Any other Democrats feel this way?

[MrBenchley]

In the last few months it seems like there have been umpty-ump posts by Greens and Libertarians telling us what's wrong with the Democrats--which is like being lectured on proper theatre etiquette by PeeWee Herman.

If either group really knew a fucking thing about "what Americans want," their own parties wouldn't be such tiny moribund specks.

The Greens basically have only had success as a Republican dirty trick.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

And Libertarianism is basically sophistry in defense of selfish greed and right wing horseshit. It's major spokespeople are Neal Boortz, John Stossel and Matt Drudge. (And let's not even get into the small "L"/big "L" debate...far as I'm concerned, libertarianism is the province of big A's.)

I got no problem with them getting on the Democratic bus....but I'm damned if I'm going to let them grab the steering wheel from actual Democrats.

[mike_c]

1. flame bait....

:popcorn:

[MrBenchley]

4. Why?

It's not flame bait to point out the shortcomings of the Republican party...and they're vastly more successful among American voters than either of these two insignificant parties.

[ProudDad]

161. Too true

too true

[Demit]

2. The article you link to is from mid-2004. Got anything newer?

If I recall, the Greens are the ones who pushed for recounts in the Presidential election last year. We have a lot in common. And a lot of Dems own up to having "small-l" libertarian tendencies--and I'm one who feels there's nothing wrong with that. So I guess I don't feel your way. I think there's plenty of room on the bus, and that worrying about who's trying to grab the steering wheel will result in us never getting where we need to go.

[MrBenchley]

3. Why would you need something newer?

It's not like the Green Party has been doing anything but bitching about the Democrats since mid-2004....

[Demit]

38. The Green Party filed for a recount of presidential ballots cast in Ohio

New Mexico, and Nevada in November 2004, alongside of the Libertarian Party. That gives the lie to your breezy assertion that all they do is bitch about Dems.

Look, don't want to interrupt the riff you've got going here, and I hold no special brief for either party, but the rant would be more interesting if you included some actual facts in it.

[MrBenchley]

40. And as a result

any questions about the election results were relegated to the lunatic fringe almost immediately. And you might note that neither of those two parties were even close to winning anything in those states. Ever ask yourself where they got the money to file those lawsuits?

If I wanted to discredit legitimate criticism, the best way I could think to do so would be to find disreputable crackpots to make a public stink immediately, ensuring most people would pay no attention....

"the rant would be more interesting if you included some actual facts in it"
Now one of us linked to the article about the Greens being funded by the GOP as a dirty trick....and it wasn't YOU.

[Demit]

47. They got a lot of the money from a lot of Democratic small contributions

That's no secret. It demonstrated that we all identified the same worthy goal, and pitched in in the hope of achieving it. Did that make whoever contributed disreputable crackpots? Should we not have sent in our money, then, for fear of being called names by whoever was doing the name-calling (the press, presumably)?

If the Democratic leadership had stepped up to the recount-demanding plate, I daresay we would've immediately diverted our small checks to them. But they didn't. I daresay it was the Democratic leadership who was afraid of being called names. Not exactly a profile in courage there.

Yes, the one who linked to the article was you (lowercase) to prove that the Greens are bad because they are not successful (their only success coming from a GOP dirty trick, I think is how you put it). There is no room in your premise for factoring in what an insurmountable hurdle the American two-party system is. Go ahead, get back to your invective-hurling, it's probably being very therapeutic in some way for you today.

[MrBenchley]

56. Uh-HUH

I believe that....thousands wouldn't.

"Did that make whoever contributed disreputable crackpots?"
Hey, if you want to fund disreputable crackpots, you deserve what you get.

"I daresay it was the Democratic leadership who was afraid of being called names."
Say what you like. The plain fact is that it's irresponsible to make charges without evidence...and that by jumping in as they did, those two bunches of loonies pretty much discredited the issue with most Americans.

"There is no room in your premise for factoring in what an insurmountable hurdle the American two-party system is."
So that gives the members of unsuccessful third parties a free pass to fuck with successful parties? Not hardly.

[cmd]

5. Too many drivers - only one bus

We have a problem when everyone wants to drive. That's why we get nowhere.

[Frances]

7. Good point

When Democrats criticize Lieberman, I agree totally because they would like to replace Lieberman with another Democrat.

But when Greens or Libertarians criticize Lieberman, I get upset because I think their efforts will enable a Republican to replace Lieberman.

I don't mind Dems criticizing Dems because I think they want to make a stronger Dem party. But when Greens or Libertarians criticize Dems, I think that they want to help their own parties, which, practically speaking, just means helping Republicans.

[MrBenchley]

9. Exactly so!

Good post!

[MADem]

108. Fewer drivers, more people peddling to keep the bus moving,

that's what I say!!!!

[kikiek]

6. I think compromise is the only way this country will survive. We have to

pick our battles even though we want it all our way. This administration and the Clinton years has proven this to me (Clinton having used compromise and been a successful president). Total control and driving home your own agenda alienates and divides the country. The party decides the issue and they all vote accordingly and usually in a manner to ensure their reelection using the corporate interests. We have lost our democracy, and those in control think that is just fine!

[MrBenchley]

8. I don't see any sign that Greens and Llibertarians want to compromise

in the slightest....

[kikiek]

10. I do worry about that too.I am hoping most do or we are all in trouble.

[MrBenchley]

12. What touched this thread off

was a post by a Greenie yesterday in which he actually said out loud that "for the good of the country," the Democrats should become a third party.....

And then he hid behind "Oh, I'm a progressive so I ought to be welcome here."

[kikiek]

13. I think it is something that needs discussing rationally. Thanks for

having the courage to bring it up.

[MrBenchley]

17. Thank you....

I'm proud of being a Democrat. I'm proud of almost all of my fellow Democrats.

The idea that the party platform has to be altered and revised to accommodate a bunch of yobbos whose own incompetent and corrupt parties can't get off the ground is repugnant to me.

[radio4progressives]

273. So what does it mean to be a Proud Democrat? Kind of like being a Proud

Amerikan?

[MrBenchley]

296. You mean YOU DON'T KNOW?

If you're ashamed of the Democrats, kid, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[zanne]

21. That's what alot of Libertarian posters say here.

Oh, I'm not "one of those" Libertarians--I'm a Liberal! Want to see them come out of the woodwork and start foaming at the mouth? Suggest, in a post, that they get their own website. WOW! Fireworks!

[MrBenchley]

24. It always makes me laugh when they solemnly accuse me of being

an "Authoritarian."

Yeah, I'm one of those big government liberals that Rush Limbaugh is always foaming at the mouth over....and proud of it. Have been since the 1960s, and see no reason to change since.

I'm all for gun control, affirmative action, environmental regulations, securities and exchange regulations, business regulations and all that other "authoritarian" stuff libertarians want to toss out.

[PassingFair]

104. Yeah, right! 'Cause YOUR an ACTUAL democrat!

"but I'm damned if I'm going to let them grab the steering wheel from actual Democrats."

Who died and made YOU the bus driver? Let go of the steering wheel, it's NOT YOURS.

...and you're steering it into the ditch.

[MrBenchley]

177. Yeah, I am.

Far as I'm concerned the libertarians can go screw themselves.

"you're steering it into the ditch"
And that's why we see so many millions of voters streaming to the Green and Libertarian parties--sorry, can't even type that without cracking up.

By the way, if we're going into the ditch, how come those folks are over HERE? Why aren't they cruising down the center lane in their own fine parties?

Answer: It's the Republicans who are in the ditch....

[PassingFair]

216. If the pukes are heading for the ditch, they're driving their own bus

...It's not because of our great DLC "strategists". When their bus DOES come to a stop, it'll be right beside the losing strategy of the corporatist dems.

[Joe Chi Minh]

218. Sterling stuff, MrBenchley. And some great posts in support, too.

Mustn't raise your voice though, or speak disparagingly about at best negative and equivocal posts, and at worst, reactionary redneck posts on this Democratic HQ.

But let them feel free to lambaste Kerry and Dean, of course....! (Sarcasm). Seriously, though, a great thread. We see too many of their whingeing fifth-column threads.

[MrBenchley]

248. Thank you!

Don't miss the guy down below who's pimping for Newt Gingrich and the Contract on America.

[ProudDad]

143. We Greens

are also for gun control, affirmative action, Environmental Regulations, Business Regulations, actual Campaign Finance Reform, Instant Run-off Voting, Proportional Representation, etc.

What's your problem?

[MrBenchley]

178. Fine....

So how's your own party doing?

[Tarc]

15. Unless they want to hear "President Frist" or President Jeb"...

...in 2008, they damn well better learn. Some people just need too realize that no viable candidate for office is going to meet your every wish, whim, and desire and agree with you on 100% of your positions.

I didn't like Kerry's attempt to straddle both sides of the gay marriage issue, loathed the fact that he voted to authorize Bush's war, cringed when he did the "voted for it before I voted against it" wimpiness, and practically screamed for him to quickly and forcefully denounce the Swifty liars. But I agreed with him on many other issues and areas, where Bush came up at a big fat ZERO, so the choice was clear.

And anyone that can sit here and still regurgitate Nader's 2000-era "there'd be no difference between a Gore administration and a Bush administration" with a straight face quite honestly doesn't have a brain in their head.

[MrBenchley]

20. Agreed....

Well put.

I've had my fill of hearing people on DU recycle freeper slurs against Democrats.

I've had my fill of seeing people on DU post hate-filled caricatures of Democrats.

I've had my fill of hearing people on DU hint that Democrats are part of the Abramoff scandal, or hint that Democrats are corrupt, or babble idiocy about "corrupt party bosses". Especially since they retreat into silence or pout and posture when asked for evidence.

[havocmom]

26. That ol compromise thing again. Ideology is good, except when

it gets in the way of life in the real world of politics. Compromise is required on some things in order to achieve others. When ideologues can't accept that fact of life, their cause will be lost in the long run.

Issues have to be prioritized. Some are much more critical NOW and some can wait just a bit. Some, less critical issues can stand a bit of compromise in order to pull the more critical issues through.

Small children might believe they can have everything their way NOW, but most grow out of that delusion.

We do have to insure the DEMS running have priorities set and have given some serious thought to what they will give to achieve success on critical issues and what not to compromise on. They need to understand where to draw the line and how to HOLD the line.

Progress in steps. Some just don't understand that concept.

The GOP has understood it and their patient work has paid off for them. They did not get the country in the mess it is in overnight. They worked for decades, building on small successes until they have made a fortress for their corporate masters. We won't fix it in one election cycle. Hell, we won't fix it in what's left of some of our lifetimes. But we work on building a foundation of successful changes and go from there.

[MrBenchley]

34. Well said....(n/t)

[TheWraith]

235. Very, very well put.

I've been trying to tell this same thing to the suicide doves for some time, but the usual response is "There can be no compromise on war crimes! War crimes! Imperialism! Illegal war! NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" They never understand the fact that politics is the slow cutting of a very hard board, which is why they never get anywhere.

Many of the Greens are simply suicidal, and live in this fantasy-land where shouting slogans and standing in front of an oncoming train magically turns into victory.

For my money, there's nothing wrong with some kinds of libertarianism or libertarian tendancies. I don't think that we can or should protect everyone from themselves all the time. But where libertarianism becomes really suspect is the middle-class and particularly upper-class people where their "libertarianism" is a cover for complaining about taxes and justifying discrimination against the lower classes. Middle-aged, middle-income guys bitching about having to pay taxes and how they don't need anything from the government--never mind the postal service, the roads, the schools, the water, and other little things like law and order. Or the rich people talking about how all the government does is steal their hard-earned money and give it to the lazy, all the while ignoring how the government basically maintains their position in life by guaranteeing their businesses, preventing the poor from stealing what the rich have, and providing the trade conditions to create wealth. That's where "libertarianism" becomes exactly as false as the "free market" line pushed by conservatives--just one more scam to make the pillaging of the working class sound a little more appealing, whereas a real "free market" or libertarian paradise would fast result in the downfall of the wealthy.

[CBHagman]

70. And we have to form alliances, not conduct purges.

It boggles the mind to read postings that propose "purging" a particular member or bloc in the Democratic Party. You win elections by creating a plurality, and if that requires crossover voters and the like, so be it.

You get legislation through by winning support.

The problem I have with many posters, affiliated with any party or no party, is that they're expending a lot of energy making a list of all the people they want to get rid of. I hate to put it in such crass terms, but that's the way it is.

Now imagine if such operations were conducted against, say, FDR, LBJ, or Harry Truman. Do you think any of those men would rise to the level of ideological purity required? Not bloody likely.

[dionysus]

122. i agree with the exception of ppl like lieberman

hillary, for example, is my senator. I don't like her war vote, but i can deal with it. Joementum has kissed so much GOP ass and been such a fake dem, despite the liberalism of his youth, he needs to go

[Stand and Fight]

230. I agree with you about most of this.

Joe Lieberman comes to mind as one who does need to get the hell out of political office. He can stay a Democrat, but it is sad that he is one and elected to office. As the first poster who responded to you said, he has forgotten the liberalism that defined his youth.

[onehandle]

11. I agree. If they are actually Greens and Libertarians.

Those groups are infamous for showing up when Democrats are showing strength. They only have voice through others.

I also must remind everyone that paid GOP operatives were active in Green forums in 2000 where they encouraged "fellow Greens" not to bolt from Nader. Online interference will become more widespread as the Internet gains strength.

[MrBenchley]

14. It sure seems to me

that whenever the Republicans get in trouble, DU sprouts with "I hate this or that Democrat" threads, with "we gotta getta gun and shoot it out with freepers" threads, and with "Democrats are just as crooked as Republicans" threads.

[onehandle]

16. Yeah. Funny that. nt.

[zanne]

23. I totally agree with you.

Post counts don't matter, either. Alot of them have posts that are 1,000+.

[Joe Chi Minh]

219. Agreed.

[AndyTiedye]

18. I Was Hoping the Libertarians Would Split the Republicans

instead of joining them.

The Republicans are the worst of both worlds -- want strict government
control over everybody's private life, and none at all over business.

I don't see how Ron Paul can stand having an (R) after his name
when that party is sending us lurching towards theocracy.

[MrBenchley]

22. Ron Paul might be the looniest right winger in Congress

Name anything that occurred since the 1800's that could be counted as human progress and he's against it.

