General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo everyone who has stated we need to flush the party of 3rd way
candidates.. that we would do better if we had candidates that were tracking more to the left..that moderates are the bane of the party and have diffused our message....all I can say as some little poll watcher and phone caller for the local party is where the heck are these better candidates that you keep telling us we need to run..???
Think about the 1000's of offices locally, state wide, federally that we try to fill.. Where are these better candidates that you keep saying we need to put in place?..
My friends we run who we have.. and if there is a secret stash of these great left tracking candidates.. Please share..
treestar
(82,383 posts)as no one can be kicked out, and how can a party be anything other than the people who make up the party? It's a coalition, or a group that is getting together to pursue what common interests they cobble together.
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)Just baffled..
treestar
(82,383 posts)district chose to run. By the primary or whatever process. So how does the "left" get a lefter candidate but by having enough Ds in that district who vote for that lefter person to be their candidate? I mean, the party chooses the candidate. So how do they propose the candidate be chosen? By the Ds in that election district or by a Panel of the Pure? And who decides who goes on that panel?
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)I keep reading thread after thread about how we need to clean up the party.. get rid of this faction of Democrats.. or get rid of that faction... I am not even sure what it means, to tell you truth..because I want to know where we get canidates to run.. they come from the local communities..
FSogol
(45,526 posts)We can Warren- and Sanders-ize this country in no time using the FSogol Method!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)That's the ticket.
This sounds like the discovery of the century!
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Whoever can spend the most money in developing a candidate will get the kind of candidate they want. Money has a way of protecting itself.. It is almost impossible to get a truly grass roots candidate.. Ain't gunna happen.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you think so little of the voters that money is all they respond to (and there is a lot of evidence that is true to a great degree). In other words, ads on TV, which must be what costs the most. Then yeah, you have to raise money.
Though we could get people to volunteer, but they may not have so much time, in that they have to work all day. This could be why the right does so well, with all those retired people. They accuse the left of being unemployed but in fact they are the ones that don't have to work.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)So by extension, isn't the "party" "the panel"?
And by "Party" you mean the "democratic establishment"?
And the "establishment" is the gatekeeper and holder of purse strings.
Given the absurd and decadent amount of money spent
on the recent elections, if the establishment won't support
"outsider" candidates the party/panel/establishment
essentially appoints candidates which will maintain the status quo.
Nowhere do I see the democratic voters having any meaningful
input in who will be appointed as "the candidate".
That's where we are today, right?
treestar
(82,383 posts)you have to be active. In politics you can't sit back and expect to be "served" and have things "delivered" which is language I see a lot of.
We have primaries for the big offices.
For a lot of local ones, it may be hard to get someone to run, and not a lot of competition. If there were, there'd be a primary.
At least the local committee studies who they think could win in their district.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)We hear it all the time, yet when you asked the question "where are they" all you get is silence, or the run-around. I think the biggest problem is that even those who say we need better candidates would never be able to agree on what that person should be for. I don't think they could find someone who has all the qualities they each wan't in a candidate. There seems to be a huge following of some of the more outspoken posters who "think" we have to get rid of the so called 3rd way crowd, which is every candidate they don't like, yet I bet they could never all agree on the "right one" that would fit all their needs. There is no perfect candidate.
I think what we see here is the follow the crowd mentality. People follow their favorite poster, and complain day in and day out, yet can't find the answers to question when asked "where are these perfect candidates"!
You asks a great question, but I don't think you will ever hear real answer.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How will they find a way to blame the "Third Way" etc? That'd be a poser for them. They are on faith that said candidate will "inspire" votes in such numbers they would convert "centrists" and right wingers to their cause. If that were possible, Bernie would already be President with a Congress of his choosing.
You can't win an election without the votes and if you can't get the majority with your candidate, well once again the other side wins.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)to get their message out.
If the establishment, party, media etc
does not allow or worse, subverts a candidate's
message, the voters lose out.
You can't win VOTES if you can't get your message out.
Why does the MSM have disproportionally more
republicans or third way personalities?
Where are the liberal or left leaning media personalities?
Why are Sunday talk shows disproportionally pro establishment?
treestar
(82,383 posts)then we've allowed that to be the case.
Local elections certainly require us to seek out information, since the "Sunday talk shows" don't cover that. There probably is local TV. It's not sexy enough for people to watch, but that's on them. If they don't want to be involved in self government, but merely be entertained by the Presidential election, thinking the President "runs the country" and that's the only election they care about, that's on them. They had options.
Looking for someone to blame, like whoever books the "Sunday talk shows" is not OK. That's letting the MSM run things when we don't have to.
JI7
(89,264 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Even the Greens or Socialists would have some members who thought something different and they'd be off with another schism. That's fine for religion, but not politics.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe I should know this, but I don't.
By "we" in that sentence, do you mean that you personally are involved in choosing candidates?
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)you , me and all the people around us..
merrily
(45,251 posts)that he did approach a Dem Governor about running for President in 2016--if Hillary did not.
And state parties vote on some candidates So, I thought I'd ask.
treestar
(82,383 posts)By the primaries for the President and presumably in each district by some method that allows the Ds of that district to choose. Why shouldn't they pick their candidate in say the 3rd District of NY rather than DU?
merrily
(45,251 posts)candidate has been anointed? The DCCC chooses House candidates and DSCC chooses Senate candidates.
Why shouldn't they pick their candidate in say the 3rd District of NY rather than DU?
I don't understand what this says at all. Are you trying to imply that I think DU should choose candidates?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"anointed"...
Yeah that is the attitude that is reeeeeeaaaallllyyyyy helping things...
You don't think it makes us look ridiculous when people who plan to vote for us....talk this bullshit? It makes us look unhinged....and as losers....and it suppresses the voters...
treestar
(82,383 posts)The Democrats of the 3rd district of NY will pick the candidate who runs for Congress for the third district of New York. If that person is to "third way" for DU, I would say that's just too damn bad for DU. You can demand they run someone to the left all you want, but you get no say. If they want to send a Blue Dog to Congress, they will. Yet you see DU demanding these districts run someone else.
I see obsession with the presidency continues. They are chosen by the primaries. We can vote in those primaries.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)probably scream an accusation of 3rD-way BS.
