I'd like to believe that just voting in more democrats would solve everything

[cali]

but I don't. not anymore. sure, it's much better than the alternative; no doubt about that at all We get better judges on the federal bench and better Justice on the Supreme Court when we have a dem President. I'd much rather have a House and Senate controlled by dems than repubs.

But we've seen far too many democrats sell out and the big money that pervades our politics would still be there. And we're kind of numb to it. Look at how we tolerate Diane Feinstein who's a hot corporate mess. How the hell is it that Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of $35 million +? The total average net worth of members of Congress is just about $5 million. Members of the Senate are, unsurprisingly, worth quite a bit more than members of the House. But the fact is, the longer they're there, on average, the wealthier they get. And you have to ask why.

Democrats are less entangled with corporate money than republicans, but they're still influenced by it- even if it's not the Koch Brothers. Even if Democrats controlled all three branches of government the problems of corporate influence wouldn't go away.

The TPP is a good example of that. We have a Democratic President who has made it one of his economic priorities and who is relying on ex-lobbyists, current lobbyists and corporate advisors to craft it. And there will be plenty of Democrats in the House and Senate who will support it.

So yes, I'll continue voting for Democrats for President, and hoping for the best but I don't see it as a solution to the ever growing corporate influence on government.

[MADem]

1. The only thing that would solve "everything" is if you were appointed ruler of the world.

From my perspective, the only thing that would solve "everything" is if the job fell to me.

Democrats may not solve "everything" but imagine what POTUS could have accomplished with a solid Dem -- not DINO, but Dem--majority in both houses.

[cali]

5. everything was used colloquially

but you knew that.

[MADem]

18. Yes, and my larger point was that none of us--not you, not me--can get what we want all the time.

If we had a Dem Congress, though, we might have gotten more of what we want.

[djean111]

6. I have no idea any more what he would have wanted to accomplish if he had a Dem Congress.

No one does. No one. His speeches are just speeches.
The TPP and chained CPI don't exactly point in a good direction, though.

[MADem]

19. Well, I don't know anyone in my real, everyday life who feels the way that you do.

Not a soul.

[Mojorabbit]

35. Every single Dem I know feels like she does in my real life

except one. It scares me because I turned a corner myself. I kept the faith till now but it is almost gone. Bush was able to get all manner of stuff done and his media team framed everything so that it did get done. And people disliked him intensely.
Obama came in with a ton of goodwill and did not use it imo. He has done some good things but the trajectory of the country
has not changed in general. Corporate power still rules DC.
I wish I could just ignore politics totally and just live my life like most people but I can't.

[Th1onein]

37. Ditto here.

[MADem]

38. Well, you might as well just give up, then.

Or affiliate with one of those well meaning and ineffectual parties that usually end up taking enough votes from the imperfect Dem to ensure the election of the mendacious Republican.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Mojorabbit]

40. Please point me to where I insinuated I was going for a third party.

It is not looking for perfect to expect Democrats to act like Democrats. We have a platform. We are supposed to stand for certain things. No favors are done by resigning oneself to pisspoor governance because after all we can't have perfect so this is just fine. It isn't fine but I AM at a loss on what to do about it. Your post did not put forth any ideas except to accept mediocre governance. I just have to reject that.
Peace, Mojo

[MADem]

41. Democrats do act like Democrats. They just understand that their powers are limited

and they can't always get what they want. They do not have sufficient critical mass to always prosecute their agendas. They compromise. They go for what they can get, not what their hearts might desire.

The entire MA senate delegation voted AYE for that farm bill that cut SNAP benefits. That includes the (angelic music) sainted Elizabeth Warren (more angelic music) that some here are touting for the Presidency--even as they know next to nothing about her, save her positions on banking and Wall ST.

This doesn't mean that Cowan and Warren LIKE the idea of voting to cut food stamps, they just know it's the best they can do to jolly along the assholes over on the other side of the Hill. They don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

People here mistake pragmatism for "not acting like Democrats." If more people would get off their asses and vote in the off-years, maybe we'd be doing a bit better. But they stayed away in droves in 2010, and that didn't help us one bit.

We need to stay on a war footing against the GOP 24/7, 365. We need to push like hell and pick up seats, not cede them. We don't need a majority, we need a SUPER majority, because without it, we can't demand shit.

Unless and until we OWN both Houses, we won't have the luxury of demanding "the perfect." We're lucky if we can get a slice of "the good."

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. If you vote more, make them better Democrats, certainly more liberal....

Way to meany old Rockefeller Republicans (fiscal conservative Social liberal Imperial hawks) out there.
The problems we have are associated with a national security state necessary to continue as the #1 Imperial power in the world. Such power is corrosive to liberty.