Birth control? Ron Paul hates it.
The UN? Ron Paul hates it.
Environmental laws? Ron Paul hates them.
Regulated banking? Ron Paul hates it.
The Census? Ron Paul hates it.
Worker's rights? Ron Paul hates them.

[bvar22]

85. The Patriot Act?

Ron Paul hates it.

Invading and Occupying countries that pose no threat to us?
Ron Paul hates it.

Selling American Jobs to the lowest bidder?
Ron Paul hates it.

[MrBenchley]

180. BFD....Ron's a fucking right wing screwloose.

He's so far to the right even most Republicans steer clear. He can go screw himself.

[bvar22]

222. But it DOES totally invalidate your post #22

and leaves you blindly groping for unsupported hyperbolic invective, kind of like your whole thread.

It IS time for someone else to "Steer the Bus". The current driver has put the Democratic Party in the ditch!

[MrBenchley]

251. It does NO SUCH THING

Ron Paul is a right wing piece of shit. He can go fuck himself.

"The current driver has put the Democratic Party in the ditch!"
Bullshit. If that were true, the Greens and Llibertarians wouldn't be over here.

[NoFederales]

19. All of us who ain't Dems have shit for brains--your message?

"In the last few months it seems like there have been umpty-ump posts by Greens and Libertarians telling us what's wrong with the Democrats...."

"It's not flame bait to point out the shortcomings of the Republican party."

If you are threatened by PeeWee, well, what's left to say?

"Moribund specks" will 'peter out' won't they, so lay off, maybe we'll all freeze this winter, too.

NoFederales

[MrBenchley]

25. No, it's not MY message....

"If you are threatened by PeeWee, well, what's left to say?"
Other than to point out how grotesquely you distorted the metaphor?

[dionysus]

124. if it comes to it, you're a non-dem on a dem board trashing dems

what's your goal?

[Zhade]

232. You know, "trashing" (or, legitimate criticism) of SOME Dems is not ALL.

If anyone thinks anyone here, Dem or not, has to refrain from ever criticizing any Dem, they're nuts. I mean, hell, I've seen many moderators get pissed at some Dems, so if the idea is to enforce a policy of non-critical praise of all that Dems do, good luck - it's never going to happen, and rightfully so.

(Not that I think you're asking for such a policy.)

[welshTerrier2]

27. illogical argument

criticizing Greens, Libertarians or any other party does not address the issue of whether criticisms made about Democrats are or are not legitimate ...

[MrBenchley]

30. Especially when the criticism of Democrats

is groundless, dishonest and childishly silly....

[welshTerrier2]

35. if your point is that any criticisms of Democrats

made by Greens, Libertarians or any other party is, by definition, groundless, dishonest and childishly silly, i would respectfully disagree with you ...

in fact, the whole point of this thread is nothing but whining ... if members of other parties make poor arguments, debate them on the merits ... claiming their points are without merit merely because of their political affiliation is nothing more than name-calling ...

[MrBenchley]

37. Guess that's more of that "logic"

Sure glad I don't have any of whatever that is.

"if members of other parties make poor arguments, debate them on the merits ... "
Feel free to trot one out then, because I sure as shit have seen them elsewhere and debated ithe groundless, dishonest and childishly silly crap there.

"merely because of their political affiliation"
Say, what was the name of this place again? MeritocracyUnderground? Letspretendwe'reVulcans?

[welshTerrier2]

39. "MeritocracyUnderground?"

as long as you've acknowledged that you see no requirement to debate the issues on their merit and you believe that merely being a Democrat makes you right, then we both understand where you're coming from ...

i'm pleased we've come to this understanding ... i hope you are as well ...

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pansypoo53219]

28. the problem is

the democrats aren't acting like democrats, but middlecrats and retardican lite. which is what the greens are teling us.

[MrBenchley]

31. Tough titty....

Let the Greens go off and peddle their own crap on GreenUnderground then.....

[lostnfound]

168. Who the heck are you talking about? People REGISTERED as greens?

Is there even such a thing?
Or are you talking about people who voted green at one time in one election? Hey, I live in Texas, and I've had the chance to vote in some races where it was Green vs Republican -- no Democrat running. No chance of a Green winning here either, but at least I had a chance to support someone with liberal progressive politics.

Obviously people trying to build a Green party at the expense of the Democrats are a problem for we Democrats. That one post you mentioned may be a good example.

However: I bet the overwhelming majority of the critical comments that you have read that have sounded like "Greens" to you were merely green Democrats trying to move their OWN party in a more 'green' direction. And insulting those green Democrats is a great way to push them away and perhaps turn them into the type of person trying to build a Green party.

[MrBenchley]

175. Yup, it's an utter mystery

Clearly all the wailing on this thread is being done by folks who have no idea what's being referred to.....

[lostnfound]

227. Really, I'm asking a serious question.

Mr. Benchley,

Are you are only referring to
1) people who are active Green-party organizers or consistent Green-voters (and who also come here to criticize right flank of our party and want it to move left-ward or green-ward)

OR

2) people who occasionally vote Green in specific races (such as local races or in states that are not anywhere close to being swing states) (and who also criticize the right flank of our party and want it to move left-ward or green-ward)

OR

3) people who are registered Democrats and always vote Democratic but who criticize the right flank of our party and want it to move left-ward or green-ward

There's a very wide gamut of people who identify with green politics, or who see it as shorthand verbiage for 'I wish our Democrats would be more consistent in their environmental or peace-oriented positions.'

Are you saying you have a problem with types 2 or 3, or is it really only type 1 that you are focused on?

I know there were a couple of threads that aggravated you but perhaps I've misunderstood your posts as being more general than they really were.

[lostnfound]

169. And what about left-wing registered Democrats?

Do you want them to leave too? Surely you don't want them to leave to go to GreenUnderground - do you?

[MrBenchley]

176. Hahahahaha.....

"Surely you don't want them to leave to go to GreenUnderground - do you?"
Say, do you wonder why they couldn't if they wanted to?

[Andromeda]

153. Says you?

Tell me, are you a green--an independent, what?

By the way, I don't care what "greens" are saying. IF they think their opinions are so important they should have their own website.

This is DemocraticUnderground and during the primaries DU has had a standing rule that we are not to bad mouth the Democratic party and we are to be civil to each other when we debate the candidates.

It got pretty bloody here in 2002 and I would hate to see a repeat of it.

[mmonk]

29. They have no influence because our system

denies them real ballot access or a real public platform. It doesn't mean they are wrong.

[MrBenchley]

32. And the dog ate their homework....

"It doesn't mean they are wrong."
Nor does it mean they're right. But if they weren't wrong, they wouldn't have to sneak over here to piss on Democrats, would they? They could start their own GreenUnderground or LibertarianUnderground....

[mmonk]

41. I gather you don't believe in constructive criticism

of our political entity?

[MrBenchley]

43. From who?

People whose OWN parties are jokes?

I sure don't see a speck of "constructive" in the criticism I see from Greens and Llibertarians....

[radio4progressives]

275. Gee - Please identify these Greens that are coming over and pissing on you

and your territory.

please identify. be specific.

[MrBenchley]

292. If you don't know, then what's it to you?

[Norquist Nemesis]

33. Thank You!, MrBenchley

I agree with you 100%. It seems to me that they are for Democrats what the Religious Right is to Republicans.

While both major parties need their extremes that keep them in-check, being controlled by the edge only brings a majority of ALL people looking elsewhere. Most people accept that they aren't going to get 100% of what they want. That's life. Most also understand that negotiation means to get your highest priorities, you give up your lowest priorities then working them into the next round. It's not a perfect world.

[MrBenchley]

36. Thank you....

One difference, though...for the most part the Religious Right actually are declaring themselves Republicans and keeping their adherents in the fold. You don't see folks like James Dobson even mentioning Republican wrongdoing to his flock.

Our fringe tries to drag Democrats away from the Party, and when they can't find Democratic wrongdoing, THEY MAKE IT UP.
(How many threads and posts are there on DU in the past week trying to pretend this or that Democrat, or Democrats in general, are part of the Abramoff scandal? I've seen way too many.)

[Norquist Nemesis]

44. The Religious Right IS the Republican Party

Which is why they don't need to whack their minions. Any that step outside the line simply don't get mentioned in their world. The message is, "If you want to get noticed and garner our support, speak the talking points."

As to our fringe, I've been away for a few days over the holiday and not able to keep up so I'm not sure what posts you're referring to. I have no doubt that we have highcount posters who unwittingly (and some definitely knowingly) have the intent of DNC reform to the point of being unrecognizable. I can understand their frustration. But I have to say that if I were standing in their shoes, I'd be working hard toward building a viable third party. Working to destroy a party that can provide clout for your vote seems like a waste of time; once you've accomplished it's destruction, you have nothing.

[MrBenchley]

45. There's also the Halliburton wing of the GOP

"But I have to say that if I were standing in their shoes, I'd be working hard toward building a viable third party"
They seem to have very little interest in doing so....

[mmonk]

46. I happen to believe

our democracy is in trouble with "new" old ideas such as pre-emptive war and a security state that drops some constitutional protections. I also don't believe in "up or down votes" for radicals in robes since that isn't the way things have been done in America. I think there are plenty in our party that are compromising those priniciples and I welcome both internal and external criticism on these issues. I also think if we compromise and blend with the republicans on these issues, democracy in this country isn't being served.

[MadHound]

48. Another day, another good laugh, thanks!

First off, you are mistakenly linking the Nader '04 campaign with the Greens. Read up friend, the Greens ran Cobb in '04, Nader ran on his own.

Second, if the Democratic party was as problem free as you imply, why have we lost the last two major election cycles?

Third, if the votes are there, anybody "getting on the Democratic bus" has the opportunity to grab the steering wheel, that's how we've wound up with a bunch of corporate so-called Dems calling the shots from the DLC. That is the triumph and danger of living in a Democracy friend, so I guess you simply will have to live with that possibility.

And finally, if you don't like these sorts of posts, if these kind of threads drive up the ol' blood pressure, why in the hell do you click on them? And besides, who appointed you guardian of what is or is not proper fare for these forums? That is a job for the mods and admins and you are neither.

[MrBenchley]

57. Hahahahaha....

Yeah? How'd that Cobb bandwagon do? Nader was sure identified often as the Green candidate.

"why have we lost the last two major election cycles? "
Clearly, because we don't poander to crackpots enough </sarcasm>....

"if the votes are there, anybody "getting on the Democratic bus" has the opportunity to grab the steering wheel"
How many votes did the Greens and Libertarians get all put together, pray tell?

"who appointed you guardian of what is or is not proper fare for these forums"
The same person who appointed YOU.

[hiley]

89. wonder how many votes could be lost

by attitudes like this?

[lostnfound]

170. ah, the question that won't get answered.

:thumbsup:

[MrBenchley]

182. Why not?

If there were a significant number of voters to be had by either bunch of crackpots, they'd already have 'em.

But then they wouldn't have to be hanging out at DEMOCRATICUndergorund running down DEMOCRATS, would they?

[Selatius]

247. Problem is the Democrats need to energize not just the base but...

the middle. A solidly working class platform is what the Democrats, in my view, have been drifting away from. It should make one think why so many hard-working Americans have voted for Republicans, even though they're historically seen as being pro-corporate and anti-union.

A message that is acceptable not just to the left but also the middle. This is how somebody like LBJ or FDR got so far on social programs in this country. We're the only industrialized nation that doesn't even have a universal health care system, for instance.

I voted for Kerry in 2004 because he was a war veteran, somebody who knew the shit going down in Iraq, but I live in Mississippi, a safe state. The electoral college votes were going to go to Bush anyway, so in frank truth, I could've voted for either Cobb or Kerry, and it wouldn't have affected the outcome, since it's the EC votes that count, not the individual votes. If I were living in Florida or Ohio, I would've still voted Kerry, but the reality of the Electoral College would say that I really have no one else but Kerry. Otherwise, I'd splinter the vote. Not true with safe states.

That's the nature of first-past-the-post voting systems go, which is why I'm a pusher of IRV. (Instant Run-off Voting)

[MrBenchley]

263. Hahahaha...

Now who in the wild world of sports thinks the Llibertarians or Greens are even within hailing distance of the "middle"?

[Selatius]

270. As far as I know, Greens are nowhere a majority party

Of course, the point isn't about them being in the middle (forget about Greens and Libs for the purpose of this post) but about a message and a platform that reaches not just Democrats but also moderates in the middle, and Democrats have failed to reach the middle either because their message is too mild to cause a reaction, or Democrats have relied too much on corporate special interest money typified by the fund-raising efforts of people like McAuliffe that ordinary voters are feeling detached.

Until Democrats once again reach a point that it reached in the past where it appealed not just to solidly leftwing voters but also moderate voters, third parties will only continue to nibble away at the edges until everybody (by that I mean both the middle and left) are satisfied enough with what Democrats have to offer to vote "D." What's needed is another powerful uniter like FDR.

Of course, the argument that Democrats are simply doing what they've always done is trotted out on DU often, but then that would be an admittal that candidates who have historically had big money backing them have statistically better chances of winning office than those who appeal to a poorer constituency because of better ability to build name recognition and image over the opponent, and it ignores a time when Democrats were more popular than they are today with voters in general, and I don't think such a status quo seen today with the special interest money is healthy for a party that is supposed to represent the working man.

[MrBenchley]

285. Far as I know, they don't amount to jackshit anywhere

"Of course, the point isn't about them being in the middle"
Of course it is....if their message was something voters in the middle want to hear, they'd have seized the middle long ago.

"Until Democrats once again reach a point that it reached in the past where it appealed not just to solidly leftwing voters but also moderate voters"
No shit? Then what's the best way to do that? Gallop to the extreme left? Or stay in the center?

"Democrats have relied too much on corporate special interest money typified by the fund-raising efforts of people like McAuliffe that ordinary voters are feeling detached"
Really? I yet to see many moderate Democrats pissing and moaning about McAuliffe or the DLC or the DCCC or the DSCC. All the uproar I hear is from the "teen progressive" wing, who are screaming for "purity" and singling out people to "purge"....and I wonder aloud again how many are actually Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

174. Probably none....

I mostly see Greens and Libertarians stomping around demanding that the party change to embrace their crackpot ideas or else they'll not vote at all.