Can't fix
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)The initial stage of candidate selection happens at precinct level caucuses, often with only a few people present. Later, delegates selected at those caucuses attend district level conventions, where a process votes to to decide which candidate to endorse in the Primary election. Endorsed candidates have a huge edge in most primaries. Other candidates can also file independently as Democrats and run in the primaries as well. There are conventions for every district, sometimes held on the same day.
I normally am a delegate for five or six districts, and sometimes for the state convention, where endorsements for statewide elections are made.
Still, anyone can file and run in the Primary for any office. Endorsed candidates usually win though. The primary winner appears on the general election ballot.
In non-caucus states, the caucuses are replaced by nominating committees. Conventions may be held on the district or state levels, too.
In most states, however, individual candidates can still file and will appear in the Primary ballot with the party designation they filed under.
merrily
(45,251 posts)her personal involvement and did not think it was a ridiculous question. That, and another poster has mentioned personal involvement.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Presumably wouldn't have asked the question if he/she knew viable progressive candidates in the area.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The OP seemed to think that my question was unnecessary because the answer was self-evident. It wasn't.
Presumably wouldn't have asked the question if he/she knew viable progressive candidates in the area.
? The OP said, "We run who we can find." I asked the OP if he or she had personal involvement in selecting candidates I don't know how the above comment of yours relates to the exchange.
More than that, I don't know why anyone beside the OP and I got involved in this.
I simply asked the OP about the OP's own activities, a question only the OP can answer. It was not a topic appropriate for group discussion. I got the OP's response. I replied to that. It's over and I left the thread.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You actually believe this?
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)this purer set of canidates are that have not stepped forward..
merrily
(45,251 posts)Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)establishment.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Republicans have held a 4-3 edge on the board in recent years, leading to partisan votes and some bitter feelings on issues such as education funding and support for mass transit.
Democrats Sig Hutchinson, Matt Calabria, Jessica Holmes and John Burns each captured about 55 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results, defeating longtime Commissioners Joe Bryant and Paul Coble, board Chairman Phil Matthews and Rich Gianni, who joined the board earlier this year.
....
The four Democrats ran as a bloc under the "More with Four" banner, and they promised a more upbeat tone for the board, which has bickered with the Wake County Board of Education in recent years over control of schools, and movement on a mass transit proposal.
http://www.wral.com/dems-sweep-gop-off-wake-board-of-commissioners/14149356/#vQeHRraYxthyXrsq.99
There's four.
mariawr
(348 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)It's not a typo
canidates.. that we would do better if we had canidates that were tracking more to the left..that moderates are the bane of the party and have diffused our message....all I can say as some little poll watcher and phone caller for the local party is where the heck are these better canidates that you keep telling us we need to run..???
Think about the 1000's of offices locally, state wide, federally that we try to fill.. Where are these better canidates that you keep saying we need to put in place?..
My friends we run who we have.. and if there is a secret stash of these great left tracking canidates.. Please share..
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)Yep I hit spell check and apparently it passed.. I am a horrible speller.. not one of my gifts that is for sure
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)you've been redistricted and gerrymandered to death...all while you sat home and republicans went out and voted in the mundane elections for school boards and dog catcher...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)and then state reps. And even if you're in a severely gerrymandered district, there's still a chance if you are willing to spend a metric ton of retail politicking time after you've established yourself on those school boards or city councils. Bernie Sanders didn't start out as a US Senator, he worked his way up office by office.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)popularity of candidates like Sanders and Warren I have no doubt we will see more in the future. Here in Seattle they just elected their first ever socialist candidate to city council. The tidal wave is coming. The people want candidates with a populist message. They are so desperate for a populist message they are no longer waiting. They are doing it themselves with ballot initiatives.
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)Candidates are a reflection of the community they come out of.. what do you do.. refuse to let people run that are not in the image of Warren and Sanders? Because this is a big party..and it has a LOT of diversity of opinion along a spectrum of political thought..
merrily
(45,251 posts)best to run liberals?
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)Why is that.. no one here is saying running liberals is a bad idea.. hmmmmmmmm did I hit a sore spot?..
But canidates come from the community they live in.. and depending where you live in this big country.. you are going to find people tracking all along that spectrum..
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sore spot? What on earth are you talking about?
Never mind. Good luck with your thread.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)20 years and not once have I felt they have truly represented my interests. I want more choices. And when more choices start showing up you better believe I will not only vote for them. I will get out and work for their campaign which is something I have never done before because I have never been that enthusiastic about a candidate enough to work for a campaign before. but if a true progressive ran in my district I would do everything I could to help that candidate.
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)aptly reflect your beliefs to run for office...again, candidates come out of communities we live in..they have to be nurtured by the people who live in those communities..
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)You're dreaming if you think most candidates (except former staffers) come to politics with fully formed positions on every issue. On many, they get told what to think and say in order "not to piss off the NRA" or to "maximize fundraising opportunities" or "have a chance to reach the [mythical] centrist voters" or what have you. And it's the DCCC or DSCC or consultants from those ranks who have been spouting the same failing "conventional wisdom" for years, who give the same failing conventional shitty advice that has kept us from controlling Congress for the vast majority of the time since Clinton invented triangulation in 1992.
Think about it: the rise of the DLC coincides almost exactly with the end of a half century of Democratic domination of Congress.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Our system is completely fucked up, where it takes millions and millions of dollars to get elected...millions of dollars that ensure those candidates are beholden to big money interests.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--and it seems we will not be well represented by millionaires.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)But the 1% will.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--& agree with you about the DLC.
Keep on talkin Orwell.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)But lots of good that does helping someone get elected who will only talk about guns and abortion rights because they are afraid to tell voters they support raising the retirement age and keeping the carried interest loophole open. Apparently Anthony Brown lost the MD governor's race in part - at least according to exit polls - because he refused to talk about the economy. I just heard that on C-SPAN radio. Not. Helpful.
Nice to chat with you!
FSogol
(45,526 posts)The only exceptions are near mythical dead Democrats: FDR, Truman, Kennedy
Or the chosen ones: Kucinich, Warren, Sanders (who I suspect if they managed to get into power would be thrown under the bus quicker than I could shout authoritarian!)
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)who went down last night.. put in so much work..and time..
FSogol
(45,526 posts)It is very discouraging when all the hard work fails to pay off.
My two candidates won yesterday (Warner and Connolly) but the overall party fortunes still make it seem like a funeral.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)who did real things in the real world. Kennedy didn't in fact accomplish all that much, so I am not sure whether you are calling his accomplishments mythical in the sense that people think he accomplished more than he did.