[ProSense]

3. How do you

"But we've seen far too many democrats sell out and the big money that pervades our politics would still be there. And we're kind of numb to it. Look at how we tolerate Diane Feinstein who's a hot corporate mess. How the hell is it that Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of $35 million +? The total average net worth of members of Congress is just about $5 million. Members of the Senate are, unsurprisingly, worth quite a bit more than members of the House. But the fact is, the longer they're there, on average, the wealthier they get. And you have to ask why. "

...explain this:

Senate passes SNAP cuts on a bipartisan 66-27 vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987698

Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00145

It's just not that simple.

Alan Grayson has a net worth of more than $30 million. I don't think a person's wealth is indicative of his/her character. There are Republicans in Congress who are not nearly as wealthy, and they are despicable.

Actions speak louder than net worth.

[cali]

4. For every Grayson, there are several others who

are beholden to corporate money and influenced by it. As a body, there is just too much concentrated wealth in the U.S Congress. And going to Congress shouldn't be the ticket to wealth that it so often is.

[octoberlib]

7. You're right. It won't. We need campaign finance reform and restrictions on influence-peddling.

Dodd-Frank was introduced to protect the American public from another economic collapse. Democrats have been complicit in weakening it and delaying it's implementation at the behest of bank lobbyists.

[MADem]

20. You want the foxes to vote for greater henhouse security.

That's unlikely to happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. I gave up on the idea of (D) equals good after the '68 convention.

[Gregorian]

9. I think many of us feel this way now. I think this is why Chris Hedges promotes civil disobedience.

Even Martin Luther King Jr. was saying that if they don't refrain from making difficult for some to vote, they would have to take on more serious efforts.

I do not think our answers lie within the system anymore. I love Elizabeth Warren, but I am not thrilled with the prospect of her running, like I was with Obama. Now I know what the problem is.

Just like junk food, we have junk news. And corporate bs that people eat up.

People are looking for a leader. But the people ARE the leader.

There are so many things gone wrong in America. The road took a detour when JFK, RFk, MLK, Malcolm X were killed.

REAL health care, a watchdog (not a lapdog) press, massively decreased military spending, good education for all, everyone automatically registered to vote, election finance reform... Then we might start to turn things around.

A lazy and corrupt nation is just going to spiral until inevitably there is violence.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. It couldn't hoit... nt

[Cleita]

11. Well, if they think like Max Baucus, then they aren't on the side of the workers and

middle class and therefore will more often vote with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. They do nothing for us. I have had to do a hold my nose vote for DiFi over and over again because no one strong enough to beat her in the primaries has ran against her. Now no one does, so she's essentially a queen in that senate seat. I believe Nancy has a similar sweet deal.

We need instant runoff voting or something similar that puts all the candidates up there, let's you vote for three of them and let the best man win. At least you don't lose your vote to a third party candidate this way if you choose to vote for him above a second and third choice.

So many of these politicians have seats that they are assured of getting because they don't get any viable opposition. Gerrymandering has accomplished that. There would be no Michele Bachmann if Congressional districts were drawn geographically in approximate squares.

[leftstreet]

12. With the GOP at least we had an antiwar movement

Not to mention the initial citizen resistance to the bank bailouts

The Democrats have become the Prozac Party

[FarCenter]

13. "solve everything" is not an option -- there are always tradeoffs.

[KittyWampus]

14. You can't solve everything… at once. I'm an optimist & see a pendulum

swinging with hours progressing.

Youyou work with the system you have… or not.

[Scuba]

15. We need different Democrats, like Warren, Grayson, Ellison, Grijalva, and the two Tammy's.

[zbdent]

16. Won't solve everything, or even most things ... but it would do one thing ...

the "liberally-biased media" would be reporting on whatever "wrongs" the Representatives, Senators, or President does wayyy more than they do under Republicans.

Witness ... Snowden's rise to fame on what was going on constantly under Bush (or earlier) but under/unreported, and the fact that the 'baggers got, not a microphone, but a bullhorn to complain about how they were scrutinized, which was about the same, or even less, than liberal groups were scrutinized - even under "socialist commie uber-partisan Hussein Obama" ...

[Shankapotomus]

17. This thread makes me wonder how FDR

was so successful in his agenda?

Was it something that was unrepeatable or random?

Was it a response to the then trending political philosophy of socialism?

Or did it depend on the failure of Republican policies?

What if such good political trends are more evolutionary in nature and not entirely in our hands?

What if we can't gain political ground without a prerequisite mass sea-change in social and political ideas?

What if all we can do is get behind whatever are the most randomly dominant ideas that will unite the most of us against Republicans?

What if FDR was just riding a wave of a trend and wishing for the same trend to come back on cue just because we want it runs counter to political success in the here and now?