[hiley]

208. seems like you are trying to run people over to the green or

libertarian party with your own little purging.
using an extremely broad brush
excluding people who don't meet with your approval
calling names like crackpots
next you might say they are not "Amerikan" enough

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hiley]

228. so say you don't care for Joe Liberman and would not support him,

does this mean you hate Democrats?
It is so nice that all of this is an amusement to you.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/30.html#a6119

[MrBenchley]

243. Do you live in Connecticut?

[hiley]

252. does not matter where I live

:shrug: where I live is not any of your concern.

[MrBenchley]

261. The fuck it doesn't....

[hiley]

272. No

it does not matter to you where I live.
You avoided the question anyhow, Joe Liberman was just one example are not a true dem if you do not support Reed?
Who gets to decide, you?

[MrBenchley]

286. Sure as shit does

He's Connecticut's Senator...it the Connecticut Democrats don't like him, they'd vote him out. But in fact, he's pretty popular there.

[Sparkly]

49. Gloria Steinem on Ralph Nader

This is from 2000, but much of it still applies, imo. I'm not sure how much of it I'm allowed to post, so I'll select just a few of her reasons -- ones that are pertinent in general, beyond Nader.

TOP TEN REASONS WHY I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)

by Gloria Steinem President, Voters For Choice
(snip)
9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.
(snip)
6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by voting for one man who will never become President.
(snip)
3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.

http://www.designcommunity.com/law/notes/21.html

She also said, "Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us."

[MrBenchley]

58. Good one....

"Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us."
According to the Llibertarians, those folks are on their own....tough luck if they get run down....

[Jai4WKC08]

50. I'm of two minds on the Greens

And other far-left non-Democrats.

In a real-world sense, they totally piss me off. Many of them actually want Republicans to stay in power, because they think the whole system has to collapse before the change they want can take place. They think that continued Republican rule will make things worse and worse until the US will go the way of the Roman empire and something new springs up from the ashes. Or "the people" will rise up if things get bad enough... as if the average American wants anything remotely like what the Greens et al represent--we're far more likely to get a fascist dictatorship led by some KKK demogogue. I suppose they think we have that already.

But in my more philosophical moods, I realize that it's necessary to have extremists, on both sides of the spectrum, and not necessarily ones friendly to our purposes or contributing to our organizational goals. They keep the political system and our dialogue about it vital and "honest" (yes, even when they lie). And very little real change comes from those of us who buy into the system and acquiesce to the status quo. It usually takes the radicals to introduce completely new ideas and the rest of us to make those ideas practical enough to implement.

But while I support the far-left having a place at the political table, I don't know that they need to be here at DU. If this place is an instrument to build Democratic strength (and that may be an optimistic view of DU's role), with so many important "right now" issues and elections confronting us, they may do more to undermine us than we can really afford.

Edit for silly typo.

[MrBenchley]

59. Right on the money....

"they think the whole system has to collapse before the change they want can take place"
It's not uncommon to hear them say THAT out loud....

[Zhade]

64. What "far-left" policies do Greens support?

NT!

[MrBenchley]

65. You mean you don't know?

Oughtn't you to find out before jumping in?

[Zhade]

233. I know what the Greens support.

Those policies are not "far left". So thanks, but I'm already informed.

[Jai4WKC08]

66. The issue raised by the OP is not policy

It's about tactics and objectives, and what's good for the Democratic Party.

Do Greens and the others criticize the party or our leadership with an intent to improve us? Or do they do it to undermine? And regardless of individual intent, what it the effect of their attack? Does it do us more harm than good, and thus strengthen the GOP instead? More times than not, I would say that's the case.

Or maybe I misunderstand your simplistic post. Are you trying to say that the Green party is not farther to the left than mainstream or progressive Democrats (which I happen to think are pretty much the same)?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that when the Green party formed, they weren't particularly leftist but placed a much higher priority on environmental issues than did the Democratic Party (hence the name "Green"). I may be confused because I was living in Germany when I first heard of a Green Party, and perhaps ours is different than theirs. But whichever is correct historically, seems to me they've lost that orientation and have become only the largest of the "third" parties to the left of the Democratic Party. I don't even see Greens getting all that excited about protecting the environment any more, which is sad. Oh sure, it's in their platforms and such, but it's in ours too. And we have a better record of actually accomplishing anything to protect it, inadequate as that record may be.

[Sam_Lowry]

123. Genau!

When the green movement began, it was indeed founded squarely in the environmental movement. And in coalition with the SPD they helped many environmental laws pass in Germany. It is a shame that we have the winner-take-all electoral system. I like the fact that in Germany the percentage of votes=percentage of seats in the Bundestag. If that were the case here, the dems and greens would be able to work together, instead of sniping each other over the prize they both deserve. :(
But to say that the democrats have a better record at actually accomplishing environmental goals is deceptive. Can you name any green senator? Governor? President? Would not the greens need to have been in actual positions of power in this country for their legislative record to be scrutinized?
I am very favorable to the green platform, in part because it places such emphasis on ecological sustainability. I thrive on the process of argument, and I would have the ability to disagree and come to common ground exist as long as possible. :)
I think what bothers many who would be dems, and want so badly to support them, is that the political compass has moved so far to the right, that the green party is seen as the democratic party of old. That the positions and votes of dems like Lieberman and Clinton are those that dems in the 80s would have fought tooth and nail against. My own answer to why I would criticize is that I would have the democrats develop the strategies that key into those populist feelings that gave rise to the greens in the first place: Clean air and water, preserving the beauty and bounty of the earth for those generations to follow, peace, justice. I think such rhetoric, along with the big party muscle of money and organization that the dems posess, is political gold. When a Lieberman or Clinton says these things, but votes against them, it does damage to the image of the party as a whole.
Tut mir leid, that's rambling a bit (ok, more than a bit....), but I hope that helps answer your question.

Frieden
:hippie:

[Jai4WKC08]

229. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be deceptive

And I thank you for answering my question.

But when I said the Democrats have a better record, I was precisely refering to the fact that only the Democrats have the opportunity to have a record at all. And fwiw, I wasn't talking about a voting record, but (I think I said) a record of accomplishment. You can't accomplish anything if you can't get elected; and Greens, as you correctly point out, have elected no governors, senators etc. and our winner take all system precludes them from any realistic chance of winning a national election.

But dammit, that's the way things are. And they're not gonna change in the foreseeable future. Even Colorado couldn't pass a referendum to get proportional electoral votes (which, btw, I supported--not that it matters, since I don't live in Colorado).

Point is, US Greens can't win elections. They can only impede Democrats in winning elections. And when they do, they are working against the very laudable ideals they espouse. And that's the reality we all have to live with.

[Sam_Lowry]

255. I agree with you completely

That's why I want a cooperative model (See my other posts below). What I don't want is this "if you're not a lockstep-dem, obeying all directives from the DLC, get the fuck off the board" crap. Another poster pointed out that greens and libs will vote for dems if there are no greens available. So why alienate that group of voters, telling them it's the dem way or the highway?

[ProudDad]

147. The Greens in the U.S.

are somewhat different since we have NO chance of actually ruling except in certain local areas. Last I heard the City Council of Arcata, CA was majority Green. We would have had a Green Mayor here in S.F. if the downtown developers hadn't outspent him 10-1 to elect their boy. We try but...

In this country, the deck is stacked heavily against ANY hint of a 2nd party having any power (I'm with Jim Hightower, most of the time the Dems and Repukes are the two right-wings of the Business Party) nor any chance at a rational electoral system of proportional representation -- at least not without a revolution. We are above all the non-corporate Party. That's why it's hard for a Green to get elected. Elections are bought, not earned...

But if no one questions, no one points out the flaws in the arguments and policies of the corporate parties, we the people are screwed.

Someone HAS to be on the far-progressive-left. You should be grateful. If it weren't for us the Dems would be out of power for the next 20 years. We've dragged you "centrists" kicking-and-screaming onto the Progressive bandwagon. :)

For Greens everywhere, I accept your thanks.


:9

[Zhade]

231. The poster I replied to stated they were "far left".

Since they are not Maoists or Stalinists, the Greens are clearly NOT far left, but this is a repeated mantra from the more conservative DUers here (not that I am clear on the poster's political leanings, to be fair).

Are the Greens to the left of today's Democratic party? Without question, this is an accurate statement. However, as today's Dem party is more conservative than it used to be following the (gladly accepted) breakoff of the racist Dixiecrats (racism some here ignore when bemoaning the loss of "traditional Democratic values"), the Green party is really not far left.

So, I asked the question I did to gauge the poster's personal definition of "far left", as it is almost an epithet hurled whenever a conservative Dem gets uncomfortable with the increasing right-leaning of the Dems being pointed out and underscored as a bad trend that the base, and most Americans who hold liberal values (if not by that name), do not desire to follow.

The post may have seemed simplistic, but as it was a response to a simplistic argument about the Greens being "far left", I believe it was a reasonable question.

As to your questions about the Green party, I would not be the one to ask, as I am a registered Decline-to-state independent here in CA. I do think there are different 'flavors' of Greenism, if you will, around the world.

And, of course, the thing to note about Green electoral victories is that it is quite hard when two parties both agree on the philosophy of shutting out other parties, and take steps to do so every election.

Personally, I think the two-party/same corporate masters system is helping to kill democracy.

[ProudDad]

146. That's a silly statement

"Many of them actually want Republicans to stay in power, because they think the whole system has to collapse before the change they want can take place."

You're thinking of the Anarchists, not the Greens. The Greens are way too polite to want that.

[Andromeda]

156. There are plenty of anarchists here too,

ProudDad. Not all greens are polite either, speaking from personal experience.

[ProudDad]

160. Not all ANYTHINGS

are polite.

I should have put a smiley next to my statement...

[Andromeda]

164. That's true,

just to be fair. Here's my smiley. :)

[frogmarch]

51. Informed, constructive criticism

of our party and its leadership is one thing. Half-assed accusations against Democratic leaders whom certain posters like to portray as The Enemy boil my blood quicker than any such posts made by self-acknowledged freepers.

Thanks for this thread, MrBenchley. Thanks for lancing the boil that's been festering here. I'm sure this thread has especially helped some newbies and lurkers get a handle on the dynamics here.

Kicked and recommended.

[MrBenchley]

60. Thank you.

There's far too much uninformed, irresponsible criticism flung about here by people who are not Democrats....

[Bake]

52. I'm with ya, MrB.

I have no problem with criticizing Dems when they need it; God knows we do plenty of that here. But I no more want "our" bus being steered by the extremists who cannot win elections on their own, than I do to have the country overrun by the Talibornagains.

It's legitimate for various DEMS to want to move our agenda either to the left or toward the center. We don't need the Greens pushing it.

GreenUnderground? Do ya think they'd have as many members as DU?

Bake

[MrBenchley]

61. Thanks...

I got no problem with criticism that is there to improve the party....but I sure see a lot of destructive gibberish posted in a lot of threads...

"Do ya think they'd have as many members as DU?"
I doubt they'd have as many members there as there are Greenies here.....

[LynneSin]

53. I get peeved by this "Let's get rid of this democrat I don't like" attitude

We don't have the majority in the house or senate and we don't have the White House. The only thing we slightly have is some say with the Supreme Court and that's slipping away.

So what's the logic of many here at Democratic Underground? WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE BAD DEMOCRATS, THE DINOS, THE BUSHBACKERS, THE CHICKENHAWK DEMOCRATS. LET'S TEACH THE DEMOCRATS A LESSON AND NOT VOTE FOR THEM.

Personally, this plan has SUCKED the past 6 years. Time for a new strategy.

I'm not keen on Joe Lieberman but the one thing that JOe does do is add to the potential democratic majority. We need a pickup of 6 to regain the majority so why are we fighting against the Liebermans & Hillaries of the Senate when we should be focusing on where we can gain seats. WE could pick up PA. We have a shot in Tennessee for a seat. And there will be tight races to save the democratic seats opened from retiring democrats in Minnesota & Maryland. Those races are important to me. Joe Lieberman & Hillary Clinton are not.

Better yet, if we want to ever see an impeachment we need a pickup of 15 seats and yet there are almost 80 seats where we have no democratic candidate. Instead of trying to unseat senators we don't like, why not have those underdog democrats run for house seats where there isn't a democratic candidate.

I'm not here to get rid of democrats out of office. I'll fight for the best candidate in the primaries but after the primaries I'm on board with the candidate selected by the people who live in that state. If that Candidate isn't one that I like I'll go donate my money to other races instead.

And finally candidates should be like gun laws. What works well in Urban areas might not work well in Rural areas. I got into some spats with people because they think every candidate needs to be uber liberal in order to win and yet I know there are districts like PA-10 where we could pick up a democratic seat provided that a moderate candidate was on the slate for the democrats. Liberalism doesn't fit in this rural district and with the Don Sherwood scandal this seat could be ripe for the picking. Democratic majority doesn't need all liberals - just all democrats.

This is not an endorsement of any candidate just some common sense to spend your time & money wisely. Fighting a very 'Popular-in-Connecticut' Joe Lieberman is a lost cause but maybe fighting for a strong primary in Pennsylvania between a liberal vs moderate candidates in the democratic primary seems like time & money well spent.

We are not the democratic party, we are members standing under a giant size tent filled with millions of members of the democratic party. I don't want to be a part of the party that says everyone must think alike or be booted out. If I did I would be a fricking republican

[MrBenchley]

63. It really seems that some people here HATE Democrats

with a white-hot passion.

"Better yet, if we want to ever see an impeachment we need a pickup of 15 seats and yet there are almost 80 seats where we have no democratic candidate."
Good point.

[Odin2005]

54. The reason the Greens and Libertarians are so tiny...

...is BECAUSE of the election spoiling problem. If our system was not so rigged against 3rd parties, I would vote Green in a hearbeat. Quit blaming us Greens for loosing the election, that is the fault of a fucked up election system that makes voting for third parties conterproductive, not the Greens ourselves.

[onehandle]

55. The complaint MrBenchley voices is about Interference, not Elections.

Nice try.

[ProudDad]

152. I don't think that's quite correct.

I think that MrBenchley has his panties in a twist because he's too sensitive to criticism of his favorite Dem heroes that is too close to the truth.

