"You are not the base!" ~ "If you don't vote, the republicans win!"

[Cerridwen]

Hmmmm. Not the base but maybe need our votes? How do you get our votes? I'm pretty sure it's not by telling us to STFU and quit demanding "ponies." I'm just saying; customer service is important in politics, too.

"You are not the base!" "If you don't vote, the republicans win!"

"Government can't do anything right!" "Insurance companies can't compete with government!"

Yeah, they sound a lot alike to me.

Maybe it's time for some nuance.

[Fumesucker]

1. No, if you don't vote for *Democrats* the Republicans win..

The choice is even more black and white than you state.

Vote for the lesser of two evils or the greater evil wins.

[Cerridwen]

2. :) I was trying to keep it short.

Do lesser evils ever grow into greater evils?

[shadowknows69]

74. Usually if allowed to.

[blindpig]

3. On issues of substance

it doesn't seem so black and white at all. More the difference between charcoal and jet. Some choice.

[Fumesucker]

9. I didn't express myself very well..

I meant that the scenario is painted in utterly stark black and white terms, I agree with you about the choice between charcoal and jet, well said.

[blindpig]

44. no problemo. n/t

[leeroysphitz]

21. Lately the republicans win even when we vote for democrats.

[L0oniX]

28. +1

[Fumesucker]

32. True dat..

:(

[Individualist]

True. A vote for a DLCer is a vote for the republicans.

[varelse]

86. Point taken

and a sharp point it is, too :(

[ixion]

51. That is battered wife logic

and I get really tired of hearing it parroted.

"We suck every so slightly less than the GOP, so vote for us."

That is lame. Very, very lame.

"Don't like what the Democrats are doing? Tough! It's the lesser of two evils." :puke:

[dana_b]

72. oooo.... new bumper sticker!

"Vote for a Dem: we suck less than the GOP!" Nice.

[treestar]

84. A wife has a choice of being single or a choice of other husbands

Bad analogy. A political party has to involve people with different interests, none of whom can get everything they want.

[cliffordu]

61. Hard as that fact is, that is exactly right.

[CrispyQ]

68. If we keep rewarding the dems bad behavior, by voting for the 'lesser of two evils'

how will they ever get the message that we want them to change?

It's a no-win situation. As we continue to vote for a party that doesn't represent us, they continue to represent us less & less. I read the list below & wonder how much longer can I continue to believe that the dems are the lesser of two evils.

> Dick Cheney is a free man with no talk at all of investigation.
> While we claim we don't torture, we do still outsource it.
> We are still involved in two wars, one illegal & both immoral.
> The war on our civil rights has not been reversed.
> Health 'care' reform is fast becoming a health insurance bonanza.
> Climate change legislation is on the back burner while the arctic melts.
> Wall St. continues to rule Congress while fucking the middle class.
> Democrats are now courting the religious vote by continuing faith based initiatives & adding heinous amendments to health 'care' legislation that undermine a woman's right to choose.

Holy shit. I'll stop now, cuz the more I type, the less difference I see.

Oh. We haven't nuked Iran yet. There's a positive.

[cliffordu]

92. I know the list, and disgusting as it is, do you actually think

that once the emergencies - the jobs problems and the health care issues are settled that the Prez is going to sit on his hands for the next three or seven years??

What you are NOT paying attention to is the fact that the war, the health care debacle and the wall street pillage are ON THE FRONT BURNER, as opposed to hidden behind 'terr'r, terr'r terr'r.


Just because he refuses to allow the focus on these things to be holding all the headline news 'reportage' doesn't mean they will not be the point of focus soon.

I'm a stupid brute and even I get the idea of triage.

We have a whole lot of real fucking smart people on this board who are so shortsighted they think he can snap his fingers and get shit done.

Or send Michelle out to fix health care.

The fucking guy beat the shit out of two of the most powerful political entities walking away by doing what seemed to be the EXACT OPPOSITE of what all us smart people on this board and the motherfucking pundits 'knew' he should do.

Boiling frogs ain't chess, but it gets the job done nonetheless.

Can you imagine the orgasms in congress if they could concentrate on whether to try cheney for treason or war crimes?? it could suck an entire 4 year term dry, just like Bill's blow job did.

And then NOTHING would get done.

Cheney understand what'll happen once he gets the President's full attention, which is why he's trying to set it up as a political witch hunt-- a retaliation for the pure shit -he's slinging now.

