Do we really need a progressive party in America?

[mdmc]

We have the GOP to shill for the corporations. We (the democrats) shill for the corporations AND labor unions and lawyers.
Do we really need a real liberal progressive party? Do we really need regulation, reform, and civil rights? Do we really need a party to stand up to the military industrial complex?

The democrats will almost always be a little better then their GOP rivals. Do we really need to change our political game?

[Jamastiene]

1. The time for a real progressive party is long overdue. n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. Yes. "A little better" doesn't cut it anymore.

Don't know why you are belittling unions and lawyers, though.

[Libertas1776]

3. In 1912,

there was a strong viable progressive movement candidate in this country. Maybe in 2010 - 2012, we could see the rise of another progressive movement (granted in 1912, it did split the Republican vote allowing for a Democratic victory and in 2012 could do so vice versa) but at this point and time, who really gives a flying fakakta. This country desperately needs another major progressive movement and its about 100 years overdue.

[mdmc]

4. thanks for the history

peace and low stress

[AndyA]

5. You can answer your own question.

Take a look at what's going on in America right now.

Taxation without representation.

Corporate profit protection while the people suffer.

Corruption.

Politicians that lie to get elected, then don't keep their promises. And there's no recourse except to not vote for them again.

Wars based on lies. Wars that never end.

The wealthy are rewarded for breaking the law and bringing down the economy.

Tax cuts to companies to outsource American jobs.

People of somewhat modest income enter politics and leave years later multi-millionaires. (How do they do it on a Senator's salary?)

We pay for wars but allow our own citizens to die because they can't afford health care.

Yes, we really do need a progressive party in America. If only to restore rights, liberties, and balance to government.

[deutsey]

6. We need an effective mass progressive movement

that either the Democratic Party embraces as its agenda or begins a new and truly progressive party.

[vadawg]

7. more pertinent question is what percentage of the vote would it get

and how would it effect the margin of victory for the republican party.. all it would do is split the dem vote and hand victory to the pubs...

[mdmc]

13. Unless our friends the tea baggers (or Ron Paul supporters) tear down the GOP

If they are patriotic enough to tear down their corrupt dirtbags perhaps we should do the same..

I for one will stick with Rham and Leiberman. I most likely will not end up being abused by the PATRIOT ACT or tortured / detained. I will have the right to get married.

If only I had health care. Oh well, the Dems are doing the best that the corporations will allow them to do.

[ellenfl]

16. i am afraid that a progressive party would be marginalized.

there is probably not enough of us to to have any control but it would be nice to have more than 2 parties and to have some type of coalition government . . . publicly funded, of course. it is possible that the rank and file of all the parties could vote out the special interests but we would have to be able to vote on it, because our congress critters sure won't. they like the big $ too much.

ellen fl

[ixion]

8. wow... way to lower the bar...while we're at it, then

do we even need more than one party? Hell, let's just set up the Corporate Theocracy and have done with it. :eyes:

And your logic that the dems are a little better than the GOP is breathtaking in it's apathy.

[mdmc]

11. we have one corporate party, with two wings, imho

Right now we have two corporate parties. A good cop (us) and a bad cop (the GOP)..

Look at both parties -
support the drug war
support 30k Afghan surge
support Wall Street bailouts
don't support health care as a right
don't support ending torture
don't support gay rights..

I will stick with the dems. But I can understand why most people don't vote. It is APATHY. They know that politicians are corrupt crooks and that no matter who wins nothing will change. At least that is why I think most people don't vote. Apathy. Why do you think most people don't vote?

[ixion]

15. My vote for Obama was the first vote I'd cast since Carter...the primary reason why

I don't vote often is that politicians don't generally share my views, and I have ethical problems with casting my allegiance to a person I don't support.

I voted for Obama because I was wildly sick of the GOP and * in particular.

He has made me feel like a sucker for doing so, and I won't be voting for him the next time around. I'll probably sit out again, unless there is a candidate who reflects my viewpoint.

[mdmc]

17. I voted for Clinton, Nader, Nader, Kerry, Obama

I really didn't want to vote for Kerry / Edwards, but I did.
I voted for Clinton and Obama with all my heart.
Clinton broke my heart pretty quick.
I never gave Obama my heart. I always knew he was a DLC tool. Yet so much better then Palin.

[robinlynne]

20. breathtaking in its truth, you mean.

[chandler2]

9. No. Not as long as we have Democrats like the ones we have now.

We have Obama, Hillary, Holy Joe et al. Why would you THINK we need a PROGRESSIVE political party? Tell me.

[dhpgetsit]

10. Here is one

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
The party of Bernie Sanders.

[stray cat]

12. There is the green party - if you can make them competitive in national elections

the trouble for a progressive party is the majority of Americans presently don't think it represents what they want.

[Armstead]

18. Tghe Green Party is ineffectual -- But people are more progressive than they acknowledge

The Green Party is too flaky for most people. Too politically correct.

However, a political party that actually represents the progressive position on issues of wealth and power does represent what many (if not most) Americans actually believe in.

What would be needed is a critical mass of people who are both politically skilled and committed to basic progressive principles.

Ideally that should be the Democratic Party. But....

[kctim]

14. Can twenty or so percent

of one of the major parties split off and be affective at anything? Nope.

So yes, progressives need to change their political game by learning to work with and respect other Democrats.

[KharmaTrain]

19. Amen....

A third party will only be effective if it has large numbers in both Houses...just electing a third party President is asking for nothing but gridlock as neither party will ever want to work with him/her. So when someone throws out a third party meme, are they prepared to run candidates and WIN in 435 Congressional Districts and 33 Senatorial ones...and that's just a start...then there is party building in every state that is on-going. Yep...third party always sounds so appetizing until you see what it really takes to make one effective.

Far easier to work from within...make changes inside the Democratic party where we already have a toe-hold.

[mike_c]

21. they don't represent us....

Why should we "respect and work with" them?

[mdmc]

23. not only with democrats buts also with Republicans and Conservatives

That is what The Great Liberal Lion taught us.

[phasma ex machina]

22. Big biz owns America's "big tent" and throws up a variety of ring masters to please the crowd. nt