That's ok, he has a right to his discomfort. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

62. And the dog ate your homework.....

"that is the fault of a fucked up election system that makes voting for third parties conterproductive"
Yeah, THAT was all that was keeping those millions from climbing on the Cobb/LaMarche bandwagon....

[sandnsea]

72. I wouldn't vote Green

I looked at the Green Party platform in 2000. I was very unhappy with the general state of the country and increased corporatism. In the end, the Green Party was just too utopian and didn't represent what I wanted either. So no, it isn't just an election spoiling problem. If people wanted what the Green Party is offering, the Green Party would have more members and money than it knew what to do with. That's not the case. It's the platform, not the election system.

[depakid]

67. Curious as to who you would consider an "actual" Democrat

Most of the criticism I see is leveled precisely because the so called "leadership" and many members of the party have abandoned its traditional principles.

There wouldn't be much to worry about from the Greens- over even the Republicans, if Democrats started acting like Democrats again and managed to muster enough courage to stand up to the far right.

[Sparkly]

69. So what's the best way to change the Democratic party?

Building its constituencies, and working within the party?

Or banging on the windows and criticizing from outside?

[depakid]

118. Easy- hold them accountable

and if that means having a Green run in a general election to rid the party of a DINO, so be it.

The reason why so many Dems have sold out to the corporate agenda is because they think they can take the money, put the screw to people and progressive voters will have nowhere else to go.

So long as the Dems continue to put on the persona of Republican lite, they're going to lose on the national level. If 6 election losses in a row- and what may well be a 7th next year- haven't taught them this, then I don't see much hope of them learning any time soon unless people on the left start making it hurt when they support Republican policies.

[MrBenchley]

191. Jeeze, that's some kind of mystery?

"the so called "leadership" and many members of the party have abandoned its traditional principles."
Sez you.

[depakid]

221. Says the evidence

and the voting records.

Methinks I see someone in denial. Go back and compare the positions of the the candidates (and the representatives I alluded to) today, with those of the majority candidates and representatives for the 50 years that the Dems were the majority party.

You'll find your answer- both as to why the Dems have been losing- and as to why the party has lost so many members to the Greens and independents.

[MrBenchley]

297. Bullshit....

"why the party has lost so many members to the Greens and independents"
That IS rich. If that were remotely true, we wouldn't have them farting around over here on DEMOCRATIC Underground--they'd be over on their own healthy boards.

But the plain fact is those groups don't amount to a wet fart by themselves...and so they have to troll here and create mischief.

[ulysses]

68. nope.

But I don't know whether or not you'd consider me a Democrat.

[sandnsea]

71. How 'bout Green Dog Democrats

Some have begun to lose patience with changing the country from within their own party and are pretending to be Democrats to supposedly challenge from within the Democratic Party. The problem is that they ARE NOT Democrats and they confuse the "casual voter" as to what the Democratic Party stands for. So, since we already have yellow dogs and blue dogs, I propose we add a group of Green Dogs. They can say anything they want, as long as they identify themselves as Green Dogs when they do it.

[ulysses]

73. who gets to define

what a Democrat is?

[sandnsea]

76. I don't even know what that means

I do know that people will decide for themselves whether they're a Green Dog or not. Since Greens seem to have given up on advocating from their own party, I'm proposing a distinct place for them within the Democratic Party. A way to have a voice and leverage without being the destructive force they've been lately. Is that a problem?

[ulysses]

77. you're the one who announced that Green Dogs "WERE NOT"

Democrats. I've considered myself one for several years, and have been a Democrat my entire life. I guess I'm wondering who it is you're calling out, without actually calling anyone out.

[sandnsea]

78. Greens are Democrats???

I would presume that if they are in a separate party it's because they are NOT Democrats. Otherwise they'd be Democrats, correct???

However, some of them are intentionally changing their party registration in order to "overthrow" from within. THEY are doing this. I'm merely suggesting a way to welcome Greens into the Democratic Party while giving them the distinct voice they want. Green Dogs.

If you're not a Green and have never been one, then I don't know what your beef is. If you'd like to be part of a further left group within the Democratic Party, maybe Green Dog would be something you'd want to get behind.

[ulysses]

80. the title of your post #71:

"How 'bout Green Dog Democrats"

You didn't say Greens.

As I say, the Green Dog thing is something I've already been behind for several years. It's not new.

[sandnsea]

81. There's a Green Dog group??

Who's the membership consist of? Is there a web page? I missed it.

You're right though, I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in my post. I thought it was clear that I was referring to Greens who are pretending to be Dems, but I can see I didn't do that. Sorry.

[Sparkly]

88. Your post made sense to me.

:shrug:

[lostnfound]

171. Would their politics be any different than Wellstone or Progressive Caucus

Here are the members:
Lynn Woolsey
Barbara Lee
Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (California)
Madeleine Bordallo (Guam)
Corrine Brown (Florida)
Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
Michael Capuano (Massachusetts)
Julia Carson (Indiana)
Donna Christian-Christensen (Virgin Islands)
William Lacy Clay, Jr. (Missouri)
John Conyers (Michigan)
Danny Davis (Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (Oregon)
Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut)
Lane Evans (Illinois)
Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa)
Sam Farr (California)
Chaka Fattah (Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (California)
Barney Frank (Massachusetts)
Raul Grijalva (Arizona)
Luis Gutierrez (Illinois)
Maurice Hinchey (New York)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Illinois)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (Texas)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (Ohio)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (Michigan)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Tom Lantos (California)
John Lewis (Georgia)
Ed Markey (Massachusetts)
Jim McDermott (Washington)
James P. McGovern (Massachusetts)
Cynthia McKinney (Georgia)
George Miller (California)
Gwen Moore (Wisconsin)
Jerry Nadler (New York)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)
John Olver (Massachusetts)
Major Owens (New York)
Ed Pastor (Arizona)
Donald Payne (New Jersey)
Bobby Rush (Illinois)
Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
Jose Serrano (New York)
Louise Slaughter (New York)
Hilda Solis (California)
Pete Stark (California)
Bennie Thompson (Mississippi)
John F. Tierney (Massachusetts)
Tom Udall (New Mexico)
Nydia Velazquez (New York)
Maxine Waters (California)
Diane Watson (California)
Mel Watt (North Carolina)
Henry Waxman (California)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
According to their website, the CPC advocates universal health care, fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into trade unions and engage in strike actions and collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the formation of a Department of Peace, the legalization of gay marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on corporate crime and what they see as corporate welfare, an increase in income tax on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.

[mzmolly]

87. We are supposed to be big tent right?

I welcome any progressive into the party to fight from within personally.

[LittleClarkie]

92. Indeed. And they can campaign to have the party go whereever they want

if enough people feel that way, the party will creep to the left. Democracy in action doncha know.

But hearing from "within" how much Dems suck can get tiresome. When somebody says "If the Dems don't shape up I'm going Green" all I feel like saying is "'Kay. Bye."

And orgs like Moveon saying that they paid for and now own the Dem Party just left a bad taste in my mouth. Sort of anti-democracy, you know?

[sandnsea]

101. I welcome Democrats

I don't welcome people whose real agenda is to make the Democratic Party the Green Party. If they wanted to identify themselves as Green Dogs though, I could live with that. Just like I live with the Blue Dogs who I don't agree with at least half the time either.

[mzmolly]

115. I gotcha.

I like the "Green Dog" description and I bet it would be embraced?

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

184. Yeah, but how about those setting fire to the tent?

"I welcome any progressive into the party"
I got no problem with that...what I got a problem with is those who want to kick out the Democrats already in the tent.....

[mzmolly]

213. Excellent point frankly.

I have a problem with those same people. I embrace the "big tent" philosophy, and others who join our party should as well. However, it is fine by me if one is challenged on specific positions. That's to be expected.

[MrBenchley]

214. Exactly so...

[MrBenchley]

183. You've put your finger on the central issue....

"Some have begun to lose patience with changing the country from within their own party and are pretending to be Democrats to supposedly challenge from within the Democratic Party."
Cui bono? Cui malo?

[Zhade]

234. Pardon me, but when did you learn to read minds?

How would you KNOW some are 'pretending' to be Dems, when they are now registered Dems?

You don't. To suggest otherwise is not reflective of reality. YOU DON'T KNOW.

(Sound familiar? Think 'WMDs'.)

So when some Dems get pissed that Greens 'throw elections' (whatever, the theft in 2000 likely would have happened even without Nader, the fascists were determined to be in office, period) and say that Greens should work from within the Dems, and some do, the same Dems bitch and moan about the Greens doing what was asked of them!

That makes it patently clear that it is the destruction of the Green party (and maybe the policies they support?) is what these Dems are really after, at least to me. Of course, I don't know that for a fact, but it sure feels that way.

[wiley]

74. Your opinions

are always a pleasure. I look forward to them. I agree that the Democrats do seem to attract hitchhikers who want to drive this bus, as opposed to their own, but I think that our bus is big enough. The third party option at this time, with the stakes so incredibly high, is only feasible as an idea workgroup. Too bad the occasional parasitism of third parties on the Democratic Party isn't a benefit to the host. I'd much rather the Pukes get ripped apart by super right wing nutzos.

[MrBenchley]

185. Thank you....

It seems as if attacks on actual Democrats have escalated here in the past few weeks...

And who beneifts by having a bunch here spouting dishonest crap like "the Democrats are no better than the Republicans" and similar sentiments? It sure as shit isn't Democrats.

[AntiCoup2K4]

75. Ah, the irony....

You worry about Greens and Libertarians influencing this party, while cheering on the Republican DLC which is killing it.

[MrBenchley]

186. Yeah,.. it's hard to get more ironical than your post.....

Or sillier than that.

So which "Republican DLCer" is destroying the party? Max Cleland? John Kerry? Tom Vilsack?

[leanin_green]

79. Well with the latest poll showing that a majority of Americans. . .

have a negative impression of both Republicans and Democrats alike, this could be the time that the other parties get a chance to be heard. Truthfully, I wouldn't mind a few Green congressmen/women or even Libertarians for that matter to occupy some of the seats of the House. This may be the time for third party gains. I welcome new voices to the future debate. Too many Democratic voices are mute or ineffective for me right now.

[MrBenchley]

187. Hahahaha.....

So let them build their goddamn crackpot parties on their own dime.

[moriverrat]

82. I am not in complete agreement with libertarianism...

But I wonder how a system of less regulation would compare with the current situation:

---Government by and for the (large) Corporations.----

A fusion of (l)ibertarianism with:

1. Corporate person-hood revocation

2. Limits on corporate size/revenue (mandatory spin-offs if necessary)

3. Limits on mergers/acquisitions

4. Limits on personal wealth

5. Taxation based heavily toward the affluent, large owners of capital and land, lightest toward labor and small businesses

6. Single-Payer National Health, maybe expand Medicare to all, and give every citizen a guaranteed minimum wage/ allowance, and recognition of protecting the environment as a shared resource for all people.

7. Prohibit feeding government revenues to
for/profit corporations, individuals, and related
entities. Use public equipment and employees for all functions.

8. Stock ownership granted to employees of for-profit corporations

9. The highest earner in any organization, public or for- profit, may not exceed the lowest wage in the same
concern by a multiple of 5

10. LALL (Live And Let Live)


...May look pretty good compared with what we have.

The Republicans are the biggest haters of libertarians, by the way. (It could split them)

[sandyd921]

102. You might want to

learn a little more about libertarianism. You're not going to get some of the things on your list like single-payer health care, limits on personal wealth or corporate size going that route (or at least going in the direction of economic libertarianism). The platform of the Libertarian party is a good example of typical libertarian ideas about these types of issues: http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Social libertarian ideas are a different matter. As I posted down-thread, those ideas are a good fit for most progressives and liberals.

[MrBenchley]

188. Geeze, Ken Lay loved that "less regulation" crap to pieces....

"The Republicans are the biggest haters of libertarians, by the way. "
Not even close to true. In fact, the Republicans and the Libertarians are happily snuggled up to each other, trading little smoochies.

http://www.rlc.org /

http://www.afn.org/~afn04641/opinions.html

http://gopliberty.blogspot.com /

"Matt Drudge, a no nonsense libertarian"
www.enterstageright.com / archive/articles/0904/0904freep.htm

""I'm a libertarian," John Stossel proudly proclaims. "But I don't often say that except to an audience like this because the term libertarian is confused with 'libertine' or even worse, "liberal.'"
Addressing a lunch meeting of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a libertarian-leaning think-tank, Stossel..."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry154....

"At the libertarian Cato Institute, vice president for legal affairs Roger Pilon said Roe distorted the idea of privacy ..."

www.inboxrobot.com/news/CatoInstitute

Walter Williams -- Libertarian
www.self-gov.org/williams.html

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Ammunition for poverty pimps by Walter Williams
www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ walterwilliams/2005/10/26/172901.html

Dynamist.com
Columnist Virginia Postrel operates this libertarian-leaning site.
Samizdata.net
The site's commentators from across the English-speaking world take a libertarian view of news and events.
Reason's Hit & Run
The libertarian-leaning Reason magazine runs this group blog.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/blogs /

"The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy connects like minded Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans."
http://o.webring.com/hub?ring=tvrwc

[moriverrat]

268. But....

Many of these self-described "libertarians" are liars and hypocrites. They are corporate tools that spew their propaganda over the airwaves of this land to target that subset of the public that have libertarian leanings, and persuade these voters to vote Republicunt.

True libertarians, and I do not include the selfish, would be better off voting Democratic, and moving our party in the direction of more liberties for the common man, and keeping the large corporations and obscenely wealthy on a short leash, especially regarding their influence on government, and their profits derived from government funds. Corporations should be restrained in their growth, so that the landscape has thousands of mom and pop businesses taking the place of dozens of multinationals.

[moriverrat]

83. Any good shooting ranges in NJ?

It looks like I will be traveling east in a couple of months, and would like to keep my skills sharp out of hunting season.

[Harper_is_Bush]

84. So basically you're saying....

That you know what Americans want, and the things that greens and Libertarians (and who knows who's next in your book....gays perhaps?) fight for and have opinions on are not worth investing in.

Greens make others aware of important concerns regarding social issues and the earth. Dems need that. It should be viewed as helpful information, not as telling you "what's wrong with democrats".

PS. You don't have a bus.