I am amazed people here don't get this.

[goclark]

112. Many do get it it is that those that do

don't feel like being Bullied and called names when we thought we were in the same party.

One thing I do know,the Rethugs have us just where they want us - fighting with each other and that is how THEY,not Progressives, will win.

Sad, sad. sad

[Greyhound]

89. Until they win so much for so long that the nation fails and then the people get to rebuild.

It seems the inevitable conclusion to this illusion of choice, so just get it over with.

[bvar22]

70. Vote for "Centrist" Democrats, ....

...and the Republicans STILL WIN!


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.

[salguine]

102. if you vote for Democrats, and they win, and they immediately start

acting like Republicans, haven't the Republicans won anyway?

[JVS]

4. Then we must be the swing voters, whose asses get kissed constantly.

:-)

[Cerridwen]

10. Lip service? Hell, I'd *almost* settle for "lip service."

:)

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. God no. That only happens to moderate and right-leaning voters. They cross the line to vote, they

get flowers. I cross party lines to vote and I get harassed and harangued for not being a Dem while I was doing it. :shrug:

[MineralMan]

5. John McCain and Sarah Palin

I rest my case.

[Echo In Light]

6. Rigged system, phony rep democracy, brainwashed populace

I rest mine as well.

[FailingParachute]

60. There's a winner!

Sanity in the midst of blind obedience is just so damn refreshing sometimes.

:yourock:

[Echo In Light]

104. Thanks...wish I were way off base with that, though

[Cerridwen]

7. How do you think the "not base" voted? Or do you think "not base" didn't vote?

[MineralMan]

15. In this recent election? I imagine that most voted for

Obama for President. Many probably voted for non-Democrats in local and regional elections. For all the posturing, when it comes down to the actual election, most vote for whomever comes closest and has a chance of winning.

That doesn't always work. A small number, roughly 90,000, of Florida voters voted for Nader in 2000. If half that number had voted for Gore, it wouldn't have been possible for the GOP to game that election. All for the sake of some incomprehensible principle.

So, it is, indeed possible for a small faction to throw an election completely over to the other side. It's rare, but it is possible. I doubt that will happen in 2012.

Now, there are about six Senators who are either Democrats or Independents who are causing almost all of the problems we are currently having about implementing some useful policies. That is where the effort needs to go, not towards deriding President Obama. If we can replace those six with people who are at least mostly on the liberal side of issues, we will get some measures passed that will do some good. With those six in control and blocking anything good in the bills, we lose, no matter how the elections turned out.

For those people who don't really care about end results, but insist on what cannot be achieved, I suggest they go off on their own, form a third party, and get out of the way. They're not helping to implement any progressive measures. They're just making noise.

[followthemoney]

105. 300,000 Dumb Ass registered Democrats voted for Bush ...

in Florida in 2000. The Democrats couldn't get out of their own way in 2000.

Blaming Nader is just avoiding the party's own responsibility for its own mistakes.

Besides, the Democratic party is in control now and could work to turn this government into a democracy if it wanted to. Obviously it likes things exactly as they are now, screw the voters.

[laughingliberal]

14. False dichotomy. Wouldn't fly in a 7th grade debate class

I have this reply bookmarked as it has become necessary to use it so often now. I refuse to believe that the only choices we have are to march in lockstep with our party leaders, right or wrong, or have Palin for president. False dichotomies are a dishonest debate technique meant to shut the opposition up. It is a favorite of the RW pundits who always seek to divert from the issue at hand and shut up those who disagree with them. Heres a couple of others:

Belittling the opponent: "They just want a pony." (No, but we are tired of shoveling the pony shit out of the stable while the elite ride the ponies they got)

Name calling and ridicule: "Leftbaggers" and "teabag left." (Might as well call us pinko/commies or dirty hippies. Didn't stop our beliefs in the sixties. Won't stop them now).

[MineralMan]

16. I called nobody by either of those names. I don't do that.

[laughingliberal]

30. But you did use the false dichotomy. I used my reply to point out the

flaw in that debate technique and other flawed debate tactics in common useage here of late. I apologize if it appeared I accused you of the last 2.

[MineralMan]

8. The group of people who now consider President Obama to

be a bad choice, and who are declaring that they're considering forming a third party are irrelevant to Democratic politics. They may, possibly, make up 1% of potential votes for Democrats. Much like the Libertarians who threaten the GOP with bailing, they never manage to get more than 1% of the vote, and usually less.