But FDR did, against massive opposition by the 1% and while being called a "class traitor," accomplish a great deal: CCC, WPA, FLSA, NLRA, Social Security, AFDC, unemployment insurance, Hoover Dam, TVA, the list goes on. But, sure, diminish his accomplishments by calling him "mythical." What's your goal in minimizing the New Deal?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)He wasn't pure enough.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)All those Republican votes after his own party abandoned him ... not.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)...the left was ever a major part of the electorate.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Which is why FDR was able to take the Democratic Party so far left -- the communist party was a growing movement from which FDR was trying to "save" the country. You do know something about American history, right?
Read more here: http://www.isreview.org/issues/25/The_1930s.shtml
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)which led to the "New Deal Coalition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_coalition
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)"In my examination of the historical record, it is clear that Roosevelt endured vicious, unrelenting attacks from his left that often exceeded the level of vitriol directed at President Obama, and correspondingly, Roosevelt was not viewed by liberals of his day with the adulation and reverence liberals view him today. "
Links, quotes and book citations follow.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal#
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)deals with the first new deal which helped out the banks. So he created the second new deal which led to his landslide and Democratic victories until 1960.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)The facts show that he was attacked by the left throughout the 1930s. this is on the record, historical fact it can't be spun away.
The left also deplored Harry Truman and the feeling was mutual he - called them crackpots and radicals.
The left also wasn't very fond of JFK,
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)One of Harry Truman's civil rights opponents though not quite as much LBJ was.
I'm not spinning I pointed out the New Deal 2 which won over the support of many liberals and a New Deal Coalition which featured liberals & liberal ideas. I don't doubt there was still criticism but overall the left supported it and became part of a coalition that won elections.
I'm well aware of Harry Truman's popularity
Not surprising, a month later Gallup conducts a poll and this is where it really does become shocking for a politician--82% of those polled by Gallup opposed Harry Trumans civil rights proposal, 82%. And I have to read you Harry Truman on polls, because it really says it all, [were it] that more politicians felt this way. These are his words, not mine. I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt. What would Jesus Christ have preached if he had taken a poll in Israel. Where would the Reformation have gone if Martin Luther had taken a poll? It isnt polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. Its right and wrong and leadership. Men with fortitude, honesty and a belief in right, and by the way, at that point, obviously House member Lyndon Baines Johnson was taking polls because a month after all this happens he launches his campaign for Senate, his second and ultimately successful campaign and who is public enemy no. 1? Harry Trumans civil rights proposal. He calls it a sham and a farce. So it was widespread political opposition to Harry Truman. This is an election year. Harry Truman is unflinching. He has no intention of backing down.
At this point, Harry Trumans popularity is not increasing at all, I can assure you. The Republicans on June 24 hold their convention in Philadelphia. Come up with a dream ticket. The dream ticket for 48--Thomas Dewey, Governor of New York; on the other coast of the country, Earl Warren, Governor of California. There was so much concern in the Democratic leadership that Harry Truman could not be elected largely because of civil rights that a number of leading Democrats tried to recruit Dwight Eisenhower to be the nominee for the party. That finally collapsed. Its only on July 15th a week before the Democrat convention. That convention takes place in Philadelphia like the Republican convention. Its a free-for-all. Why? Harry Trumans civil rights proposal. Theres a fight over the plank that is legendary. Harry Truman puts forward a plank that is constitutionally anchored and calls for legislation. The state rights Democrats respond with a regressive proposal and Mayor Hubert Humphrey from Minneapolis comes in with a very explicit plank that tracks Trumans February 2nd proposal to Congress. Its a fight that would shatter the party. The more explicit plank prevails by 69 votes.
The next night Harry Truman finally is the nominee of his Party, but its not a happy party; 947 delegates vote for Truman, 263 vote for racist Georgia Senator Richard Russell. Only 13 of the southern delegates vote for Truman and importantly, a statistic that stunned me because of the make up of the Party today, of the 1,234 delegates in Philadelphia at that convention, only 17 were African Americans. Imagine that the black leadership in the Party was so nascent and so de minimus at that point.
Harry Truman makes a great speech. He wasnt a great orator but he outdid himself this night and he blamed all the ills of the country on the do-nothing Republican-controlled Congress. He also said Republican Congress, you want to make the country right. Ill give you a chance. Come back to Washington. Im calling a special session, the Turnip Day Session. Be back in un-air-conditioned Washington on July 26th. Well meet for two weeks and well see if you can deliver on your plank. No reason you cant. Youve got the leadership. Before that session started, however, the party really fragmented. July 17th then South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond creates the Dixiecrat Party. Two days later Henry Wallace who had been FDRs vice president creates the Progressive Party. Essentially the Party is shattered. Two of the three prongs that Democrats had relied on, that FDR had relied on for his four victories are gone, the Progressives, the Southern Democrats.
http://www.virginia.edu/uvanewsmakers/newsmakers/gardner.html
My point was FDR moved to the left, won over them which helped his landslide victory and future election. I'm sure there were still some not satisfied but you could hardly say the left loathed him.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)In early 1935 Democratic National Committee chairman Jim Farley secretly commissioned a poll to see what the 1936 election would look like if Huey Long ran as a third party candidate against President Roosevelt.
By 1938, though, the left had suffered some bad defeats and their power as a voting block was erased, anyway.
The left lost most of their congressional seats, and Republicans deated Philip La Follette in Wisconsin and Elmer Benson in Minnesota. The Republicans gained 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships in that midterm election, and FDR said We have on the positive side eliminated Phil La Follette and the Farmer-Labor people in the Northwest as a standing Third Party Threat.
FDR actually co-opted the left and threw them some bone to eliminate their threats to revolt and in the process, saved capitalism.
(It Didnt Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, by Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks)
So dismayed with FDR (and Truman) was the 'progressive' movement of the day, they ran a third party candidate in '48 to try and bring Truman down, leading Truman to call them 'crackpots and radicals.'
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I looked up your claim and this is what I came across "I can't bring myself to line up with the crackpots who are trying to sell us out to the Russian government, nor can I see anything good in the Harry Byrds and Eugene Coxes. That is the situation with which we are confronted now. I shall continue to do the best I can to meet the problems with which we are faced. The result is probably in the lap of the gods, although sometimes a little help and a little energy will get results in spite of that situation."