[Der Blaue Engel]

93. Or maybe he/she is saying

that Greens should be saying what Greens want, not what Democrats ought to do.

And as far as I know, there's no Gay party telling the Dems what to do, though there are gay Democrats, and gay Greens (and of course the odd, tortured freak who is gay and Republican), so I don't think that extrapolation follows.

I understand the OP's frustration. I love the Green party, but it really bothers me when I read divisive, fractious statements that don't help the Democratic party at all.

[MrBenchley]

189. Wow...hard to get more muddled than that

"Greens make others aware of important concerns regarding social issues and the earth."
So let them go do it.

"PS. You don't have a bus."
Beep beep!

[mzmolly]

86. RECOMMENDED!

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

190. Thanks!

[bvar22]

90. Please Mr Benchley,

Inform us :
What does the Democratic Party Stand for?

Is YOUR Democratic Party moving in this direction?

*Single Payer healthcare

*Strong protections for LABOR

*Criminalizing Corporate Lobbying

*Publicly Financed Elections

*Instant Run Off Elections

*A return to a Progressive Tax System where the RICH also pay their fair share

*An END to Corporate Welfare

*Stronger or Re-Regulation of life's necessities:
Banking
Savings
Lending
Insurance
Energy
Transportation
Communication

*Limiting the Power and Influence of the MegaCorporations

*WindFall Profit Taxes

*Re-Instating the Inheritance Tax (the fairest tax of all)

*Well Financed Universal Public Education through High School

*Strong Environmental Protections

*Fair Trade (NOT Free Trade)based on Human Rights (Environmental Protection IS a Human Right)

*Decreasing the Defense Budget to a sane level proportionate with the rest of the World

*Legislation leveling the playing field between the MegaCorps and Mom & Pop (Independents)
Ex: Suppliers would have to offer the same price to Mom & Pop that they offer to Wal-Mart.

The Economic Principles of FDR, the Social Principles of the "Great Society

If YOUR Democratic Party does NOT stand for moving in this direction, then I PLEDGE myself to changing the Democratic Party BACK to these principles. The above ARE the Democratic values of MY Party, of MY Father's Democratic Party, and HIS father's Democratic Party!!!

The DLC and the New Democrats can KISS MY LIFELONG DEMOCRATIC ASS!
:dem:

[AntiCoup2K4]

91. And a big fucking AMEN to that!!

Assuming one doesn't get zapped by lightning for using "fucking" and "AMEN" in the same sentence that is. But even if God strikes me dead, I couldn't agree more!

[bvar22]

94. What? No rebuttal????

Who wants to go beyond the "Slurs" and "Labels" and talk ISSUES and Party Platforms instead?

I welcome ALL who will help me push the Democratic Party in the direction posted above.

If a progressive newbie joins the Democratic Party and pledges a return to Traditional Democratic Values, I will send them MONEY, and work for their election. If corrupt Republicrats are sacrificed in the process, GOOD RIDDANCE!

[mzmolly]

96. MY Democratic Party does, and I'm sticking around to make sure

we head in the right direction.

[ProSense]

99. Here it is!

the Democratic Agenda:

The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

To learn more about the Democratic Party's commitment to security, opportunity, and responsibility, read about our agenda below.

Security
Keeping America Safe at Home

Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack.

Democrats support fair immigration reform that keeps our borders secure. Democrats are also united to ensure that the world's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Read more about this topic...

Strength Overseas

Our nation stands as a shining example to all the world of freedom and democracy, a unique honor that comes with a responsibility to lead.

Democrats believe that strong international alliances are the cornerstone of our foreign policy. The threat from international terrorism and rogue states requires a new era of alliances led by the United States, based on mutual respect and shared vision. Read more about this topic...

Honoring Our Troops, Veterans, and Their Families

Democrats believe we must support our troops by modernizing our military to that it better meets the threats of the 21st century. We need to make sure we never send them to war without telling them the reasons they are being sent, giving them clear goals, supplying them with the best equipment available to keep them safe, and keeping our commitments to them when they return from war.

We will also continue to stand up for the families of those who serve our country, including income security and access to affordable health care. Read more about this topic...

Opportunity
A Strong Economy

If you want job creation, a strong economy, and a fiscally responsible federal government, there's only one choice: vote for Democrats. History has proven that Democrats know what it takes to keep our economy growing.

Expanding economic opportunity. Democrats believe that the most effective means of increasing opportunity for our families is a high quality, good paying job. We are committed to expanding economic opportunity to all Americans and creating the new jobs of the future.
Fiscal responsibility. The Democratic Party believes in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt, while Republicans continue to put huge burdens on future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations.
Fair trade. Creating jobs at home means opening markets abroad. The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for workers abroad while making American business more competitive. We will also fight for stronger enforcement of our existing trade agreements.
Read more about this topic...

Education

Democrats know that the key to expanding opportunity is to provide every child with a world-class education. We want to meet our responsibilities to America's children by ensuring that our schools have the resources they need to help our kids meet high standards.

Democrats will also help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college. Read more about this topic...

Retirement Security

Democrats believe that after a life of hard work, you earn a secure retirement. Our commitment to protecting the promise of Social Security is absolute. We will not allow anyone to endanger Social Security or take even a single step toward dismantling it. We are open to any and all ideas that ensure that the current and future generations of retirees receive the benefits they were promised without heaping trillions onto our national debt.

Democrats also recognize that Americans rely on more than just Social Security for a secure retirement. Democrats will continue to fight for genuine pension reform that protects working families from future Enron-style abuse. We also want to work on new ways to help hard-working Americans create retirement savings. Read more about this topic...

Affordable Health Care

In the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, no one should have to choose between taking their child to a doctor or paying the rent. Democrats are committed to making sure every single American has access to affordable, effective health care coverage.

We can make sure every American has that access while preserving the high quality of our health care and keeping the choices that we enjoy. We can leave decisions about health care to patients and doctors, keeping the government and insurance companies out.

Democrats will not stop fighting this battle until every single American has access to the health care they need. Read more about this topic...

Responsibility
Honest Government

The Democratic Party is committed to genuine reform that protects our rights and ensures that elected officials act ethically -- not just within the law, but within the spirit of the law.

An honest and ethical government requires constant vigilance and a continuous dedication to reform. Democrats support reform principles that preserve the people's trust in government.

It was overwhelming support from Democrats that allowed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform to pass. Democrats continue to making protecting and promoting our right to vote a top priority. And Democrats in Congress are leading the fight for a meaningful ethics process that holds everyone -- including the leadership -- responsible for their actions. Read more about this topic...

Election Reform

A fundamental tenet of our democracy is our right to vote and to have that vote counted. But we must be vigilant in protecting those rights and ensuring that our voting system works for every American.

Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create federal standards for our elections. Our voting system must include verification, accountability, and accuracy. Democrats want to increase access to polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines, and early voting. We also want to modernize election equipment and increase impartiality. Read more about this topic...

Protecting Our Environment

The Democratic Party believes that it is our responsibility to protect America's extraordinary natural resources. The health of our families, the strength of our economy, and the fate of our world all depend on our stewardship of the environment.

We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We know instead that farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. We know new technologies that protect the environment can create new high-paying jobs. We know a cleaner environment means a stronger economy.

Far too many Americans live with unhealthy air or water quality. Democrats will fight to strengthen the laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. And Democrats will make sure these laws our enforced. Rising rates of asthma and mercury poisoning are just two of the dire consequences of ignoring environmental problems.

Democrats know that a sensible energy policy is key to a strong economy, our national security, and a clean environment. Democrats are committed to the next generation of affordable and renewable energy for the 21st center and to conservation measures -- like increased CAFE standards -- that will immediately reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Read more about this topic...

Civil Rights & Justice

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we worked to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and will work to ensure reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2007.

On every civil rights issue, Democrats lead the fight. Democrats support expanding opportunities in jobs, health care benefits, and education. We support vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws. Read more about this topic...

more...

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

[bvar22]

107. It is very telling....

It IS very telling that you had to use GOOGLE to find out what current incarnation of the Democratic Party Stands For, ne c'est pas?


The Democratic Party Platform 2004 was an embarrassing 42 page collection of vague platitudes and pablum carefully constructed so that NO Democrat could be held to a specific position on ANY specific issue.


Show me ONE instance of a SPECIFIC REFORM Proposal and legislation that would be implemented within a specific time frame.

Go Google the Republican "Contract with America" if you want to see an embarrassing comparison.

The Democratic party stands for: "A Strong America"!!!!
Motherhood, apple pie, truth, justice, and the American Way!


Caught between hysterical laughter and vomiting.

[ProSense]

116. Not embarrassed!

But may be you should be: that information is from democrats.org, the DNC website, which I visit often throughout the day. I can see why you have no knowledge of the Democratic agenda.

[bvar22]

120. Excuse me?

After cutting and pasting all that, tell me in your own words:
What does the Democratic Party Stand for?

[ProSense]

125. Here goes.

Freedom, opportunity and hope

Equality, fairness and compassion


all-in-all:

Truth, justice and the American way.

[bvar22]

129. I'm FOR those things too!

That shows very good comprehension skills for reading the Democratic Platform 2004. It really is impossible to be more detailed because the Party Platform did not provide any more details.
Those values ARE honorable, but they are so vague that ANYONE can claim to stand for them.

Who in America (Democrat or Republican) is AGAINST Truth, Justice, and the American Way?
(BTW: Superman was a Republican.)

For a contrast, read the Green party Platform or the Republican Contract with America.
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

(I'm not endorsing either here, just pointing out what "Taking an Unambiguous Stand" looks like.

[ProSense]

117. And another thing

I used to visit the old site before it was completely revamped by Chairman Dean when he took over at the beginning of 2005.

[MrBenchley]

206. Yeah, it sure IS telling....

Here we have a guy who is "embarassed" by the Demnocratic platform and thinks that Newt Gingrich's Contract on America is hot shit!

"Caught between hysterical laughter and vomiting"

[bvar22]

220. If the Democratic Party really wants to own the House and Senate,

they would produce a document for '06 (and 2008)based on the format of the "Contract with America".
Of Course, that would require the Democratic Party to actually Take an Unambiguous Stand on Populist "Working Class" Issues!, and THAT would piss off the CorpoMoney Men.

Newt showed us exactly how to do it!

Do you have something agains winning?
Oh, that's right. You are for the status quo which has been working so well for the Democratic Party the last 15 years.
YEAH, we don't want anyone else driving the bus.
The idiot driving now has been doing such a great job....NOT!
:rofl:

OTOH: The idiot driving now HAS made a handful of people VERY RICH...so there would be a few people who don't want to change anything.

[MrBenchley]

244. Hahahahaha.....

"Oh, that's right. You are for the status quo which has been working so well for the Democratic Party the last 15 years."
Let's envy the 15 years of glorious success the lLlibertarians and Greens have had instead.....<snicker>

"Newt showed us exactly how to do it!"
And Newt Gingrich and his fans can kiss my ass.

[ProSense]

100. Here is

An excerpt of a speech by John Edwards

smip...

We believe in hope over despair, possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism. We believe in doing what is right even when others say it can't be done. And we believe in fighting desperately for people who don't have a voice. That's what the Democratic Party has always believed in and that's what we will always believe in. That's what you and I believe in.

We know the difference between right and wrong. And it's right to talk about the two different Americas we still live in. We've got one for those who have been blessed and have lived the American Dream. And another for those who are struggling to get by.

It's time to build the one America we all believe in.

Do we believe that any child in our country should go without health care just because their parents can't afford to go to the doctor? That's not we believe in. We have to strengthen our health care system.

Do we believe one child should go to a school with computers while another goes to a school without enough books? That's not what we believe in. We have to strengthen our schools. We can start by expanding early childhood education and treating our teachers and those who work in our schools with the dignity and the respect that they deserve.

Do we believe in an America that is satisfied with two economies—one for wealthy insiders and one for the rest of us? That's not what we believe in. I'll tell you what's right. It's right to want to build one economy that honors work, not just wealth.

You know all of my life I have seen the power and dignity that comes from hard work. In the mills, the post office, and in our schools. I grew up believing that there are two important things we can give to each other—our love and our labor.

I believe there is dignity in work. It goes beyond the numbers on any paycheck. The men and women in my hometown—and yours—feel stronger and better when they know their hard work always—always—can provide for their families.

snip...

We are blessed to have friends and neighbors and loved ones who are willing to serve their country. We stand with the men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we wish them God's speed and that they'll return home safely soon.

And here's what we believe: when our soldiers come home—they deserve a country that will honor their service. We believe that no one who's worn the uniform should have to beg for their back pay. We believe that no veteran should have to pay a registration fee to get the health care they are entitled to—they paid that fee when they put on the uniform of the United States of America. And we believe that no soldier who's just returned from serving their country in Iraq should be homeless—they earned their right to a home!

That's what you and I believe in—as Americans.

So don't tell me Democrats don't stand for anything. We do. We stand for work and opportunity. We know when something's right. And we know when something's wrong.

It's wrong when our neighbors work fulltime and they still live in poverty. It's wrong when too many towns are forgotten because the jobs are gone. It's wrong when our children give up on a dream because our schools are broke. It's wrong when our men and women return home from a war and have to fight for the health care to recover from their wounds. And it's wrong when we let a young person in another country thousands of miles away grow up hating us, never knowing or believing in the good of our country.

So don't tell me we Democrats don't believe in anything and don't know where to go. Because we do.

I know the soul of this party and so do you. It lies deep inside each of us and goes to the core of what we believe not just as Democrats -- but as Americans. Everyone - -and I mean everyone -- deserves a fair chance. And we have a moral responsibility to help those who are doing everything right, but are still struggling.

We have been given minds to think with. But we've also been given hearts to inspire us.
When we try to lead with just our minds, we are neglecting the better half of our nature

So don't tell me Democrats don't stand for anything. Because we do. What we believe is that you should never look down on anybody, we should lift people up. We don't believe in tearing people apart. We believe in bringing people together. What we believe—what I believe—is that the family you're born into and the color of your skin in our America should never control your destiny.