It's not the ideas held by the left wing of the party. They're good ideas. They're things to strive for. It's the threat to take the ball and go home that is hollow. While that faction makes up a decent percentage of DU members, it's a tiny minority on the larger scene.

Education, rather than threats is probably a better tool. Seriously.

[Cerridwen]

18. Surely, that 1% is not needed, then, is it? Surely only 1% does not

equal a repub win? Why then the cries of "If you don't vote (for us), the repubs win!"

Did you know we used to have many political parties; not just two? Did you know that election laws almost enforce a two party system and make it almost impossible for a 3rd or 4th party to enter the game? T'would seem the parties in control hard-wired a duopoly. How does that benefit democracy? Do you think that might make it harder for the voices of the minority to be heard?

"Education, rather than threats is probably a better tool." I agree. Pretty tough to educate those who are demanding people STFU and quit demanding ponies, though.

Pragmatism is a 19th Century philosophy. It might be time to examine the effectiveness of that as a "ruling" philosophy the way we examine the validity of 19th Century "science."

[MineralMan]

23. Pragmatism is what's going on right now.

Show me a single instance when idealism has made policy, or at least some idea of how that might occur in a representative republic.

[Cerridwen]

26. Idealism to policy? Women's suffrage. Civil Rights. Social Security.

Public libraries. Labor laws. Idealism drives policy. Without idealism, we'd still be living in Colonial America.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, idealism drives society, but it drives it incrementally.

Idealism is important, but as a long-term device, not on a short-term basis. All of the things you mention took considerable time to put into place, and most are not fully implemented even now.

Colonial America was full of idealism. It's how the Revolution happened. But what resulted was certainly far from perfect. We are moving steadily forward, but slowly. Societies change slowly. Idealism is like the small genetic changes that drive evolution. Revolutions are a rare thing, thank goodness. Ours is quite recent and provided mechanisms to continue the evolution. That's pragmatism at work at its best.

There will be no sudden move to the socialistic society of moral equals I wish we had. It will not occur. Only a slow progression made through incremental changes.

[Cerridwen]

35. Would it "drive" so "incrementally" were it not constantly butting up

against pragmatism?

"Societies change slowly." Except in times of crisis during which times societies adapt or die quickly.

As with many truisms, there are those times when they aren't true. :D

Just so you know, it's not that I disagree with you completely (perhaps hardly at all), it's just that I don't like to think we're moving through these times without considering alternatives to the current truisms. Many people look at situations and say "it's always been so," rather than saying "I wonder if..." I'm one of those "wonder if" people.

[MineralMan]

43. The crisis isn't bad enough yet. Look at the Great Depression.

It took quite a while before much happened to change things. We move slowly.

Philosophically, I'm an idealist. I'm a rabid socialist. Realistically, I just have to work for change that's possible. I burned my idealism out in the 60s and 70s, butting my head up against brick walls. The changes happened, but not while I was fighting for them.

Today, I spend my energy working on getting this state rep elected or this congress member, in places where it's possible to replace some GOOPer with any sort of Democrat. I didn't campaign, for example, for Keith Ellison, because he was a lock in his district. Instead, I campaigned and donated in Michele Bachmann's district, adjacent to my own. We almost won. Almost.

I caucus for the best candidate in my own district, but only for one who can win an election. It does me no good to work for a candidate who is sure to lose. No good at all. Down that road lies a Republican.

We need to replace several Senators, as soon as possible. That is the primary obstacle to getting some decent legislation done. Just a few Senators are blocking any decent bill on HCR. Just a few. That's where the energy needs to go if we're going to get anything worthwile. It won't happen this year, I can guarantee.

Afghanistan is a non-issue. We simply are not going to just pull out of that country. That was a forgone conclusion even before the election. We're wasting time and energy on that issue, and it's diverting us from things that can be accomplished.

Ideology is terrific, and everyone should have one. Working toward achievable goals trumps ideology in the short term, though.

[Cerridwen]

52. I knew there was more agreement there than looked to be.

I think the biggest difference between you and I, is that I'm no longer sure supporting the systems in place will ever get us any more than "more of the same."

A feminist critic once berated the "feminist movement" (quotes because it ain't no monolith); "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." Audre Lorde

I believe that applies across the board. After working in the political arena, I don't see the rigged system un-rigging itself any time soon for the benefit of any other than those who benefit from it as rigged.