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/eleanor/1948.html
The Progressive Party were accused of being communists but they included his support of minorities in their party platform
Meanwhile, the Democratic party fragmented. A new Progressive Party, the name had been used earlier by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Robert M. La Follette in 1924, was created afresh in 1948, with the nomination of Henry A. Wallace, who had served as Secretary of Agriculture, Vice President of the United States, and Secretary of Commerce under Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1946, President Truman had fired Wallace as Secretary of Commerce when Wallace publicly opposed Truman's firm moves to counter the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Wallace's 1948 platform opposed the Cold War policies of President Truman, including the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine. The Progressives proposed stronger government regulation and control of Big Business. They also campaigned to end discrimination against blacks and women, backed a minimum wage, and called for the elimination of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating the issue of communist spies within the US government and labor unions. Wallace and his supporters believed that the committee was violating the civil liberties of government workers and labor unions.
However, the Progressives also generated a great deal of controversy because of the widespread belief that they were secretly controlled by Communists who were more loyal to the Soviet Union than the United States. Wallace himself denied being a Communist, but he repeatedly refused to disavow their support and, at one point, was quoted as saying that the "Communists are the closest thing to the early Christian martyrs."[20] Walter Reuther, the president of the influential United Auto Workers union, strongly opposed Wallace's candidacy, stating that "people who are not sympathetic with democracy in America are influencing him."[21] Philip Murray, the president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), stated in April 1948 that "the Communist Party is directly responsible for the creation of the third party [Progressive Party] in the United States."[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948#Progressive_Party_nomination
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)"Well, that's what we did in 1948. We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates--Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat."
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296
"The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the left-wing or the southern bloc." - Harry Truman
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Basically he felt they were communists or wanted to "sell us out to the Russians".
I don't know what Truman's positions were on regulation and control of big business or raising the minimum wage. But his civil rights were similar. It was communist suspicion.
I think Truman was wrong though as the Progressive Party received 2.4%. Where did those liberal votes go?
The civil rights platform helped Truman win large majorities among black voters in the populous Northern and Midwestern states and may well have made the difference for Truman in states such as Illinois and Ohio. Wallace's Progressives received only 2.4% of the national popular vote, well below their expected vote total and slightly less than the Dixiecrats, and Wallace did not take as many liberal votes from Truman as many political pundits had predicted.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)he emphatically said "opposition candidates" - Dewey, Wallace and Thurmond - no room for interpretation there.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)which is the same as who he was referring to in the letter to Elenoar.
Tell me, do you find regulation & control of big business, raising the minimum wage, right to women & minorities, and opposition to House of Un-American ideas "crackpot" & "radical"?
If not, what exactly is your point?
It isn't like the candidate had huge support in the National election. If it has relevancy to today then tell me how did Truman deal with a Republican controlled congress? What did he say about Republicans.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)However, the Progressives also generated a great deal of controversy because of the widespread belief that they were secretly controlled by Communists who were more loyal to the Soviet Union than the United States. Wallace himself denied being a Communist, but he repeatedly refused to disavow their support and, at one point, was quoted as saying that the "Communists are the closest thing to the early Christian martyrs."[20] Walter Reuther, the president of the influential United Auto Workers union, strongly opposed Wallace's candidacy, stating that "people who are not sympathetic with democracy in America are influencing him."[21] Philip Murray, the president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), stated in April 1948 that "the Communist Party is directly responsible for the creation of the third party [Progressive Party] in the United States."[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948
Now take the above and look at Truman's crackpot "sell us to the Russians" comment.
Still doesn't answer my question. Was their party platform "radical" to you?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Wallace disavowed Communism years before the '48 election. Truman was directly referring to Henry Wallace (and by extension, the progressive movement) with his 'crackpot' comment and expressed relief he won without their support in '48.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)In fact, the post you replied to included his name. There was widespread belief it was controlled by Communists also Truman's "sell us out" to the Russians comment indicated his belief. Disputing that actually hurts whatever point you're making since it limits it to just their policies.
He certainly didn't do well in the south but certainly received liberal votes. It is like saying since Ralph Nader got around 3% of the vote, Al Gore didn't have any liberal support.
I like issues which is what makes those Presidents historically favorable, especially Truman's political courage on civil rights. FDR was wrong for Internment, Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and leaving racist Harry J Anslinger on the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)mortal people as Demi-Gods of purity. Of course, it you read the old papers, each was criticized as much or more than Obama and each has "oops" moments such as the internment camps for the Japanese, the extension of the security state, and the Bay of Pigs.
On a personal level, no family benefited more than mine from the New Deal. Our family came here as dirt poor Irish and both grandfathers did a stint in the CCC. One grandfather went on to be a State Senator and was a convention delegate for each Democratic nominee from Truman to Carter. Without the New Deal, I wouldn't have the luxury to spend my idle time drinking microbrews and arguing on web forums, so, I really don't need shaming lectures from someone who missed my point.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Since it isn't 1935 or 1945 or 1961 any more, let's be happy with the crumbs the Third Way is willing to throw us. Don't expect actual progressive politicians or policies because such demands aren't realistic. Don't ask for what you really want -- such proposals might fail under current conditions. Got it.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)Because it seems that some here consider every elected Democrat (except the chosen ones) to be third way.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)DLC or New Dem:
e.g., Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all these guys:
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/membership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
These are the folks who will vote to do favors to Big Pharma (Baucus), oppose taxing carried interest like ordinary income, propose "tax holidays" for corporations (Hagan & Schumer), support Fast Track and the TPP (Kind), support "bankruptcy reform" for businesses but not for people, and vote to immunize Verizon and other companies that violated our privacy. Corporations first, people second, that's their motto. All in the name of getting Wall Street/US Chamber/NAM/Business Roundtable/Financial Services Roundtable to stop trying to replace them with business-friendly Republicans. Fat fucking chance.
By the way, Obama is a DLCer: State Senator Obama says he didnt object to the DLC's inclusion of my name on their list. http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html
And no, they are not the majority (the Progressive Caucus is much larger). But they sure do drive presidential politics and stupid campaign choices.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)How about the following?