Let's turn the page. Let's move forward. Let's build that one America we all believe in.
Thank you. God bless you and the United States of America.


http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/100-club.asp

[sandnsea]

105. That is the Green Party

Half of that stuff has never been the Democratic Party. Legislating the price business has to sell their products for??? Criminalizing corporate lobbying? Single payer? Instant run off? I would bet if you specified what you demand for environmental protection and re-regulation and defense spending, it wouldn't come near the Democratic Party either.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, people who think the Democratic Party is the Green or even socialist party. It's not and never has been, not your father's, not your grandfather's.

[bvar22]

113. Better tell that to FDR!

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Democratic National Convention (June 27, 1936)

<snip>
For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers-the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor-these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age-other people's money-these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living-a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1936_0627.html

Fair Competition and Equal Access to Martketplace Resources has been a Democratic Party value for a looong time.

[sandnsea]

121. He doesn't say regulate prices

He was talking about wage and hour regulation and that sort of thing. As well as some of the crop subsidies that you now call corporate welfare. He never said anything about passing laws that required business to sell everybody products at the exact same price. FDR was not a socialist.

[bvar22]

126. Do you believe in a Level Playing field?

Should Mom & Pops (Independents and Family Farms) be able to compete fairly with the Wal-Marts and CorpoFarms in YOUR America? (Traditional Democratic Party value)
or

Should the Wal-Marts and CorpoFarms be allowd to continue to use their economic might and inside connections to access prices for materials that are denied to the small Independents? (Traditional Republican Party Value).

Which do you support?

Edited to add: This is EXACTLY what FDR was talking about in that speech.

[sandnsea]

135. I've read his speeches

No, he never talked about forcing every business to sell their product for the exact same price to every buyer.

I am a small business that has to compete with Walmart and Expedia and GoDaddy and Google and even the government, every single day of the week. Yes, it sucks. But legislating prices is not the answer. Small business has advantages large companies don't, one is being able to adjust rapidly to change. Another is personal attention to client needs. Another is simply telling the truth. So you have to compete from where you're at.

But wages, health care, those kinds of things, are a different story. As people around the world demand that their standard of living is increased, the playing field will level out again. That's what FDR fought for and supported.

[bvar22]

139. demand that their standard of living is increased

"As people around the world demand that their standard of living is increased, the playing field will level out again."

Not True:
"As people around the world demand that their standard of living is increased, the Global Corps simply "pack up" and move to another country to exploit the slave labor pool.
Capital will ALWAYS be able to move faster than Human Rights.(AND Capital KNOWS that.)

See the Mexican NAFTA Disaster.
Also see Thailand and Free Trade.

"No, he never talked about forcing every business to sell their product for the exact same price to every buyer."
No FDR didn't. And neither did I. And neither has the Green Party. In fact, YOU are the only one who has brought that up. Building a "Straw Man"?

FDR DID speak of using the power of the Government to "level the playing field" through many different avenues. If you look at my original post, I AM talking about restricting the POWER of the MegaCorps to extort lower prices from their SUPPLIER (aka China). THIS price should be made available to ALL markets in the US, not just Wal-Mart. The China suppliers are frequently forced to RAISE the price of materials to its less powerful buyers to make up the loss from Wal-Mart.

THIS is NOT RIGHT!

You failed to answer my question, so I will ask it again:

A)Should Mom & Pops (Independents and Family Farms) be able to compete fairly with the Wal-Marts and CorpoFarms in YOUR America? (Traditional Democratic Party value)

or

B)Should the Wal-Marts and CorpoFarms be allowd to continue to use their economic might and inside connections to access prices for materials that are denied to the small Independents? (Traditional Republican Party Value).

Which do you support?
Choose one.
A or B

This is EXACTLY what FDR was talking about in that speech.

[sandnsea]

145. Here's what you said

"*Legislation leveling the playing field between the MegaCorps and Mom & Pop (Independents)
Ex: Suppliers would have to offer the same price to Mom & Pop that they offer to Wal-Mart."

You cannot legislate the price of goods. FDR never suggested that and that IS what you're saying, whether you recognize it or not. Those factories in China are built for the sole purpose of supplying the corporations, there's no extortion about it.

The corporations have just about run out of places that they can pack up and move to. Russia just had a slow down to force wage increases, China has had demonstrations as well. The workers in the Marianas filed suit and got huge concessions from corporations. That's what leveling the playing field is all about. When they can't exploit workers, cost of goods levels the playing field substantially. My problem with big box stores isn't that they exist, it's that they exploit labor in order to exist. That's a traditional Democratic Party fight.

[bvar22]

148. Yes. you CAN legislate this price.

If China wants to supply goods for export to the USA, they will be supplied to ALL distributors in the US at the same price.
See how easy that was?
This is actually Democratic Capitalism at its best!

You still haven't answered my question.
Chicken?

A)Should Mom & Pops (Independents and Family Farms) be able to compete fairly with the Wal-Marts and CorpoFarms in YOUR America? (Traditional Democratic Party value)

or

B)Should the Wal-Marts and CorpoFarms be allowd to continue to use their economic might and inside connections to access prices for materials that are denied to the small Independents? (Traditional Republican Party Value).

Which do you support?
Choose one.
A or B
There is NO middleground here.
We ARE already at B.

This is EXACTLY what FDR was talking about in that speech.

[sandnsea]

155. So you ARE for legislating prices

You need to make up your mind.

I already answered your question. I am not in favor of legislating prices. There is no way to ensure that every single company in the country operates on the exact same playing field. There will always be some sort of difference, from local taxes to property prices to power to garbage disposal even. I don't want government stepping in to levelize everything in the country. But if you do, think about this. Isn't that basically what privatization does? Turns everything over to a few corporations so that they can control price and production? Create one level price for everybody? Not good. Not when corporations do it, not when government does it.

That is not the solution to the problem of competing on an equal footing. It's a labor problem, not a price control problem. I'm for stemming the power of corporations through a variety of legislative acts, including eliminating corporate personhood. But thinking you're going to level the playing field by price controls, no, I'm not for that.

[bvar22]

217. So you ARE for Republican Values!

If we have people promoting Republican Values at DU and inside the Democratic Party, how can we demand that people supporting Democratic values STFU?


If you hads read my post #90, you will see I am also for:

Windfall Profits Taxes

Regulation (Re-Regulation) of:
Insurance
Banking
Energy
Transportation
Communication
Lending

ALL Strong Democratic party Traditional Values which involve "legislating Prices".

I also support protecting American Jobs through bi-Lateral Fair Trade Treaties, which would necessarily include Tariffs and Duty Fees (legislating Prices)

[MrBenchley]

181. Tell me....

If you DON'T know what the Democrats stand for, why are you hanging out here?

"The above ARE the Democratic values of MY Party, of MY Father's Democratic Party, and HIS father's Democratic Party!!!"
And yet here you are in a thread that talks about third parties attacking the Democrats, pissing and moaning because somebody pointed out that third parties are attacking Democrats. REAL convincing, all right.

[sandyd921]

95. My two cents worth

I consider myself a progressive Democrat. What this means for me is that I believe we're all in this together and that we have to come together as a people and solve problems to create a better quality of life and prosperity for all. I support things like national health care, strong environmental policies, fair trade, strong labor unions, programs that help lift people out of poverty, etc., etc. I want us out of Iraq now and I want a foreign policy in which we work in the UN and with other countries to solve world problems. I'm very liberal on social issues (e.g., choice, equal rights for gays and lesbians including the right to marry).

I come to DU in order to be with others who have similar beliefs (I realize that the Democratic party is a big tent and that not everyone thinks exactly like me on the issues, but I tend to think that the Dems are a lot closer to my belief structure than are the repukes). I tend to avoid sites that allow conservatives and other RWers to post. I feel pretty comfortable with Greens because I think that I probably have a lot in common with them. I'm also comfortable with social libertarians since I have quite a bit in common with them on social issues.

Please don't flame me but where I draw the line is with economic libertarians. I think that their ideas are antithetical to my beliefs and the beliefs of most Democrats about directly addressing the needs of people through government. My impression is that economic libertarians have much more in common with the corporate wing of the republican party (a la Alan Greenspan). So I can't see that having them here makes a lot of sense.

[MrBenchley]

192. Interesting posts....

What I'm talking about is the sort of people who refer to respected Democratic elected officials as "corproate republiwhores" or who tell us that "the end of this imperial dream won't occur through the democratic party apparatus" and the like.

[sandyd921]

264. And what I'm saying

is that Democrats should be open to forming alliances with others with whom they share similar values and end goals. I'm a lifelong Dem and active in the party at the local level. However I choose to continue my affiliation with the party because of the liberal/progressive/populist stances the party took in the past and my hope that myself and others can help it return to those ideals. From my perspective I want to work with others who share those ideals regardless of party label. A great example of this is Dems in Vermont supporting Bernie Sanders (an independent Socialist) rather than running a candidate of their own. Strong alliances and coalitions with other progressives are far more important in the long run to the future of this country than any individual party. And, as was mentioned in another post, I'm all for Instant Run-off Voting for this reason. Does that mean I'm into running down Dems? Not at all. What I want to do is to build up Democrats who support progressive ideas. Are there some who run the party down in nonconstructive ways (including Greens, Libertarians, and some w/in the party too)? I'm sure you're right that there are some. But I'm a lot less concerned with that than with what we're doing to build a progressive future for this country.

[Sam_Lowry]

97. Just Amazing....

Gore runs a shit campaign, but it's Nader's fault.

Kerry runs a shit campaign, but again it's the green party's fault.

Democrats keep the party name and adopt the republican platform, but those who vote green are sellouts.

I'm not a green, nor a democrat, nor libertarian, nor republican. I'm a voter, plain and simple. And I have voted, do vote, and will vote for the candidate that I want in the office. Not for who I think can win, or who is "close" to what I'm looking for. If third parties have no chance to win national elections, why not ban them? That at least would be honest. But allowing them to get on the ballot, then denying them access to debates, and giving them incredibly biased press, is a lie.

I vote my interests, and my interests lie with ALL citizens. Those whose platforms are the longest thinking, and whose policies benefit the most people, recieve my support. If that individual happens to be a republican, or democrat, or green, or natural law, or tree-hugging-disciples-of-America party, so be it.

What you say here in effect is you're happy to have my vote, as long as I keep my mouth shut. But with my vote, my participation, comes my voice.

[LWolf]

106. Applause and Thanks. n/t

[ulysses]

111. how dare you think you can drive the bus!

;-)

[welshTerrier2]

114. bravo !!!

i saw a thread today that suggested that people with low post counts don't command the proper degree of respect from DU's old timers ...

well, all i can say is: Great Post !!

the OP apparently has confused a progressive, underground discussion forum with www.dnc.org ... of course, the truth is that it's not Greens and Libertarians who have hurt the Democratic Party; it's the loss of millions of voters who have become so disenchanted that they no longer vote at all ... the Democratic Party will fare better than they have when their message reaches out to Americans and offers real solutions to the troubles they face ... right now, that just ain't happening ... if it were, we'd be in control of the country ...

[ProSense]

119. Wrong!

The debate isn't that it's the Greens fault. The debate is why does the Green Party harp on what the Democrats need to do? Every article Nader and the rest have written since 2000 is complaining about the Democrats, not talking about what the Green agenda should be. Stay Green or whatever. Stay that way and promote the agenda best suited to that party, but please stop projecting an agenda for the Democrats to follow.

[Sam_Lowry]

127. Yes, that is true.

Nader's position is a blanket one: namely that dems have joined the repubs as the two wings of the corporate party. Both halves being funded and thus controlled by corporate America. And the evidence he has is compelling. Think about it. What "democrat" could possibly vote for the recent bankruptcy bill, whose sole purpose was to screw over working class people for the benefit of huge companies? Is this not a vote against the very middle class that is supposed to be the pillar of strength for the democratic party?
The hope of many greens is that their party would be made obsolete, by the returning of the political compass to the left. I share this view. I prefer cooperative models to competitive ones. For I would much rather add my rivals strength to my own, than weaken myself to defeat him.
The point/goal is common ground and strategy: How about this?

The greens agree to endorse the democratic candidate for president, and the dems agree to support greens in districts where they do not field a candidate. All those green votes help to win the white house, and greens who win house seats add votes to the dem total.

That's an example of what I think would work. Again, it is cooperative, not competitive. And that is my hope.

[ProSense]

128. When

I start to see articles from Nader and Green Party members that spew the kind of venom at Republicans (using the term) that they have at Democrats, I will believe that they hold both parties in contempt.

How they construe tearing down the Democratic Party as constructive is beyond me.

I have no doubt they want to move the compass left, but their actions suggests that they want to be the left, sans the Democrats. To that I say, stay Green.

[welshTerrier2]

130. is calling for the impeachment of bush and cheney adequate ??

"When I start to see articles from Nader and Green Party members that spew the kind of venom at Republicans (using the term) that they have at Democrats, I will believe that they hold both parties in contempt."

here ya go ... stop believing all the anti-Green propaganda you hear on DU ...

here's an article that Democrats should find rather appealing: http://www.gp.org/greenpages/content/volume9/issue3/article1.php

i'm confident there are many others if you require greater volume ...

[ProSense]

132. Yes!

Where are the articles about all the Republican scandals: Abramoff, Ney, etc.

[welshTerrier2]

137. ah ... you want scandals ...

read this article ... the rest of the research you'll have to do on your own ...

source: http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_16.shtml

scroll down to this title:
TITLE: Vogeler Welcomes Indictment of Rove and Libby

"The Bush Administration has stretched the American people's tolerance for greed and corruption to the breaking point."

[Sam_Lowry]

131. You mean like this?

http://www.gp.org/impeachbush.shtml#1

or perhaps this?

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_16.shtml

or even this?

http://www.nader.org/template.php?/archives/207-Letter-to-President-Bush-on-Earthquake-Relief.html

or how about this one?

http://www.nader.org/template.php?/archives/200-Seize-the-Moment.html

5 minutes. That's all it took to find 4 examples (You will note the term "republican" used, as you requested). Please read these and tell me again how Nader and the green party only exist to harm democrats, would you?

[ProSense]

136. Those are

very generic. Show me the venom; show me the articles about the Republican scandals---Abramoff, Ney, Noe, etc. The articles that tear at the core of everything the Republicans stand for.