[MineralMan]

58. I understand. I do.

We are, actually, quite close to enabling change right now. It may not seem like it, given the poor showing on HCR, but we're actually close. We need to dump a few obstructionists in the senate and demonstrate that such obstructionism isn't going to win elections for Democrats any longer. Then...finally...we may actually be able to put some pressure on the rest of the assholes.

I'm 64 years old, and I'm really, really tired of politics these days. I used to be a fiery, active, street activist. Now, I'm looking for small little venues where I can work in the background and maybe do something.

We're almost there. But we can lose it all if we aren't careful right now and for the next three years. I hope we don't do that.

[goclark]

66. I appreciate your post

"We need to replace several Senators, as soon as possible"


Now that is what we need to focus on ~ instead of bashing and trashing our current party, let's work on helping to elect clear thinking, not tied to the Lobbies, not related to a low life like Joey L., some new fresh faces that would work for the good of our Party and hold true to a "Perect Party as Most of DU sees it.

Maybe that would help us to focus and stop Eating Our Own Friends At DU.

Do I hear crickets :shrug:


Maybe someone from DU who is good at upholding the ideals that we feel are critical.

Where are those elections and let's get going!

That is better than some of us sitting around for 3 years waiting to get a PROGRESSIVE that doesn't like war elected or Someone that doesn't have their hands in the MSM or the Health Care Industry --let's roll.

[Greyhound]

101. Have you forgotten America 1981?

By this time under the raygun regime the federal budget had been slashed across the board and the nation had taken a hard right-turn, one which we still suffer from. He radically altered the machinery of the federal government through a "flurry of executive orders" (New York Times from April 26, 1981), crippling agencies ability to perform their duty and used this to prove that "government is the problem".

The notion that change happens slowly only seems to apply to making things better for the "useless eaters".

[spiritual_gunfighter]

45. I am on DU every day for long stretches (actually too long)

and I have never read a single post threatening to form a 3rd party to oppose Obama, I am not saying there arent people out there who would do just that. I just think it is intellectually dishonest to claim that this is something that is common.

[MineralMan]

49. There were several threads along those lines this week.

They don't last, as a rule. They get locked and sink out of sight, but they're there.

[treestar]

85. +1000

Exactly, and their attitude guarantees they won't win new converts to anything they espouse, and in fact are alienating, so they only push us further from what they want (making me think they are indeed disrupting republicans).

[Greyhound]

90. Just keep telling yourself that.

When we don't vote against our interests and support our values, the Democrats lose, period. The DLC fantasy that they can attract enough of the mythic middle to win is a cruel hoax that has always failed.

[JoeyT]

93. Apparently it's an important 1%

It's funny how when Democrats are in power it becomes "Liberals are only 1% of the party. We don't NEED you." yet when liberals vote for actual liberal parties, people scream bloody murder that liberals cost them the election.
Funny how that works out.

[Marr]

110. I disagree. I think their importance far outweighs the simple headcount.

The people you're referring to are the activists. They're what keeps the operation moving on the ground level. If that minority is disillusioned enough to sit out the election, you're losing a lot more than their votes.

[fasttense]

11. Maybe the majority of we Americans have insufficient motivation to get the change we need.

Maybe if a McInsane and Crazy Palin win next time, we Americans will finally reach our tipping point and get out on the streets.

[MineralMan]

19. Nope. Small groups might, perhaps, but not "we Americans."

Not as a mass of people.

[HughMoran]

12. Since the majority at DU isn't worried about what anybody thinks

...and doesn't worry about whether Democrats win or lose, why is it a problem if there are a minority here that do support Democrats for what they believe are practical "we need the numbers" reasons?

[Cerridwen]

27. Problem = a teaching moment. n/t

[HughMoran]

34. teaching moment?

arrogance abounds

:rofl:

[Cerridwen]

39. It's arrogance to teach what a member of the minority thinks?

Why?

Any other minority thoughts you consider arrogant?

[HughMoran]

57. What is "the minority"?

I stated that the "pro vote Democrat" view was the minority view here, do you disagree?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. It's ironical that the RW of the party simultaneously hold us to be both irrelevant and a danger.

And, are happy to blame us when they lose.

[Echo In Light]

17. Astute observation, that!

Well done :thumbsup:

[Cerridwen]

22. Succintly put. Thank you.

Oh, but who gets the credit for the win?