[MADem]

27. He was stinking rich and money begets money, first of all.

Second, there weren't all these pesky "rules" about campaign spending. Not much was illegal.

Third, he talked a great game--he used media like no one else. He inspired confidence, he came across as authoritative yet avuncular, poised and polished but not hoity toity. He hit all the right notes.

Everyone thinks FDR's presidency was a total success, but he had plenty of failures--they just don't dwell on them in the history books. Example: He tried to pack the Supreme Court in a massive way, that was a complete nonstarter, that! http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history/CourtPacking.cfm

[Shankapotomus]

43. Maybe the secret is to go for bold and extreme changes?

You don't get everything but you end up getting more than you expected, perhaps.

[MADem]

47. It only works if you have a majority in both houses and savvy vote counters like a Russell or an

LBJ running the show at the House or Senate leadership levels.

Without a grip on Congress, through a majority, or favors, or associations...or blackmail...you don't have a thing. Congress--NOT the President--makes law.

[Bonobo]

21. How could it unless...?

Without a dialog between Democrats to establish what we will accept, what we will demand with regards to our nation's actions and with regard to what we expect of its policies and direction, how in the hell would it make a difference?

Look at DU.

Democrats here are pretty well split between "We will vote for you no matter what you do since you will never be as bad as the Republicans" and "Please start doing what we ask for -we are your base"

However neither shows any sign of actually pulling the trigger and using their vote as a means of forcing the issue. No method of compulsion = no power.

Simply, with no power to threaten to withhold our votes, and not even a clear voice, I see ZERO chance that the powerful will respond to the pitiful voice of common folk -not when the voice of money is speaking so loudly while we squeak away.

[woo me with science]

22. The argument of "incremental progress" that we hear all the time is absurd.

We have seen alarming movement in the WRONG direction:

The record shows aggressive advocacy and implementation of a corporate agenda
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3152360

IMO one of the most important side effects of these spying revelations is the exposure, finally, of the collusion between the two corporate parties. Corporate Democrats are now siding brazenly with the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

They've been walking hand in hand all along.....but we only get to see them clinging together on *this* issue because the outrage across the country is finally bipartisan, and they can no longer hide behind their carefully propagandized Red and Blue Teams to pretend they are on opposite sides.

This is a critical lesson for Democrats about the lie we are constantly fed by the Third Way: that we must circle the partisan wagons and defend predatory corporate policies for fear of enabling the Other Party.

It turns out that the mindless partisanship and wagon circling are the means by which Americans are kept divided and unable to unite against the predatory corporate agenda.

Finally we have bipartisan outrage about something, and, for the first time, we have a real opportunity to force change.


"Courage is contagious."

[Rex]

23. That is the faith for some, I don't know if it is desperation or just

sheer stubbornness. I am stubborn enough to believe I can help turn Texas back into a blue state. It is a blind faith in some ways, but I do believe in my lifetime we will see a blue Texas again.

Zappaman said it right, you can vote for an independent but it will be a wasted vote. I hate the sound of that, but it is the inherent flaw in our system imo - 2 parties, 1 capitalism, indivisible, under the pyramid of the all seeing eye.

We hope that ideology will win out in the end over dogma.

Well some of us do.

[bluestate10]

28. When the extreme republican party is minimized to the point where it's candidates can't

win an election under any circumstances, I would be alright with democrats splitting into a Left-Center party and a Center-right party. I would prefer that the Left-Center party be overwhelmingly dominant in elections, but could live under leadership of the Center-right party. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, is as extreme as the modern republican party.

[bluestate10]

24. It won't solve everything. But it certainly will have us fighting forward instead of fighting

a slide back-wards, or as we have been since the Nader election of 2000, fighting to get back to where we were on many issues. I am a moderate, but when more progressive primary voters pick a progressive, I go all in for that person, even though there are many issues that I disagree with him or her on. For me the choice is a simple one, help elect the progressive, or spend hellish years in a rear guard fight against a republican. There are NO MORE republican liberals or moderates running for office, all that fit that mode have been chased out of that party. The modern republican party is a collection of extremists and racists, even the alleged "moderate" members of that party propose extreme measures for dealing with the environment, labor, women's rights, education and minority rights.

[dawg]

25. We don't need to elect *more* Democrats ...

we need to elect *different* Democrats. (Well, not in every case, but you know what I mean.)

[Apophis]

45. This.

[Savannahmann]

26. Cali, with a little practice, we could get a choir going.

So often I've noticed your writings are similar to my own. Yes, Democrats are barely better than the Republicans. But we are hardly good enough, as good as we were. As good as we should be. As centered on principle as we could be.