[Sam_Lowry]

138. When you provide no evidence to support your claim?

Not bloody likely! You asked for venom, then don't bother to read what I find for you. If you had you could have picked out at least 10 choice quotes. And where are your articles? You know, the ones where the greens and Nader spew "venom" at the dems? The ones where they say that the greens should be the dominant party, and squeeze the dems outta existance? It's obvious that for you green voter=bad, green party=evil. So go on believing that. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. Considering that mindset, I think there are a few openings on Kansas school boards. You will be in good, likewise rigid company.

[ProSense]

179. Plenty out there

I'm not posting that crap.

But here's a taste:

Published on Saturday, October 1, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Dems: Seriously Hapless
by Ralph Nader

Snip...
To this day, in criticizing Mr. Bush, even the anti-war Democrats like Rep. Dennis Kucinich use the false lowball figure of injuries.

To this day, Democratic House Leader, Nancy Pelosi, with arguably the most anti-war constituents in the nation residing in her California district, is not leading the Democrats with even comparable statements that some Republicans are making.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1001-02.htm


Democrats did extremely well in the last elections. To Mr. Nader I say, sorry the Democrats aren't working on his agenda at his speed.

[Sam_Lowry]

254. Oh yeah...venemous indeed...

...amazing use of the english language eh? Boy, Nader really put them in their place, didn't he? :eyes:


Now the question: Is what he wrote false?

[Andromeda]

158. You may have a little trouble here...

during the primaries if you really feel the way you say you do. You're not going to last long if you say you want to vote for the Republican because you like that guy/gal better.

It's nice that you open your arms and heart to ALL parties and will vote for the person who says the things you like but if it's not a Democrat you will be asked to leave and join UniversalUnderground or the UniversalBrotherhoodUnderground.

By the way, Gore didn't run a shit campaign; try "screwed by the SCOTUS." And he DID get the popular vote. If truth be told, and ALL the votes had been counted like they should have been, Gore would probably be our president now.

I don't recall any time during Kerry's campaign anyone saying it was the green party's fault that he lost. That's a new one on me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

224. "He ran a shit campaign"!

I've seen that a number of times. They say it with all the bombast and arrogance of a master political strategist, yet they belong to tiny odd-ball parties, and probably aren't employed as strategists in them.

[Sam_Lowry]

256. No, the words are not enough.

I look to voting records, resume, and what source of funds the candidate has. Think about it. If I went on words alone, I coulda voted for bush. Nice rhetoric, very simple and appealing. But I looked up his record, and checked who was bankrolling him, and didn't like what I found.
And yes, Gore and Kerry both won, in my opinion as well. BUT they could have easily won by a margin too great to cheat, had they actually run a good campaign. Kerry in particular! There was no excuse for him not to be 30 points ahead of Bush going into the election.

[MrBenchley]

193. Jeeze, if you think the Democrats are shit, don't let me keep you.....

"What you say here in effect is you're happy to have my vote, as long as I keep my mouth shut."
Actually what I said is, if you want to be a Llibertarian (big or little l) or a Green go forth and do your damndest as an honest Llibertarian or Green. But it seems like you want to hang out here to tell us our party is shit, instead.

If you really think we're no different than Republicans, don't let the door hit you in thre ass.

[Sam_Lowry]

258. So how much did you pay for this board?

Since you obviously own it after all. Did you at least negotiate a good price? :eyes:

I peruse this board for all manner of opinions, information, and liberal activism and community. I never said the dem party was "shit" because I don't believe that. I won't ever go down that road of democrat=good regardless of what they do. Nor will I say that repub=bad regardless of what they do. But you won't have any discussion, just obedience. Shame.

[MrBenchley]

303. The same amount you did....

"you won't have any discussion"
With whom? I sure don't see much incentive to have one in your posts.

[hiley]

211. I could not agree more

with you.

[eallen]

98. Speaking as a civil libertarian....

There is a real sense in which personal freedom is the heart and soul of the American dream. That doesn't imply the libertarian's worship of some idealized market, or pretense that the idea that people should be free somehow encompasses corporations avoiding various regulations. Rather, it is about freedom of thought, speech, and religion, freedom of association, freedom to travel, freedom to live one's live how one wants, freedom to work or to peddle or to start a business or to get by in other fashion, freedom to abstain or stick by one lover or attract several, freedom to carry a pregnancy or terminate it, freedom to frighten the horses, and freedom to do whatever isn't explicitly banned.

The freepers make great use of the rhetoric of freedom, while working against it in every political issue where it is at stake, and trying to cut the Bill of Rights down to a size where they can drown it in Dobson's baptismal font. When it comes to freedom, they are hypocrits of the highest order. The libertarians really do favor personal freedom, but connect it to a narrow and unreal political ideology.

We, Democrats, likely have done more to forward personal freedom than any other political party. Yet. Yet, we don't have the rhetoric of freedom. Somehow, we seem to have lost that. I don't know why. And I think it is a shame.

[Dr Fate]

103. Can't stand the Greens or the Libertarians.

Democratic Party is the only game in town if you want decent governance and social justice.

Having said that, I dont mind hearing from honest Democrats who want more from their party- and I would hope you dont either.

In any event- it seems like Kerry and Reid are actually listening to the active DEM base these days- and I absolutely love the results.

[MrBenchley]

194. Agreed....

I got a REAL problem with the kind of people who sit on here postingsly hints or outright lies about Democrats being just as corrupt as Republicans, and the like.

[incapsulated]

109. It's hard to top Jai's posts

She said much of what I feel.

I'll just say this. On this forum, the DEMOCRATICunderground, I don't want to hear what Greens or Libs or anyone not fully committed to this party "thinks" about us. It's not easy being a Democrat. It hasn't been for a while. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and sneer. Or try to upset the game for giggles, for some.

In short: Get your own fucking forum.

[ProudDad]

150. No

I like it here...

I joined this forum a few years ago because I believed that this is part of the movement tugging the Democratic party to a set of core beliefs that are pro-people and anti-corporate because, fellow sufferers, that's what we need.

That's why I'm a card-carrying ACLU member, a card carrying Union member and was out on the streets fighting the gropenfuhrer and will be there again.

[incapsulated]

154. If you are so concerned about the direction of the Party

Why not join it? Show some commitment if you are serious. I don't hang out on Green forums and tell them how to run their party, that would be disingenuous.

[ProudDad]

159. What do you mean Join?

Do I have to cut my wrist and mingle my blood with Joe Lieberman's?

I support and vote for persons whose values are congruent with mine.

If there's a candidate who's humane and compassionate (really compassionate, not a fake like *) believes that we're all on this Earth together and we'd better get along without war, without oppression, without exploitation of the Earth or each other. I work for them and vote for them.

I don't care if the "party label" next to her/his name is Democrat, Green, Republican, Really Weird Loonie Party (in Britain -- it's possible).

I'm actually Anarcho-Syndicalist but I don't expect to see the victory of the working class in my lifetime. So I make do with the possible. I find my allies wherever I can -- I don't expect anyone to be 100% pure in my eyes but I'll always try to argue and persuade to try to get them there.

I've registered Democrat a few times in the past few years for tactical reasons but right now, where I live, the Green Party resonates more with my core value so I'm registered Green. I'd also like to keep the Green numbers up to scare the shit out of the conservative Dems -- that's a cool thing too. But whatever label I'm registered under is rather irrelevent in the grand scheme of things, sort of like the color of the grass in my back yard...

[MrBenchley]

195. Hear! Hear!

I see red when I'm on DemocraticUnderground and have to listen to some Green Party snotnose tell me that as a Democrat I should work to put the Democrats in third place for reasons of ideological purity....

[LWolf]

110. Criticism from actual Democrats

doesn't seem to go over too well with you, either.

It really doesn't matter if it is someone who sees dysfunction and a need for change from outside of the party or from inside; if they speak up about it, you seem determined to hang on to that wheel and make sure no problems are addressed.

These days, being a Democrat is not enough; apparently, to avoid Mr. Benchley's broad brush, you must be a Democrat that follows his bus route to the destination.

[Dr Fate]

112. I get that impression as well.

I agree that Greens & Libertarians have their own baby to rock- but I have no problem with active Democrats stating what they want from their party.

It looks like many key players in the Democratic part are actually taking the advice of active Democrats and are starting to openly take on Bush on the big issues.

I'm glad I worked to encourage that instead of listening to people who accused me of not being a real DEM and who tried to bully me into shutting up.

As it is, I do agree with the basic statement in the OP.

[MrBenchley]

196. Geeze, I wonder about ther sort of person

who sits around pissing and moaning that the Democrats are crooked too in any thread about this or that Republican scandal.....

[LWolf]

269. I don't know.

I haven't seen any. Meanwhile, I thought this thread was pissing and moaning about 3rd party members criticizing the Democratic Party......

I simply noted that it doesn't seem to make any difference to you; you respond the same way to Democrats who are critical of problems within their own party.

[BenDavid]

133. All that needs be said

about the Greens is I hope they are still proud of their votes in the 2000 election......

[Sam_Lowry]

140. Yes, very much so

I voted for who I wanted to be president. Did you?

[MrBenchley]

197. Kudos! (n/t)

[lostnfound]

134. Most Greens vote Democratic in races where no Green is on the ballot

and many who argue in favor of Green ideology also are pragmatic enough to compromise themselves in the voting booth when an election is expected to be close enough for the Democrat to win. So let's not 'strengthen their resolve' to create their own bus by failing to recognize them as the important allies that they are.

Which Democratic bus driver do you prefer? Sometimes saying that you're Green is another way of saying you prefer the pro-environment, economically-progressive, anti-imperialist Democratic bus driver over the corporatist, imperialist Democratic bus driver.

[Sam_Lowry]

142. Exactly!

Thanks for pointing that out :)

That's why I advocate cooperation. As I posted above, dems and greens need to work together. Greens need to support the pres. candidate, and dems need to help greens run in districts that no dem is running in. Both will vote very closely on many issues, and thus instead of fighting each other we can beat up on republicans (well, neo-cons anyway...real repubs I still like to argue with. It's good rhetorical excercise hehe).

Also, dems have the money and access to get the wide appeal, where greens are masters of grass-roots organization. Think of that combo for a minute. Remember how Dean got his money?

[lostnfound]

144. Very good point about districts where no dem is running.

If Dems would support the greens in those districts, they could help shift the political mood of the district too through the grassroots organizing.

[MrBenchley]

204. Yeah, THERE's a terrific idea....NOT!

Let's us Democrats abandon the Democratic party to prop up a moribund party that's little more than a Republican dirty trick! Hooray!

[lostnfound]

290. Hey, you obviously are more involved than I am. I'm just a dumb mom

who cares about her country and her planet. That's my only reason for being here. Since I'm not a professional politico, and never have been, I've got a lot to learn. So thanks for letting me know where you stand on this one. (Despite my thick skull, Mr. Benchley, I think I could have guessed based on the dozens of other similar comments you've made in this thread.)

It's not my intention to anger you more, but I honestly would like to know your thoughts on another question I raised here, what I posted in #227, in case you missed it. To paraphrase, if we have Green party organizers who are here at DU serving as disruptors and dividers, that's one thing to be angry at. But if it's a blanket anger directed at life-long registered Democrats who espouse green (small g) politics, and/or are particularly focused on the war-and-peace issues, well I don't know how you distinguish such people from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, for example, which contains over 50 of our Congressional Democrats.

Even green Democrats qualify as Democrats, don't they?

[MrBenchley]

294. You really need an answer?

" if we have Green party organizers who are here at DU serving as disruptors and dividers, that's one thing to be angry at."
And we do. And I am.

Next!

[lostnfound]

298. Ok, so we do. The real question was..

Is it a blanket anger directed at life-long registered Democrats who espouse green (small g) politics, and/or are particularly focused on the war-and-peace issues?

[MrBenchley]

299. And I gave you the answer

Please don't tell me we're going to see the greens pull that little/BIG letter crap that the Llibertarians do...

[lostnfound]

300. Well okay thanks, that clears it up.

Purely hypothetically, of course, if any of our Democratic politicans happened to also be neocons, I'd prefer they show the courtesy of identifying themselves as such in some manner, even with a lower case. Perhaps we could have warmongerer (small 'w') Democrats and neocon (small 'n') Democrats.

Eventually the whole party could get down to just 2 people and they'd sing, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, Stuck in the middle with you.". If you know that song.

:toast:

[MrBenchley]

301. Didn't think it was in any way murky....

"Perhaps we could have warmongerer (small 'w') Democrats and neocon (small 'n') Democrats."
Or perhaps we'll just have Democrats and a bunch of snivelling, dishonest greens and Llibertarians trolling here.

[MrBenchley]

302. By the way....

In another thread in LBN right now we've got a shitload of "ultra-progressive" people trying ineptly to attack a popular elected Democrat...and two posters who actually announce they plan to vote Republican.

Plenty of attacks on supporters of the popular elected Democrat from the "ultra-progressive" crowd.; not a peep from those same people to the folks who are going to vote Republican.

That smell fragrant to you? Sure does to me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

225. Greens are masters of grass roots organisations? Did they

do better than The Democrats - granted moreover that Dean's Internet fund-raising achievements were a first significant attempt. Correct me if I'm wrong on the latter.

[MrBenchley]

246. In fact...

Greens couldn't even get their presidential candidate Cobb on the ballot in NY in 2004...which required only a handful of signatures.

The Socialist Workers could field a candidate in NY, but not the Greens...there's some masterful grass roots organzing, by jingo!

[MrBenchley]

198. So why isn't a Green on the ballot, pray tell?

I mean, surely if their message is one which resonates with a number of voters......

[leftofthedial]

141. you are dead-on right about Libertarians

But I'm a lifelong dedicated Dem and I'm one of the Dem bashers.

They have abandoned labor, aided and abeted the neocon takeover of Murka's foreign policy and intelligence/national security apparatus and during the past 25 years have given far more service to corporations than to the American people.

There are some better than others and some worse and on balance the Dems are still FAR better than the repukes, but I still call bullshit when they promote the neocon agenda and when they sell out the American worker.

[ToeBot]

149. opps, miss posted that

[ToeBot]

151. 25 years ago the Greens didn't exist, did they immigrate to this country?

No, they came from the Democratic Party (yeah, there are 2 ex-republican Greens, they live in Iowa, gay couple, good people). When the Democrats abandoned their ideals and embarked on a campaign of corporate appeasement, they created the Green party. Congratulations daddy, it's a Splitter. Your post is nothing but a tacit admission that the Dem's have indeed, sold out. I can see why you wouldn't want to be reminded. There is an odd expression I heard in europe, "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust."