[MineralMan]

25. In the 2008 election, I can tell you who gets the credit.

It was the long line of people who had never been in a polling place before. I saw hundreds of them in my own polling place. They had no idea what to do, but they were there to vote for Obama. Those are the people who made this election happen.

They're the people "progressives" are always talking about needing progressive government. Well, they showed up in November. The question is whether we can get them to come back next November. The way it looks right now, probably not.

[Cerridwen]

29. I wonder what appealed to those people who had "never been in a polling

place before"? Pragmatism or idealism? Hope? Change? Those two words aren't necessarily pragmatic.

Why do you think they won't come back in November? What didn't they get for their vote that they thought they would get.

(quick note: using "them" and "they" as shorthand only. I'm actually one of *them*, eta: sort of)

[MineralMan]

36. Obama was the reason. That was the appeal.

Why won't they come back in November. Obama's not running in November...just the same bunch of white folks that have run for so many Novembers. My precinct turned out over 80% of registered voters and, since we have election day registration, a lot of people who weren't registered. I watched them at the polling place, struggling to figure out how to do this strange thing.

Unless there's something as dynamic as the Obama candidacy in 2010, they won't be back. It was too hard and foreign to them. I'm lucky. My congress person is excellent, and my senators are just fine, along with my state reps. It's a good, liberal district, all around.

Just up the road, though, is Michele Bachmann's district. How's that going to go in 2010? I don't know yet. Without a high turnout of Democrats, though, it might well go to Bachmann again. We almost won that district in 2008. Not quite, but almost. And it was that same new turnout that got us close. I'll be devoting my efforts to a district not my own during the campaign, in an attempt to get that same group to show up and vote for the Democrat.

We can't get Keith Ellison in our district. We can't get a true progressive candidate who can win. We MAY be able to get a middle-of-the-road Democrat elected, and I'll sure as hell be trying to make that happen. The progressive wing of DU won't like the person who gets elected, I guarantee, but it'll mean another vote on some progressive issues. The alternative is Michele Bachmann. It's how the district is.

Even in Massachusetts, they couldn't get enough people to turn out to choose a really liberal replacement for Ted Kennedy. The turnout was abysmal. Why was that? Where were the hordes of progressives to turn out to vote for the most progressive candidate? Disappointing. Not voting for Democrats, simply because you don't like all their views, has its consequences. Welcome to Ted Kennedy's replacement. Much worse than the alternative on the ballot. Where were the progressive voters?

[Cerridwen]

41. That sounds suspiciously like a "cult of personality" rather than a

political movement of either idealism or pragmatism.

"Where were the progressive voters?" Er, S-ingTFU?

[MineralMan]

47. Hell...Presidential elections have been based on personality

for a long time. Look at Ronald Fucking Reagan. That senile asshole served two terms in office, because he was this slow-talking grandfatherly type.

Personality gets votes. In 2008, we had one of the strongest personalities to ever run for that office, and he won handily. He got people to vote who had never been in a polling place in their lives.

The President is, as we are seeing, primarily a figurehead who is capable of proposing policies in the hope that our legislature, which really owns the power, will enact them. Right now, we can easily identify the stumbling blocks to any progress. They're in the Congress, not in the White House.

[LooseWilly]

63. I suspect some real "progressive action" could excite some of those folks again.

Even if, pragmatically speaking, not much "real progress" can be gotten past the "Blue Dogs"... at least putting up a fight... "putting on a show"... might energize some of those folks again.

That's the real secret to all the grandstanding bullshit that the Republicans "perform". And what is the "pragmatic" Democratic response? The Democrats back down, hoping that in so doing they can try to convince that same audience that they're really not doing what the Republican Sideshow is trying to say they're doing.

If the Democrats would just put on their own Sideshow, in the same spirit as the Republicans do, featuring a "progressive theme"... maybe they could actually win those folks over to progressivism, rather than offering Republican-Policy-Lite as some sort of half-baked alternative.

I may be wrong... but I'd say that it's worth a try.

It's certainly a worthwhile alternative to just assuming that Obama was a cult of personality phenomenon... justifying a shrug and a return to "business as usual".

(I know I know... "I don't know what I'm talking about... the Republicans win... scary scary Boogeyman Republicans... STFU...)

