The thing is to starve the beast. Get the Democrats out of power long enough and deeply enough, and they will go back to supporting the people.

But in order to do this, we need to have Democrats LOSE, and big time. So, it may not be enough to just vote Green. We may need to vote republican in order to make sure a Dem candidate loses. THat is my general plan. And vote for the meanest, nastiest social conservative Republicans available.

Also, we may want to try and get a Green party candidate on the Ohio ballot for 2008. Hopefully by then the democratic party will have seen the light. But I doubt it. One thing we could try to do next is hurt the Democratic candidates for 06. That could possibly be the turning point for the party. It all depends on us....

[trezic]

17. Supporting which people?

How does moving further to left help the party connect with those in the middle?

[eg101]

28. Americans are in the middle==corporate media myth

America is a pyramid, with most people at the bottom. 50% of all tax returns (joint AND single) are less than $35K. That is the BOTTOM of the pyramid. And their political beliefs are affected by the socioeconomic status. Thus the middle is a myth.

And polls bear this out: if you listen to all the rightwingers (like all the ones who reply to my posts on DU) universal healthcare is supposed to be some kind of impossible superleftist commie-nist dream. But poll after poll after poll show that MOST AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF IT! So, threfore, MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT IN THE MIDDLE, BUT ON THE LEFT when it comes to IDEAS about actual POLICIES.

[DaedelusNemo]

22. "I hated to have to kill them all... but they had to be taught a lesson"

- Ralph Phillips

[Triana]

23. My sentiments exactly...

....why I moved to indy registration in 2000. I still vote mostly Dem but...until/unless they show me what they're going to DO to support civil rights and progressive causes (besides talk about being more "Centrist" that is), I ain't registering with them, and their tactics are not registering with ME, either.

[flaminbats]

27. the walls of Jericho..

1) Grow a spine..but how could you demand this from a slug?

2) Lose the Centrism..but there is no center. Without liberalism the neocons are the political spectrum.

3) Address the vote fraud issue..not just these machines. Undervotes, overvotes, and write-ins, along with every other legal excuse for not counting votes.

[dbt]

29. Stop making sense!

You pose some hard points. Thank you!

:think:
dbt

[DaedelusNemo]

30. liberalism is the center and dems just need to stand up for it

On most issues, the liberal position is consistently favored by large majorities - many of whom don't know that it's the 'liberal' position. America historically has been and continues to be a ever-increasingly liberal nation, punditry notwithstanding.

Affordable health care, affordable education, holding the largest corporations accountable, eliminating special tax loopholes for the privileged, guaranteeing SS benefits, war as a last resort, working with allies, holding the government accountable - all very popular positions. It is the failure to stand up strongly for these that has hurt the standing of the democrats more than anything else. It is the hope that one day they will stand up for it that keeps most dems in the party.

[flaminbats]

33. most citizens are not political scientists..

Most citizens don't support the war in Iraq over peace, yet most Republican diehards equate peace with treason. Next time you see a Republican or a car with a Bush bumpersticker, give them the peace sign..and watch how they react.

Most citizens want affordable healthcare, most liberals support a single-payer setup. Most citizens want us to work with our allies, most liberals would cut off military aid to our enemies. Most citizens want to eliminate special loopholes for the privileged, most liberals want all taxes to be progressive. Most citizens support a better funded public education system, most liberals want to eliminate no child left behind..which ties the hands of teachers and parents. Most citizens wish to hold large corporations accountable, most liberals also want to hold Bush accountable and impeach him. Most citizens want secure Social Security benefits, most liberals want to eliminate the income cap for the FICA tax.

Hopefully the Democratic party will stand up for liberal ideals, but if they don't we can always fight this battle within the Republican party.

[DaedelusNemo]

37. It may be that most people don't want to go as far as most 'liberals'

that is, self-identified liberals. But given that there's this vast unrepresented, basically liberal consensus in the middle of this country, to represent them would be to advance the liberal agenda. The rest is in negotiating with them how far to go; however it goes, though, it's a much better place than the republicans want to take us.

[ErinGoBraghLess]

32. Pen and Paper

We need fair and accurate elections, no doubt. As for pen and paper, these too are fraught with error. Given some of the handwriting I've seen, I can easily envision a debate over whether someone meant to write Kerry or Bush. Or just wrote a couple of letters. Or who checked the wrong box. Or who couldn't spell and the name was read wrong by the vote checker. And we would probably have lawsuits from illiterates saying they are being disenfranchised.

What is the answer? There is no easy answer. Sometimes I think the public is so dumb that we can't possibly create an idiot-proof system. Also, there are so many damn elections on one ballot that it gets confusing even for us bright folks.

I vote in Maryland and I thought the touch screens were an absolute breeze -- clear and easy to use. As long as they have paper trails and secure electronics, I am fine with that.

[dbt]

34. Another good point. Or two.

1. By pen and paper, I am referring to a circle with an "X" in it, no handwriting involved.

2. When any system is made foolproof, a superior fool will evolve.

:smoke:
dbt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Have you ever actually SEEN a paper ballot?

Paper ballots do NOT require you to write a candidate's name unless there's a write-in candidate.

I used them in both Oregon and Minnesota. They work like the answer sheet on an SAT test: you just blacken in the dot or box next to the candidate you want, and all the declared candidates' names and party affiliations are pre-printed on the sheet.