[MrBenchley]

200. There's always been a tiny lunatic fringe....

And Ralph Nader managed to turn one of their crackpot parties into a Republican dirty trick...

"When the Democrats abandoned their ideals and embarked on a campaign of corporate appeasement"
I wonder why someone who hates Democrats so would stick around....

"Your post is nothing but a tacit admission that the Dem's have indeed, sold out."
Perhaps in never never land. But here on earth.....

[Sam_Lowry]

257. Of course they have sold out

As have you. You cling only to the name "democrat". And presume to tell all others what it means. And when a dem wins in 08 you will have the unpleasant surpise to see them govern in the same manner as Bush. But you want no cooperation, no mutual agreement, no compromise. Thus you display the very qualities of those you deride.

[MrBenchley]

262. Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass....

Nothing's keeping you in this party you hate so much.

"But you want no cooperation,"
From whom? People who hate the Democrats? Fuck that shit, as we say in Brooklyn. If your ideas are so hot, go peddle them directly.

[Sam_Lowry]

265. Yup, spoken like a true neo-con

Agree or depart!

Or perhaps better said "You're either with us or against us" hmmm?


You sure you're on the right board?


:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

283. So you hate the Party and consider us all sellouts and neoCons

but yet you keep hanging around pissing and moaning.

I know I'm on the right board, just like I know your "when a dem wins in 08 you will have the unpleasant surpise to see them govern in the same manner as Bush" is a whopping load of horseshit.

So what's keeping YOU here, binky?

[MrBenchley]

284. So you hate the Party and consider us all sellouts and neoCons

but yet you keep hanging around pissing and moaning.

I know I'm on the right board, just like I know your "when a dem wins in 08 you will have the unpleasant surpise to see them govern in the same manner as Bush" is a whopping load of horseshit.

So what's keeping YOU here, binky?

[DanCa]

157. Well this is " democratic" underground.

And I have a few friends from each party rerpesented here. However by and large I would agree with you. Especially since the cold cruel fact of the matter is anyone who didn't vote for Senator Kerry put the gigiling chimp killer back into office.

[Behind the Aegis]

162. you said:

"Especially since the cold cruel fact of the matter is anyone who didn't vote for Senator Kerry put the gigiling chimp killer back into office." :applause: They have blood on their hands too!

There is "principle" and there is "reality." "Stealing is wrong!" Great principle, but when the reality is you are starving, stealing may be a necessity! "Kerry is a putz and probably DLC!" While this also may be true, he would have been better than what we have NOW!

It is believed Mae West said: "When presented with the lesser of two evils, I will choose the one I haven't tried!"

[DanCa]

163. There were so many issues involved plus the supreme court.

There are times when you got to look past at the candidate and for the greatter good. I guess you can say I am in issue voter. Was senator Kerry a flawed candidate, maybe, but than he is also human.
I cannot say the same thing for the chimp however.

[Behind the Aegis]

166. I agree.

Here's a question for you: would have it been better to have Kerry picking a SC nominee or Shrub?

I am guessing you'll agree that Kerry would have been WAY better!!! He wasn't my original choice. I was "anybody but Bush," but I did learn to accept him as my candidate. Had he been president, I doubt we would have 'free speech zones.' So, Kerry would have listened to the people, instead of listening to his cronies.

[DanCa]

173. Senator Kerry won the debates

That's whats been sticking in my craw. How could anyone vote for someone whos intellectual inferior than his competition? Amazing isn't it. What gets me I had one aunt who voted for dubya because he rides horses. It's amazing the stupidity of regular voters.

[Andromeda]

165. Hahahahahaaha....

There's gonna be a lot of blood flung around (well, maybe not blood...) during the primaries so we'd better get our waders on 'cause we'll be knee-deep in it.

[Behind the Aegis]

167. I agree!

"Knee deep in shit" is what springs to mind. We still have the 2006 elections to get through and already people are bitching and fighting about the 2008 presidential elections (and wanting Rethugs to win again)!

[Joe Chi Minh]

226. "When presented with the lesser of two evils, I will choose

the one I haven't tried". One I hadn't heard. Brilliant!

[MrBenchley]

201. Nor is our party served

by people dishonestly trying to drive wedges into it....

[Selatius]

240. Funny you don't understand the Electoral College

Down here in Mississippi, a safe state that was clearly going to Bush, it seems my vote for Kerry didn't really matter to begin with because the outcome was already assured. He didn't even bother to fucking visit us one time, not even one goddamn time. Because of the peculiarities of the EC, I could've voted Cobb of the Greens, and it wouldn't have meant my vote helped Bush win because it's not my vote that counts, it's the EC's votes that count. Only in a battleground state like Ohio or Florida would my vote really have counted. Then I would've been left with no option but Kerry.

You oversimplified the situation.

[retread]

172. "If either group really knew a fucking thing about what Americans want,

their own parties wouldn't be such tiny moribund specks." When did the political system start reflecting the will of the people?

[MrBenchley]

202. Wow....

Yes, clearly, the will of the people is behind two tiny parties filled with loonies...and it's only our corrupt party bosses keeping them from getting the millions of votes they deserve. And any minute now flying monkeys are going to come out of Michael Bendarik's ass.....

[mmonk]

199. It doesn't appear to me

the Greens or the libertarians are grabbing the steering wheel or are in any danger of doing so. From what I see, the same people that have successfully grabbed the steering wheel of the republicans are the ones having the most success at attempting the grab the steering wheel of this party. If you don't see it, then this party can become irrelevant due to lack of vigilance at defending democratic principles.

[MrBenchley]

203. Uh-HUH...

"the ones having the most success at attempting the grab the steering wheel of this party"

[mmonk]

205. That quote from my post

is to make what particular point by itself? Just curious.

[MrBenchley]

207. Don't cry to me because your post was unintelligible....

And now I have to report into the "Democratic party apparatus."

[mmonk]

209. I'm not crying.

Your reply to my post was unintelligible enough to ask for clarification.

[mmonk]

212. In reference to

"the ones having the most success at attempting the grab the steering wheel of this party"

I will spell it out for you. M-u-l-t-i-n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l C-o-r-p-o-r-a-t-i-o-n-s. We are where we are due to the incestuous relationship between these corporations and our elected officials. They have captured the republican party in its entirety and half of our party. That's why the Naderites pick off just enough votes to damage us. It's really bad enough now to where our very legal system as well as the legislative body politic has changed and threatens the power and priniciples of the concept "by the people, for the people".

[Selatius]

238. Oh no, not another tinfoil hat conspiracy nut

And I suppose you believe the corporatists were the ones behind JFK's brains being splattered all over his wife on that bright November day. :sarcasm:

Congresscritters are just doing what they have been doing, trying to raise money for their campaigns! If you don't like the choices people make, you're just going to have to learn how to accept them. (Nevermind the corporate news media historically trying to stifle the flow of information people need to make informed decisions)

[laureloak]

215. I think we can ALL come together to get rid of this ADMIN. n/t

[confludemocrat]

267. I think we will come together and beat these Repubs, but as usual

keep a look out with our peripheral vision at these types who express this kind of thinking like the OP.

[MrBenchley]

295. Hahahahahaha...

Yeah, you wouldn't want actual Democrats in the Democratic party....

[Dark]

223. There are some people who feel that way. If they want to give advice

let them.

We still have free speech. I for one welcome our libertarian and Green Brothers.

Hell, they're still better than the Dems on Gay marriage, which makes them okay with me.

[Usrename]

236. With a little more help from guys like Liberman...

With a little more help from guys like Liberman, their victory will be complete.

It's not about parties and politics anymore, it's about facism.

The slaughter in New Orleans is not enough of a warning for some people.

Joe's response: A BI-PARTISIAN INVESTIGATION

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=245208

yeah, A BI-PARTISIAN INVESTIGATION from this congress!

Did he drink the kool-aid? Is he unaware that he helped them with the whitewash? Is he their agent?

Some folks don't care where the bus is actually going, as long as they THINK they are actually driving.

How can this Democrat be helping us when he is working as hard as he can to cover up the crimes of the Administration?

How does this help us?

[MrBenchley]

245. "Some folks don't care where the bus is actually going"

And some of us can spell "Lieberman." It's a big tent.

[Usrename]

253. Why are you fighting us?

Do you enjoy being an insignifigant voice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5476616

Join the party... It's a big tent.

[MrBenchley]

259. Dupe...

[Name removed]

260. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueIris]

237. Oh, my God, I was ready for nonsense. THANK YOU.

I would say more, but it's pretty much been covered.

[MrBenchley]

241. Any time....

[TheWraith]

239. Many thanks, Mr. Benchley.

You've spoken the truth, and then hung in there far longer than I would to counter the people who would pile on and attack you for it. Kudos.

[MrBenchley]

242. Thank YOU...

The people who leaped up to shout "Who, me?" I found especially amusing....

[wyldwolf]

249. My God! That's funny as hell. But so damn true!

[MrBenchley]

250. Thanks...

[confludemocrat]

266. Yeah, purge any "greens" etc and call it "White Democratic Underground"?

Because most Democrats who are minorities mostly are going to sound like what you seem to be complaining about. They are less "mainstream" in many ways, including a willingness to rip through the BS and critique Dems who to them are not very trustworthy. It is the air they breathe.

I think I know what the problem is here: the war. Mainstream Dems hold alot of assumptions that are soft, squishy and too rigidly establishment-of-the-party-oriented. many have failed utterly in standing up against what is going on. This is kinda how I see it from your tone: "These are you choices (sort of as menu choices): so pick one (such as from among macaroni and cheese, meatloaf or hamburgers) and shut the fuck up or things are gonna get worse for you. (Fuck that, I want some vietnamese or thai food, or some tex-mex, or nouvelle cuisine).That was 2004.

I don't like your rules and your thinly-veiled suggestion of shunning or purging non- mainstream people.

[MrBenchley]

291. Help, help! I'm being oppressed!

"Mainstream Dems hold alot of assumptions that are soft, squishy and too rigidly establishment-of-the-party-oriented."
Not like the greens and Llibertarians, strutting around calling for actual purges of this or that bunch of actual Democrats out loud, eh?

"This is kinda how I see it from your tone"
Yeah, and I'll take it under advisement (snicker)

"I don't like your rules"
Tough titty, chief.

[confludemocrat]

304. Yours is a "hit too close to home" response I know so well

but you left yourself open with the dumbest OP in quite a while, Herr Benchley.
Guten Tag.

[radio4progressives]

271. MrBenchley

Please remind me: in another thread didn't you call for a sort of 'cease and desist' (paraphrasing) of calling for 'purges' - making the case for the 'big tent' notion?

just trying to remember.

also, how does W's speech make you feel about the future in Iraq, America and the Democratic Party, tonight?

Got security, now?

How about some Contentment?

Did W's speech make you feel "Rest Assured" ?

[MrBenchley]

293. The second I care what you want

I'll let you know.

"in another thread didn't you call for a sort of 'cease and desist' (paraphrasing) of calling for 'purges' - making the case for the 'big tent' notion? "
Yeah, and what I got in response was a bunch of shitheads who aren't Democrats calling me childish names. Fuck that shit.

"Did W's speech make you feel "Rest Assured" ?"
Sure seems to have made you do so. Here you are, strutting around waving it like a bloody shirt.

[PhilipShore]

274. I agree 100% In addition; Some Greens may be linked to actual Nazi's

I was researching some issues back around the 2000 election concerning some Green anti-Democratic speech, which was put into--Green pro PLO, pro Nader campaign slogans around the 2000 election, and the same rabid anti-Zion speech I noticed--was by the same anti-Gore and anti-Democrat people.

In addition, I did further research, and the anti-Zion slogans were literally copy and pasted from actual Nazi anti-Semitic Poster slogans during World War 2.

[radio4progressives]

276. Pro-Palestinian equates to Nazi's huh?

that's a typical fascist remark. Ignorant too.

[PhilipShore]

277. What?

Are you saying it is a fascist remark-- to question a --pro Palestine Green campaign and Nader slogan-- from a group of Naderites, which was an actual-- NAZI poster slogan-- that was published during the War?

I am not a political scientist, but it does not take much to figure out, that the pro Palestine speech by at least the group of Greens I spoke to --in 2000--during their campaign was anti-Semitic.

As far as I recall, I was not born at the time but Nazi’s were fascists, and those that questioned them were pacifists.

[PhilipShore]

278. WP/AP: GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads (2000)

By Laura Meckler
Associated Press Writer
Friday, Oct. 27, 2000; 11:59 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON –– Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president.

The ads by the Republican Leadership Council will begin airing Monday in Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, all states that are part of Gore's base and where Nader is polling well. The group plans to spend more than $100,000 at first and hopes to raise more over the weekend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm

[ProudDad]

281. Now you're getting really silly

Other than Gore, it was John Hagelin that cost Gore the 2000 election in Florida:

John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party and Reform Party got 2287 votes. That was enough to "rob" Gore of the victory...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/FL/frameset.exclude.html


Note: CNN Seems to have removed the exit polls...

[MrBenchley]

288. Nothing silly about that...

But it is hilarious to see that you're reduced to claiming that the Green party was an ineffective dirty trick by the Republicans....

[ProudDad]

280. Now you're getting REALLY ridiculous

If you want people to support your efforts to get the repukes out, you'd better stop this kind of slander and innuendo.

This is utterly ridiculous!

[Usrename]

282. So pro-facist is the answer?

Anyone who wants to kill sand-niggers is all right with you?

[MrBenchley]

289. I'd fail to be brutally surprised

The Llibertarians often trot out a fuckwit called Lew Rockwell and his odious discussion board on DU. Rockwell, as far as I can tell, is the son of old George Lincoln Rockwell (anybody else remember Joe Pyne?), and has a hand in both the neoNazi AND neoConfederate movement.

By the way, Ron Paul is a "star" at Lew Rockwell.com.

[LetsGoMurphys]

279. I've heard Hannity say he is a liberatarian

If thats your boat jump on

[MrBenchley]

287. The difference between a libertarian and an ordinary right wing loony

is that the libertarian owns a modem.

[Moderator]

305. Locking

I'm locking this thread. Too many broad brush attacks.