[mitchtv]

106. Where were the progressive voters?"

sitting at home, Fuming. and signing petitions and writing letters and making calls, I have drawn a line in the sand, that I won't cross with DLC dems who are running things. I will support the cal dems, but not the Emmanuel Dems, they can't be trusted. I will never vote for a Puke, but no moderate will be getting my vote. I'm too old for the lies , and the "dichotomy"

[CrispyQ]

69. A most excellent point.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[dana_b]

75. yeah - we're "irrelevant dangers"

:crazy:

[leftstreet]

80. +1

Excellent observation!

[treestar]

87. You're not a danger

And your "they" shows you are not including yourself anyway.

If "they" lose you get right wingers. One begins to conclude that's what you want.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. A little "right" or a "lot of right"? Like choosing between a teaspoon or tablespoon of arsenic.

[Unvanguard]

20. Both are true. Small percentages make a difference in close elections.

That does not mean that small percentages constitute "the base."

[Cerridwen]

24. Nor does it mean the "not base" is insignificant. n/t

[Unvanguard]

40. The issue is not whether it is "insignificant".

The issue is whether the views of a small minority of both the American people and of Democratic voters in particular can be meaningfully equated with the views of the people, or of Democrats, in general. And clearly they cannot be.

Their votes are still important to get. But political success will not come by catering to them exclusively.

[Cerridwen]

42. "...clearly they cannot be." Unfortunately, until we have a press and

pollsters who give us information undiluted by spin, we won't know that for sure.

"catering to them exclusively." How about listening to them occasionally?

[Unvanguard]

48. The pollsters are not out to get you (or anyone else.)

Public opinion is what it is: you can disagree with it, but pretending it constitutes what it does not constitute is not helpful.

I see little indication that the Obama Administration or the Democratic leadership in general neglects even to listen to its critics from the left. To the contrary, it's fairly clear that on both health care and Afghan policy, it has done exactly that.

[Cerridwen]

54. Not what I said.

What I said was the information presented to us is spun into irrelevance. Debates on number of "liberals" versus number of "conservatives;" questions as to whether or not "the public" wants the government to come between us and our doctors; questions about whether or not President Obama is doing a good job, is a strong leader; all asked without definition or nuance; without the "shades of grey" that go on in everyday life - then presented as Fact and Truth and "The American Way."

Just for your information, had "the left" been represented in the health (insurance) reform "debate," HR 676 would have been scored.

I do wish Democrats, in general, would "listen to its critics from the left" as often as it apologizes to its critics from the right.

[laughingliberal]

67. " catering to them exclusively"

I call foul. This is another way of saying, "giving them a pony." I don't know anyone who expected our representatives would "cater to us exclusively." However, I did not expect them to cater, overwhelmingly, to the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, or the Wall Street executives. A little more of a show of caring about the middle and working classes while before they become extinct would be nice.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. K&R

I get a sense that you, like so many of us, are feeling a little unloved of late.

[Cerridwen]

38. Hell, Stinky, I'm a feminist. I'm usually reviled. This is just business

as usual. LOL

:hi:

[omega minimo]

99. !

oh no you di n't :spray:

[Me.]

37. Good Line

customer service is important in politics, too

[Cerridwen]

56. Thank you. It'd be nice if they could at least pretend to listen.

Even if they hit the mute button and laugh their asses off. *sigh*

[Starry Messenger]

46. Thank you for reclaiming the word "nuance".

The moderates have been throwing it around lately. Straining at gnats is not "nuance" and we shouldn't have to be overjoyed when our corporate masters deign to throw us crumbs.

[Cerridwen]

55. I guess if the crumbs are cake rather than bread...

Yeah, I went there.

[blindpig]

62. It's pretty funny

Between that and the appeal to Robots Rules of Order there is a whiff of desperation...but it really doesn't matter what we say here, it is the events and revelations coming from the administration which makes all such dodges fruitless.

[Starry Messenger]

64. Yep, that's true.

I think I just reached my limit on bullshit earlier today than usual. Before coffee even. :D

[flyarm]

50. I became "NOT THE BASE" when my vote was stolen by the democrats ..after already going through the

same crap in 2000 by republicans..

and psssss..I have become resolved ..I will not vote again..since both of the parties have now stolen my votes..so why should I bother?

And please ..spare me a lecture..I have been an elected delegate for my state..My Husband and I paid for an audit of the DRE voting machines in my county..no other county in the state was that done..to prove the machines can't be audited..I have been a Poll Watcher at Large and have spent endless days at 15+ hours a day protecting people's rights to vote and have their votes counted..I have worked endless hours for Democratic candidates and for the people of my county and state..only to see my vote and the votes of so many I walked and drove to polls and helped so many get access to the voting machines..and endless hours educating people public speaking about the damn DRE voting scam..to see our votes go up in smoke and not counted by the same Democratic party I worked so hard for..