The problem is that we sacrificed principles for power. Getting the power was important, and we needed to focus upon that, but once we got it, we were lost, we didn't know what to do. We ran with the first thing that came to mind, the ACA. But even then, we weren't sure what we wanted it to be. We had no plan, and without the core principles to guide our party, we could not gain traction for months, months that the Rethugs beat up on us demanding answers to questions we had not considered.

We need to first, focus on finding our core principles. The things you must believe in your heart to be a Democrat. Equality, dignity, civil rights, and all the rest. The list could be long, but I bet it would be rather short. A collection of words that inspire the population.

Honesty, and integrity should be in there, because it is sadly lacking in our party now. Too many are selling out, voters, principles, and even the future for a little favorable consideration from the rich and shameless.

Again, I've got the song everybody knows running through my head. Perhaps, it is too late. Perhaps I'm merely a dreamer, and if I am I mourn the death of the dream.

[bluestate10]

31. No one is sacrificing principles for power. It irritates me to no end how people of your ilk

clothe themselves in the cause of ultimate purity when it comes to politics. I DON"T want republicans elected to office because it is fucking CLEAR to anyone with their eyes open that party is extreme off a fucking cliff and offers nothing good to the country. I won't EVER waste my vote on a third party candidate when the choice is between a democrats, even a nominal democrat, and a republican.

[Savannahmann]

36. OK, seriously

Where the fuck did you get the idea that I was in any way, shape, or form advocating for a third party. I talked about finding our core principles again, so that we can govern more wisely. I talked about, and it's a fairly common theme that I've posted before, returning to the principles that led to our greatest successes. You might remember them, from personal experience, or from history class, or from some TV show. We protested to end the Viet-Nam war. We protested and raised our voices because it was moral, and a core principle of the liberal democratic party to save lives, and stop pushing imperialism around the world.

We protested to end segregation, we protested and pushed and cajoled people to do lots of things. But oh no, we can't dare talk about principles because that leads to third parties? Are you kidding me? Power without principle is a sailboat without a keel. There is nothing to hold it on course, and it is merely blown around. All it can do is go wherever the wind blows, with no hope of any control of the direction. That my friend, is power without principle. That is what must be avoided at nearly any cost. Because when we sacrifice principle, those core values I mentioned, we end up floundering when we try to explain why we did something. It's easy to explain doing the right thing. It's far more difficult to justify doing something that is wrong. Right now, 45% of us think it is wrong to gather the cell phone meta data. Even more think it is wrong to gather email/web browsing information.

Principles, and core values are coming back to bite us in the ass. Because spying on your own citizens is not a core value you can defend.

[cantbeserious]

29. Thank You - Well Stated - The Reach And Influence Of The Oligarchs And Corporations Is Mind Numbing

eom

[1-Old-Man]

30. If we only vote for "Democrats" because Republicans are worse we are in deep shit

Because governance should never be a choice of the lessor evil, as it is there are very few Democrats at the national level who are distinguishable from their Republican counterparts. As far as I can see both Dwight Eisenhower an Richard Nixon acted more like Democrats than the last couple of Democrats we've put in the White House.

[bluestate10]

32. So, the solution is???? nt

[DCBob]

33. Its naive to think we will ever "solve everything".

Real progress is often slow, tedious and incremental.. and voting in Democrats is the only way to accomplish that in the current political environment.

[steelmania75]

34. What needs to be done is to pass a constitutional amendment removing Corporate money from politics

Until that is done, everything else is useless. The interests of the people will always be clouded out by the interests of the those who have the money, power, and influence.

[Bonobo]

39. I'll try again to see if anyone can answer this:

If your vote has already been assumed and taken for granted (namely whoever the person with the D is) than precisely what mechanism do you think is in play that would influence a politician to do something for you other than pure altruism?

There is a choice between an unknown lion and an unknown horse. We have to get to our destination. But we have no spurs, no bit, no bridle.

Am I missing something? Is it all about just hoping the horse will be going in the direction we want?

Where is the influence if the votes are already counted?

[DCBob]

42. Good question..

I think many just want the whole fking system to come crashing down and hope the new one out of the ashes is better. Also many are just uncompromising in their liberal ideology.. if its wrong its wrong to them.. no matter who is doing it and no matter what the consequences. Both of those notions are naïve and wont solve anything in my opinion and will just make matters worse.. much worse.

[allin99]

44. People have to take action other than voting...

i posted a list and barely anyone had an idea or mentioned things they're doing (i can only assume they're not?) it's like come ON people. DO SOMETHING. So frustrating.

[RILib]

46. Nancy Pelosi is a fine Democrat

I wish she were running the House or running the Senate or President. Having a bundle of money does not make you bad.