Keith Ellison
Raúl Grijalva
Judy Chu
David Cicilline
Michael Honda
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Jan Schakowsky
Barbara Lee
Karen Bass
Xavier Becerra
Suzanne Bonamici
Corrine Brown
Michael Capuano
Andre Carson
Matt Cartwright
Donna Christensen
Katherine Clark
Yvette Clarke
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Sam Farr
Chaka Fattah
Lois Frankel
Marcia Fudge
Alan Grayson
Luis Gutierrez
Janice Hahn
Rush Holt
Michael Honda
Steven Horsford
Jared Huffman
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hakeem Jeffries
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Hank Johnson
Joe Kennedy III
John Lewis
David Loebsack
Alan Lowenthal
Carolyn Maloney
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
George Miller
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
Rick Nolan
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Frank Pallone
Chellie Pingree
Mark Pocan
Jared Polis
Charles Rangel
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Jose Serrano
Louise Slaughter
Mark Takano
Bennie Thompson
Nydia Velazquez
Maxine Waters
Peter Welch
Frederica Wilson
That a heck of a lot more than "Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders." Get over your tired insults and learn that there are lots of progressives and some even get elected from "red" states. It's a total myth that you have to run to the right to win.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)As for "get over tired insults", what insults? And when have I ever advocated running right? I have about 22k posts and have never advocated running right. Your accusations are all unfounded.
If you have been reading this web site for very long, you'd know that "third way" is used as an ubiquitous insult by the perpetually dissatisfied to throw just about anyone under the bus. The third way barely exists in the real world, but on DU it is some octopus organization with tentacles everywhere. That view is laughable.
Pretty good list, btw.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)and I know exactly how long moderate and conservative Democrats have been advising the rest of us to shut up about real progressive values like universal healthcare, fair trade, closing Guantanmo, restoring the 4th Amendment by repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, and taxing the rich to pay for more infrastructure and public services, because if we don't shut up, we'll "repress the vote," and don't we know that people don't care about those things "only pro-Business Democrats can get elected." Well, Tuesday's vote goes to show (AGAIN) that pro-Business Democrats like Pryor, Udall, Warner, and Landrieu aren't in fact all that popular. We need to be better Democrats to get elected, not kinder, gentler Republicans.
If we on DU want to have productive discussions about this I suggest one place to begin is to stop telling progressives that "we" think anyone who isn't Warren or Sanders is "third way." "We" don't think that. And if you want to know what we think, ask.
We happen to be losing to of the best, smartest, and most progressive Dems of the late 20th Century and early 21st Century as of the end of this year, Henry Waxman and George Miller. Neither is "perfect" and neither gets much mention or credit on this website for their accomplishments and efforts over the years. Both have accomplished much more than Warren or Sanders have. But to those who mock progressivism as "naive" or "idealistic" or "vote respressing," why bother to learn about who progressive heroes are or what they have accomplished?
By the way, the list is easy to find, just search for the Congressional Progressive Caucus!
Spazito
(50,453 posts)controlled by Democrats, a lot easier to do "real things", right?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I said don't minimize his accomplishments by calling them mythical. They were real and meaningful and accomplished over an EXTREMELY hostile Supreme Court and press and even some in his own party.
The excuse that a President shouldn't even try to accomplish anything meaningful and should just succumb to the business lobby until we again achieve majorities the size that FDR had is both chicken shit and bull shit. It assures a permanent rightward march. But go ahead and advocate that if that is your policy preference.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)FDR railed against and is the source of famous quote, is exactly who FDR had to go to get money to defeat the Nazis by asking for financing from the banks for the war machine built by the capitalist auto 'General Motors,' etc.
It's sad to see this Bircher meme about the banksters repeated ad infinitum and the critique of Obama being a bank lackey for appointing experts from the banking industry to deal with the banking industry and the nuclear TARP issue. Who did people want that was so knowledgeable and fit their views of banks, Joe the Plumber?
And the fact that FDR built his Democratic majority by allowing the Blue Dogs in the South to continue with Jim Crow is forgotten. They leave all of that out, along with the internment of citizens of Japanese descent who lost all they had worked for to racists. That Democratic majority had some very dark spots in it, and Obama has worked to bring it into the light and be inclusive.
Truman lost more in the elections in the fifties than Obama has, and he took us down the MIC path and soon to be Cold War. PBO has stood up to the MIC despite the howling media denigrating him as weak. Strange, isn't it, that so many sound just like the GOP when they speak of Obama. They want a strong man, guess they miss GWB.
Kennedy also lowered corporate tax rates while cutting loopholes. Same as Obama. But he is dead, and anointed, when he really was hawkish in some ways that cost many lives. That is forgotten.
Don't get me wrong, I love FDR who in his time, was the equivalent of Obama as far as believing in the power of the people's government to make their lives better. But the people have to vote, said FDR. Yet I am not among those hurt by Jim Crow nor were my ancestors sent to camps, so I can't see just one side of the man as some do and be true to my ideals.
Neither Kucinich, Warren or Sanders will be good enough for the same crowd. And they will not get past the primaries if they choose to run, not because of some evil 3rd way conspiracy, but that the majority of Americans who DO VOTE, don't like them. Both Warren and Sanders begged people to get out and vote this year. But they didn't now, and they will surely find reasons to not vote for them by then.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)than the living Democratic Presidents. There is no point in tearing down the candidates that we have in favor of idolized versions of past Presidents.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)...based on their support of Israel and of bombing ISIL.
Within 100 days, the practical limits to Presidential power would complete that process.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)kaiden
(1,314 posts)10 years ago when Andrew Romanoff was speaker of Colorado's General Assembly, he begged my husband to run for a house district. My husband was flattered, but didn't take him seriously. If we aren't seeing the more progressive candidates we would prefer, perhaps we should step up. (I hope I don't talk myself into doing something I'll regret...)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think it would be a good thing
kaiden
(1,314 posts)Must take a very special kind of steely.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Things were different back then
mariawr
(348 posts)We need to step up.
Our country needs us.
Spazito
(50,453 posts)should be putting their bodies on the firing line themselves, imo. They don't, posting about it is all that is done. Actually running means doing the very, very hard work of raising money to run, knocking on doors day after day, month after month knowing the possibility of success is slim or, in red states, next to none.