I have stood nose to nose with Republican Lawyers sent to polls to keep people from voting..I have been put through horrible intimidation tactics by the Repug voting officials ..Bubba..at polling places and walked many people to the voting machines when they have been intimidated and actually pushed by BUBBA..

I have refereed between lawyers being pushed and knocked by Bubba..and I have stopped fights from occurring ..at polling places..to ensure people got to vote..I have stopped cheats from filling out homeless people's absentee ballots outside polling places..and got pushed down and almost stomped on..so people got to vote legitimately.

I have gone to Iowa and been a Co-Captain of a caucus ..only to see the worse cheating I have ever seen ..and some of the worst intimidation..here i thought my state was bad......and it was done by Democrats!
And again I went to S.C. to work for the dem party primary..and saw heartless cheating..by the Dem party.

so fuckem..fuckem all..I will never vote again! I will not spend another precious moment of my life trying to be anyone's base again..they can all kiss my ass!

I was the base..my party left me ..when they stole my vote and the votes of 1/2 of my states democrats in 2008..so many of whom I talked into voting for Dems..only to have the Dems steal their votes as well in 2008!

I am done..

[Cerridwen]

59. Ouch! And Damn!

I have no other words for you.

[flyarm]

65. oh It doesn't hurt anymore..once you realize there are no two parties..

I came to that realization in Iowa last year..I knew then without a doubt at all..there is one party with one big giant money pot in the middle..and we the people are not invited to the party given where they disperse the money in the money pot!..I saw it all first hand..then it was upsetting..it is no longer upsetting to me..it is what it is..but no one will get another day or minute of my time and efforts..nor will they get another red fucking cent from me!..and i gave a shit load of $$..but it isn't the money that bothered me as much as my time and efforts..I can't get all those days back in my life..

There are no two parties..once you realize that..and come to terms with that..that you have been duped from the higest and lowest levels of our government, the hurt stops..but you never get the days, and months and years back of dedication to saving this nation of ours in your life..

There are no two parties..it is all a scam.

[CrispyQ]

71. It's all a scam.

The truth of that statement is becoming more & more clear daily.

[dana_b]

76. great poster

I want one (see... I can be a capitalist too!).

[dana_b]

77. talk about disillusionment!

you have done more than your fair share and no, I would never presume to lecture you.

[Greyhound]

91. Nothing like working in the system to learn how hopelessly screwed we are.

I get such a kick out of the well-meaning people that talk about taking the party back from the inside. In most of the country the party is even more locked down at the local level than the national is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. Tell me about it!

I was frozen out of my county Dem association in Oregon in the 1980s because I introduced and argued for a resolution condemning aid to the Contras. Turns out that the association was full of Scoop Jackson Democrats who were dead set on fighting Communism in all its forms, even if it meant arming thugs to burn down schools and wreck irrigation systems.

After two years of activity, I suddenly stopped getting invitations to party events. I didn't get back into political campaign work until 2002.

The Kucinich campaign in 2004 was another eye-opener. I've told about it several times.

The obstacles to reforming the Democratic Party from the inside are formidable. Party regulars try hard to herd the masses in the direction of conventional wisdom, and Minnesota is even one of the more democratically structured states in this regard. Our representatives to the DNC are elected by people who have themselves moved up through the ranks starting at the precinct caucus level. In some states, however, the representatives to the DNC come exclusively from the list of major donors.

[Greyhound]

115. Very similar to my experiences as well.

Here in red-state-hell, the local "Democratic Party" is full of ancient Raygunots and anyone that tries to bring progressive, or even simply humane, ideas into the mix is kicked out. I know Thom Hartmann talks about going to your local party and taking on one of the open positions that are common, but I've never seen it in real life.

There exists some sort of stagnant Kabuki (highly ritualized theater) where everybody in both parties know what everybody in the other party will do and who they will put up for office and who will win in the end. Basically, the local parties are simply a funding board that grants funds to vendors to supply the bi-annual show.

[freddie mertz]

73. Maybe we should TEST the formula and sit out the next two cycles.

No voting, no donations, no phone-banking, no rides to the polls, nothing.

I've voted Dem in every election since 1972.

We have a raving RW lunatic running for Senate in PA next time against Specter or Sestak. It may well be a close election.

But since I'm "not the base" and have shown myself to be a "back-stabber" and "wanting a pony" for speaking up on some issues, maybe I'll just sit this one out then.

Sheesh.

[dana_b]

78. I think we all need to

do what is right for us. Don't let others pressure you into anything.

I will be voting for issues (propositions, etc.) and truly progressive (liberal!) people. That's it. If there are no progressives or liberals running in a race, I won't vote.

[amandabeech]

79. The President says words matter, but I say talk is cheap. n/t

[leftstreet]

81. K&R

[treestar]

82. Politics is nothing like customer service

It involves compromise and slow change.

[havocmom]

83. Curious as to why you posted an OP instead of dealing with Pitt's thread directly

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

96. His is not the first to propagate this notion.

Judging by the recs, more people agree with Cerridwen.

[followthemoney]

94. It is fully within the ability of these two parties...

to change the U.S.A. into a democracy.

This fake democracy allows the parties to place the same policies behind two different faces for a fake election.

Imagine an election where you could vote for the candidate you agree with rather than only strategically against the greater evil.

The corrupt parties know they have a lock on voters because if you vote for the candidate you want, you help the candidate you don't want.

They know this and you know this.

And they like it that way.

So...

Demand direct elections by a majority, and no more plurality wins. Take the danger out of voting third party. End this government's practice of treating the majority like an irrelevant faction.

[Greyhound]

95. Time for Change did an excellent post on just this topic a week or so ago.

:thumbsup:
:kick:

[Fading Captain]

97. BAM! Exactly.

EOM

[omega minimo]

98. Well played, Cerridwen.

:yourock:

[EFerrari]

100. Maybe time to stop accepting the magical thinking.

:)

[truedelphi]

103. Very good points Cerridwen. And how is it that the same man that said only months

Ago that we would be needed to help make him do things, now tells us to tone it down?

[GreenPartyVoter]

109. I think it's what he always meant. He wants us to help out but without giving our input. Nothing new

there.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. He even does a piss-poor job of that

When Reagan wanted something done, he'd go on TV, lay out a very specific proposal in simple (actually, overly simplified) language, and ask supporters to write (only snail mail in those days) their Congresscritters.

That art of rallying support for a specific issue (not a monster bill) seems to be beyond the capabilities of the typical Dem politician.

[truedelphi]

118. it keeps making me think it is all one big collusion.

One Big tent, put up by the Money Party.

The Dems enter on the side that says, "We protect the workers' rights." "We will keep a woman's right to choose." "We will be for the clean environment."

And the Repugs say "We'll protect your right to own a gun." "We'll be strong on defense."

In the end it's just one big tent, and all they care about is making happy those who sponsor their campaign funds.

[begin_within]

107. Losing to the Republicans is the Democrats' punishment for not giving me my pony.

Do what I want done, or you don't get my vote in 2010 or 2012. That's the deal. And if you don't keep up your end of the deal, you lose in the next elections. Fair warning.

[WeDidIt]

108. If you are on the left and you don't vote, you drive the country further to the right

If you are on the left and you vote third party, you drive the country further to the right.

[bridgit]

111. I used to counsel 'nuance' and was called everything but 'the wet nurse of Hugo Chavez'...

by para-cadre of DU for suggesting such a thing; here seems the gist of DU's support for and view of 'nuance' - "Get tough creme puff"

[dmallind]

113. I don;t see why those are mutually exclusive.

Let's imagine 80% of Democrats are middle of the road pragmatists who don't buy Republican snake oil. They may vary from social conservatives who aren't fond of religious nutjobbery to deficit hawks who are socially liberal.

Which leaves 20% who vary from true blue progressives to near-Marxists.

The 80% are definitely the base.

The balance between Dem and Rep is close enough that we cannot lose the 20% though.

Change the numbers if you want, but until you can show that the DU-style progressive is more than 51% of the party (and primary results would look a hell of a lot different if that were true) the point remains.

[Vinca]

116. The problem is when the line between Democrats and Republicans

become blurred.

[Cerridwen]

119. I'll deal with the responses I missed tomorrow. It's bedtime here. n/t

[shadowknows69]

120. "Do it or the Republicans win" is becoming less and less threatening.

If you believe like I do that both parties have been completely compromised by corporate overlords. Who the fuck cares anymore whose asses are shining the seats in D.C.?