I have little patience for those who decry the candidates who do the hard work while thinking posting criticism about their candidacy is all the critics need to do to change anything.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Spazito
(50,453 posts)and getting elected! Money has, indeed, soiled the process and will continue to do so the more people refuse to do their civic duty and vote, imo.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)but there are often better candidates who don't end up becoming the Democratic candidate because some establishment type defeats them in a poorly attended primary. Groups like the DFA are a good way of hearing about these individuals, but if you just browse through some primaries it's not uncommon to see a candidate with better positions losing (whether or not they would be a better candidate, of course, is another matter).
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)They are being forced out at the lower levels because they lack money and the support of the party itself.
branford
(4,462 posts)and others on the very far left here on DU who complain that the Democratic Party is too capitalist, corporatist or moderate. If their politics are as they claim, why aren't they part of, and voting or, the candidates selected by the actual socialists, communists, greens or other such parties in America.
Quite frankly, the actual Democratic Platform containing the party positions is more moderate and mainstream than many here wish to admit, and these "3rd Way," "DINO" and "Blue Dog" candidates more reflective of these platform positions that those who complain.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
Additionally, for those complaining that the Democrats are not running candidates like Bernie Sanders in places like Louisiana , Georgia, Arkansas and elsewhere, I would remind them first, Bernie is not actually a Democrat, and more importantly, that no one has presented evidence that far more liberal candidates would prevail in these more conservative states and districts where the more moderate Democrats lost. In the real world, successful political parties want to run candidates that have the most in common with the party and have a chance of actually winning. It may feel good running far left candidates that have no chance of winning, but in order to pass any part of our agenda, we need to win elections, not lament candidates that were little more than sacrificial martyrs.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)TWICE. He failed to follow through, twice, but that alone should show
The majority of Americans WANT populists with a progressive agenda. (It would just be nice to get a real one, not just a talker.)
branford
(4,462 posts)in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia or other more conservative areas of the country where the moderate Democrats lost seats?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)might win where moderates lost? The argument 'only moderates can win' is not as effective when the moderates do not win. If no Democrat is going to win that election, then Democrats should use that election cycle in a different and more strategic way.
I laugh at this concept that the only person who could possibly win is the person who just lost. 'Let's keep trying the same thing, 'cause thinking is hard!!!!'
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Want our government to work. It can't work when one party, republicans, obstruct everything that is put out by the other party and the president. How would any president have gotten more done than president Obama under the obstruction from the republicans?
He didn't fail, that just pure hogwash. He has accomplished a hell or a lot under the circumstances.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Congress has its role to play too, you know.
If the majority of Americans wanted populists with a progressive agenda, then you would expect that in the election results.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)We are.
But there aren't such candidates running in every race, or even most races. So we still end up voting mostly for Dems as the supposedly 'leftmost' choice available in most cases.
branford
(4,462 posts)If your positions actually held sway with far more voters, the political parties that appear to accurately reflect your positions would either have more candidates or the Democratic party itself would move farther to the left to attract voters like yourself.
However, your complaint is an implicit admission of my prior point, that the far, far left positions many here espouse have never really been part of the Democrat Party platform, and those hated and conservative and moderate Democrats are actually much more representative of the Democratic Party, and actually capable of winning elections, than those here who constantly complain.
That's why I find it particularly frustrating and amusing that Bernie Sanders is always used as the example of some perfect Democrat and presidential candidate. Although he unsurprisingly caucuses with the Democrats, he is a self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont, and independent, and not actually a member of the Democratic Party.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm a socialist too, even if not from Vermont. And my personal desired policies are as far to the left of Bernie as Bernie's stated ones are to Hillary, for instance. I realize that Bernie is making a heck of a lot of compromises with capitalism to be 'pragmatic', but you have to drag people back left before you can go any further towards weakening capitalism's stranglehold on politics in the US. I think the Dem party platform is good on most things, although I feel it falls short on economic issues. But I can live with that, and with party officials who actually stick to the platform and are willing to slide to the left on specific issues when polls show that 70+% of Americans are further to the left of elected officials on those issues.
branford
(4,462 posts)You've made it clear you're a socialist. However, the Democratic Party is not socialist, it is comfortably and reliably capitalist, as are the vast majority of members of the party. The only prominent socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders, is not a member of the Democratic party.
When you and others complaint that the Democrats are acting too capitalistic and running such candidates, you're complaining that they are acting in accordance with the party's platform and beliefs. The purported moderate and conservative Democrats are generally far more reflective of these platform beliefs than yourself and other individuals on the very far left of the political spectrum. In fact, there are political parties in America that actually reflect your beliefs, such as the Socialists and Greens.
After 2012 and recent elections, the Democratic Party has now been mostly purged of the hated moderates and conservatives in elected positions, both federally and within state legislatures and governorships. Now that our Democratic elected representative are more ideologically pure and acceptable to many on DU, but nevertheless distinctly in the minority, are we in a better position to advance any part of a more progressive agenda?
The perfect is not the enemy of the good, and we need the more moderate and conservative Democrats from parts of the country where "pure" liberals are virtually unelectable, if we are to pass any liberal legislation.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is when they fail to live up to Democratic standards, not socialist ones. I don't expect them to live up to socialist standards.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Thanks so much for this.
If your positions actually held sway with far more voters, the political parties that appear to accurately reflect your positions would either have more candidates or the Democratic party itself would move farther to the left to attract voters like yourself.
However, your complaint is an implicit admission of my prior point, that the far, far left positions many here espouse have never really been part of the Democrat Party platform, and those hated and conservative and moderate Democrats are actually much more representative of the Democratic Party, and actually capable of winning elections, than those here who constantly complain.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The vote just showed you that what the people want is real Liberals like Obama appeared to be in 2008.
The people turned out in droves for Obama then. What Obama has done is gone to the right and dragged others with him and that is who lost.
Surely you are not going to sit there and claim Obama is more liberal now than he appeared to be in 2008, are you? Of course not. You will tell the truth that Obama has gone rightward, and then you will see what a crock your Op is.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Get back to supporting people over corporations.
I will no longer vote D as the lesser of two evils. I have done this many times, hoping D would have a spine - never again. If Dems are not running as progressives then fuck them.
They no longer get my VOTE.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)Bye bye
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Spazito
(50,453 posts)No vote, no right to complain, imo.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Spazito
(50,453 posts)because the only one who can fill 100% of your interests is you and only you. Good luck on your candidacy, it should be awesomely successful!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I thought only Republicans were stupid enough to elect people who promise to impoverish them...
Spazito
(50,453 posts)knowing full well neither the party nor their candidate will mirror exactly every issue the same way I do. I know republican/conservative views do not, in any way, reflect mine ergo I vote for candidates from the left, moderate or otherwise.
I demand perfection from no one before I deign to give them my support, your view might differ and perfection might be the only standard by which you decide for whom you will vote.
Rex
(65,616 posts)"you have to run like a republican in a red state...er NO, you TRY and turn the state blue!"
SO sick of the Third way types pretending they are any different than the tea party. Their love for money over party is the same.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What would you like to know about my 5 years of hard work in municipal government as a progressive Democrat?
How about how my campaign, which I financed along with close friends and family? I could go straight to the part where persons disappointed in my not being owned by the local version of Boss Tweed / Tammany Hall Democratic machine, after failing to buy me, serially set me up for failure. After the initial (special) election that won me my ward seat, and after having failed to defeat me in the second election, the machine's gloves came off, even though a few more persons joined me on that council, all progressive and transparent. I always asked the hard questions.
We did good things, and then we were sued over what some of our transparency revealed. I'm still unable to disclose more on that. Suffice to say, there are a whole new set of council members as of this year, who are the local version of the DCCC/financed by Boss Tweed again. One changed from a Republican to Democrat to qualify for that financing.
This in part may explain why it is so frustrating and difficult to reach around a local system of campaign finance, tied to favors and third party candidates up the chain of this corrupt state. Indeed, it is presently a very, very hard process. The rewards of serving are in knowing that you do the right thing, but that is a virtue of waning proportion. Plus, there's the money thing.
They are starving us out. Tom Wolf is a millionaire and financed himself against Tom Corbett
ran a clean and positive campaign and I am thankful that we have gotten rid of that fascist of the oil and gas industry, TomCorbett. But, I don't envy what Wolf is up against. Sure, because of the majority of our General Assembly, but many of them are 3rd way Democrats. I can't believe these people don't read the bills before them, more recently Act 13, which was penned by ALEC. They are all tied into the re-election of that same process.
Something is clearly wrong, but the problem isn't the potential pool of candidates. We've always been here and willing to work REGARDLESS of the price.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thank you, Ma'am. You are TOPS.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It was not just the moment in time that I went through what I did. That experience gave me valuable tools to respond to questions as put forth in this thread, and keep asking my own
. all the way up the chain.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Jeff Merkley by about 20% facing a Koch funded candidate with lots of those commercials the rest of the country thinks are so powerful. Peter Defazio won by an even larger margin than last time against a Republican clown. Earl Bluemenauer won by like 50+% up in the 3d.....
So they seem to be fairly good candidates. Not sure why other places would be lacking in such people. Perhaps they are.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)and his support of the "No Labels" movement? It's the "Lets work together to throw grandma and grandpa into the cold" movement. My wife and I voted for him but it wasn't without reservation. I've emailed his office numerous times and never get a response back. I've called his office and they don't care about whatever concern I have. Before I was moved to Schrader's district due to redistricting, I was in Blumenauer's. His office would respond with emails or letters. The same goes for Senators Merkley and Wyden.
Here's a list of his stance on budget issues.
Schrader won 53.7% to 39.3%.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)have done with "a tootie"?
Schrader voted to Cut funding for the Coast Guard Heli the central OR coast is about to lose. It was the Coast Guard who decided Where the cuts Schrader et al voted for---and now he's grandstanding around trying to save it?
He's is a Proud part of the Blue Dog Coalition, a listed member of ALEC and on the list as a member of the New Dem Coalition as is DWS.
ALEC
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_ALEC_Politicians
He claims: "Congressman Curt Schrader (D-5), was listed as an ALEC alumnus in Congress, but asked ALEC to remove his name from the list, telling The Oregonian, "While I did fill out the membership form, I never participated in any ALEC events or conferences."[16]"
I wonder if he helped write and/sponsor/vote for bills they wrote? He doesn't have to attend conferences and events to pay dues and do their bidding.
Blue Dog Coalition
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000675&cycle=2014
What they (don't) stand for ACA etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition#113th_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition#Members_for_the_114th_Congress
New Dem Coalition:
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is also a listed member:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203991241645243873780.0004dee7157f2e98766b8&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=37.996163,-112.148437&spn=148.302739,314.648438&t=m&source=embed&dg=feature
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Which is an actual entity not a term of art. He certainly could be, his politics are similar, but he is not a member. I despise that 'No Labels' movement even more than I despise the Third Way.
But Third Way is an actual organization with actual members like Jared Polis and Claire McCaskill. It is important that people understand Third Way is an actual group and not just a phrase used to describe mushy centrist politicians.
http://www.thirdway.org/
Zorra
(27,670 posts)For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics.
snip---
Members of Congress have long been far wealthier than the typical American, but the fact that now a majority of members albeit just a hair over 50 percent are millionaires represents a watershed moment at a time when lawmakers are debating issues like unemployment benefits, food stamps and the minimum wage, which affect people with far fewer resources, as well as considering an overhaul of the tax code. ney
snip---
The median net worth for all House members was $896,000 thats up from $856,000 in 2011 with House Democrats (median net worth: $929,000) holding an edge over House Republicans (median net worth: $884,000). The median net worth for both House Republicans and Democrats was higher than in 2011.
Similarly, the median net worth for all senators increased to $2.7 million from $2.5 million, but in that body it was the Republicans who were better-off. Senate Democrats reported a median net worth of $1.7 million (a decline from 2011?s $2.4 million), compared to Senate Republicans, at $2.9 million (an increase from $2.5 million).
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/
Rex
(65,616 posts)Third way is a miserable failure, just let moderates run that don't owe their souls to Goldman Sachs and we will be fine. This crap about the evil left is pathetic. The Left votes MORE than moderates or conservative Dems...but facts seem to get in the way of fauxrage around here it seems. It seems the people that made up the "left wants a pony" vote LESS than liberals.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Is to be a successful candidate. As soon as they get their hands dirty with, um ... *politics* .... (pardon my french) .... they become tainted and unworthy.
Whining about the "3rd way" is too elitist and unrealistic to be taken seriously.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)BKH70041
(961 posts)Those opposed can complain all day if they want and it won't do any good. Money talks, bullshit walks. What the "progressives" have is bullshit.
djean111
(14,255 posts)not bullshit.
Interesting that you feel that elected officials should of course be the result of the most money.
BKH70041
(961 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2014, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)
I just play the game better than everyone else at this site combined.
djean111
(14,255 posts)It costs a fortune to run for any higher office now.
We have been asked to fucking match the Koch brothers - and guess what? That is never going away, the media and the politicians bellied right up to that, both parties. Lip service is all doing away with corporate money is going to get.
A natural progression - I have been told right here at DU that if an elected candidate got a load of cash from anything or anybody, of course that candidate is going to skew in that direction.
When the huge money is gone, then we may see more liberal candidates. Don't hold your breath.
When we DO have liberal people we like, Warren or Sanders or whoever, the idea is quickly shot down in favor of corporatists or centrists. Why? Money.
And, once again, being against the TPP and other onerous "trade" agreements, being against the Keystone XL and fracking, being against weakening Social Security, being against NSA overreach, being against killing people and war - those are NOT FUCKING UNICORNS OR PONIES. If you think those are ponies and purity tests, you just may be a RWer.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)TBF
(32,090 posts)the problem is not that we need "better" candidates.
The problem is that we have 2 fully-owned corporate parties playing good cop/bad cop.
Really, it's transparent and that's why the millenials rolled their eyes and stayed home.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)as long as people keep isloating anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton. Alan Grayson is a great progressive, but DWS never supports him, despite winning, and she sure as hell won't let HIM run for Governor.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, of course, blame the Left when they lose....again.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,198 posts)Friend of a friend. He'll run.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)Until we have campaign finance reform, we are fucked. It won't happen because those who have the keys to the palace, both Dem and Repub alike, benefit from the status quo.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:29 PM
Original message
I guess I'm gonna run for President.
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 02:44 PM by Zorra
I don't really want or need much, so if y'all just pay me $10 an hour (just for 40 hrs a week, no OT) so I can pay for my food, and some reasonably affordable medical bennies, I'll work for you. I'll live in an RV powered by solar on the WH grounds so I don't have to cost y'all much to support me. I'll use my own car and bicycle, and take public transpo when flying somewhere necessary. I can make my own lunches, too.
I promise never to lie to you. You can put everything I do as President on live video, (except for some hours when I sleep, or shit like critical national security issues that can't be in the open cuz it would counterproductive, but you can televise all the entrances to my place 24/7 and monitor communications if you want) kind of like a reality show, only real reality. I don't really want anything, except for everyone to be as happy as posiible and have enough to eat and stuff like that. So I have nothing to gain except to serve my people and create a better world for everyone. I don't particularly want to do this cuz it will be a real hassle, but I think I would do a really good job at it, so I'd do it for awhile, I don't have much of anything better to do but contemplate existence and that gets old after awhile. And hey, if someone wants to shoot me, no BFD. I'm gonna die someday anyway. Can't scare me.
I will lean on Congress so hard that they will either do what is right for the American people or I will clearly expose their corrupt ulterior motivations (gaining wealth and power through service to wealthy private interests) individually and collectively for everyone to see.
The first thing I will do after my inauguration is issue an Executive Order ending all lobbying of public officials by anyone or anything (corporations are NOT people) and making it a major felony to offer public officials money (other than their salary/bennies of course). In the same EO, I will make it a major felony for a public official to accept money. Punishable by life in prison. I'll shoot it out with SCOTUS later.
The second EO will declare that the recent SCOTUS bench legislation allowing unlimited funding of political campaigns is an imminent threat and clear and present danger to our country, and that the SCOTUS bench legislation is moot. I'll shoot it out with SCOTUS later.
The third EO will outlaw electronic voting and establish a transparent voting system that will be as incorruptible and foolproof as is humanly possible, probably based on the Canadian model.
I'm real good at managing money. If Congress cooperates, I will balance the budget by ending wars, cutting defense spending, and taxing corporations and the wealthy at the same rate that was in effect during the Eisenhower administration. Balancing the budget really shouldn't be too hard if given an honest try. I will assemble a team of talented, dedicated, honest people with no ulterior motives (corporate interests) eliminating unnecessary spending that is not fully geared to the benefit of human beings. Banks and corporations will be regulated beyond their ability to cause deliberate economic harm or any significant economic harm caused by incompetence or unabashed greed. Fines for violating these regulations will be massive enough to be a very strong deterrent to corruption. Severe ciminal penalties will be in place where applicable. No company will want to risk it.
Then, New Deal II begins ASAP, with the cooperation of Congress, of course. Anyone that wants to, and is willing and able to work, will be able to get a job. Might be minimum wage, but that can't be helped. Rebuilding infrastructure and implementing alternative energy systems en masse will be main projects of New Deal II. A major investment in education will be at the top of the agenda.
Universal single payer healthcare will be established during my administration.
The primary key to the success of my administration will be absolute honesty, integrity, incorruptibility (is that a word? you know what I mean if it ain't) and all around ability . It will be all out in the open, no secrecy, no bullshit. Any pol tries to pull dishonest bullshit I'll personally call them out and shame them in public. You'll see exactly where your money is going, and what your government is doing.
I will do everything in my power to protect you from economic, social, political, and physical harm caused by wealthy private interests and any governments or terrorist agents they may employ to attempt to overthrow our government again.
Guess you already figured we won't be wasting our money on unneccessary wars anymore, so we close up shop in whatever countries we're occupying at the time, and bring the troops home.
Anyway, that's a start. We'll have to work some of the bugs out of course. But here's the thing: We can do this. Again, simple honesty and transparency, common sense, reasonable intelligence, will, dedication, imagination, sincere motivation, character, and ability are all we need to retake our government, and create for ourselves a really awesome nation to live in and raise our children in.
If someone caps me, the ball will still be rolling. I guarantee my VP will be smarter, more capable, more dedicated, and better looking than me.
If you want real change, the rough blueprint is above. That's pretty much all I have to say. Oh, yeah, don't ever send me any money.
So, anyway, vote for me, my name is Zorra, and let's get this thing done so I can get back to hangin' at the beach ASAP.
Thanks. Have an awesome day.
Peace
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x767568
think
(11,641 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)RadicalGeek
(344 posts)Take a look at the next local election ballot. How many of those people are running unopposed?
Of course, there's the matter of the time it would take to run and win an election, but if one has time to post and tweet. . .