Why Dems have a long way to go with Liberals

[inthebrain]

"Not me. I've been disappointed with Fienstien but I'm no
fan of loose 
 cannons in office either. Cindy's a little scatter-shot and
unfocused. A great lady who did something very important but
not exactly someone I think could be relied upon long term to
be good for the progressive cause."

The above is in response to the question of Cindy Sheehan
running against Feinstein.

Personally i think many Democrats who call themselves
progressives or Liberals have a long way to go in
understanding what those causes are. Cindy Sheehan may be the
closest thing we have to a eugene Debs or a Michael Moore
looking to run for office. it's quite disturbing how many
claim to understand progressive causes and have such a poor
understanding of history.

If they did, they would understand why Cindy is such an
important figure.I highly reccomend Howard Zinns "A
Peoples History of the United States" for those in need
of a handle on the subject.

The above quote is an example as to why I find this party so
frustrating to fight for.

 

[snowbear]

1. Sheehan flights for her cause - but it doesn't mean we need to elect her.

Hell, I'm not even sure she's a Democrat is she?

Lately she's slammed the Democratic party as much as she has
the ReTHUGs.

:shrug: 

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

3. Is that some sort of litmus test then?

Want Cindy for Senator, or you're not a true
Liberal/Progressive?

[snowbear]

4. Thank you Little Clarkie!!

Exactly!!!   

edit- to remove all the graphics gobbly-gook from the screen. 
I guess the smiley function isn't working on here too well
tonight? 

[inthebrain]

8. That would be a straw man/rhetorical question

I clearly stated that one would not understand
Liberal/Progressive causes making such a statement as I
highlighted above. I would go futher to say that they do not
understand their history and how those causes apply.
Furthermore, I would say that those looking to read about them
would take more pride in them and be the first to offer thier
support to Cindy's run.

Do you understand them?

If so, what are they?

In terms of a litmus test, for those that fully understand
those causes they would be willing to put their money where
their mouth is.

[The Magistrate]

15. Perhaps, Mr. Brain

Your understanding of what is, and has constituted, liberal
and progressive, is not so well grounded as you suppose.

President Kennedy, for instance, campaigned on "the
missile gap" and greater hostility towards the Soviet
Union and Red China than he claimed President Eisenhower had
maintained.

The progressive movement began, and under that name, as a
splintering from the Republican Party around the start of the
last century. Socialists like Mr. Debs viewed the reforms it
urged not as ends, but as a sort of half-way house to genuine
Socialism, and valuable in themselves because of the
improvements they wrought in people's lives.

Ms. Sheehan would make a very poor candidate. She is the
epitome of a "one-issue" figure, and it is painfully
obvious she has little expertise either in world and national
affairs, or in political campaigning, as opposed to protest
theater. They are very different trades, as different as
Bluegrass fiddlin' and concert violin, and even a person
expert in one is likely to perform poorly in the other.

[radio4progressives]

17. I know a few fiddlers who are great violinists

as to Single Issue Sheehan, at the moment it's true that she
is more vocal on the matter of the war, that is her one issue
that she is leading a movement to end right now. She also
advocates for impeachment. 

And she's not herself campaigning for the Senate or any other
office. She's threatened to, so obviously she's considered it
through the urgings of others and the frustrations people have
with DiFi. 

I don't expect her to make much of a run in a 2006 election,
she's got her eye on the most important issue, and that is the
war in iraq. Her meeting with Chavez would be used against her
like Jane Fonda for years to come. But we're not yet at war
with Venezuela, militarily anyway. 

So there is a little difference but not much. Some day, she
might make a pretty decent House Rep. I'd rather see her run
for that office. I'd rather see Barbara Lee challenge Dianne
Feinstein for the Senate seat. 

but the party leadership won't have that.. and that really is
a shame because Barbara Lee DOES have experience representing
the East Bay, and that's a lot of needy people there. We could
use someone with her experience in the House that she's had
for the past several years graduate to the Senate and be a
true partner of Boxer's working as a team on the issues
progressives in California want to see represented. 

[The Magistrate]

20. On The California Senate Race, Ma'am

My nuetrality is complete: damned near anyone established at
state level with a "D" after the name would win in
the general election, and that is really my sole concern at
the moment. It is essential that every seat be held, and seats
be gained. What counts is a achieving majority status, and
with it direction of investigative committees, and control of
the voting agenda. Without these, the enemy will continue to
ride roughshod, and effective opposition will remain
impossible.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[inthebrain]

23. That would be to suppose

That the war in Iraq is a "one issue" problem that
does not have roots in other causes.

As a matter of fact that was in Iraq is an exstentions of many
issues. It is the very capitalism that Bush embraces that Debs
found so damning.

Cindy Sheehan does as well. I would say this woman has a
better undrestanding of issues such as "civil
dosobedience", "Social Justice", "Economic
Justice" and "Millitary Industrial Complaex"
than many are willing to give her credit for.

It's a shame.

Cind is as smart as a whip. As a matter of fact, she is much
smarter than many of you realize. The right has picked up on
it and the know that she is more than a one trick pony. Why do
you think they are so quick to point out Chavez (Who was
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED)!!!!!

There are many issues of class at play in the fight against
Bush and the neo cons as well.

BTW; Kennedy was liberal domestically on some issues. Foreign
policy wise, he bought into the same policy of supporting
right wing dictatorships as our conservative presidents. 

I wouldn't be so quick to claim him as a progressive either.

[The Magistrate]

25. Well, Sir

As long as you do not consider President Kennedy a liberal or
a progressive, you would seem to be in support of my point in
first commenting to you, that your definitions of these terms
not the usually employed ones.

[inthebrain]

27. The "ussually employed ones"

Are not always the correct ones. That is to say if you look at
history throught the eyes of statesmen as opposed to people.

Therein lies a huge difference and a big lie as well. The
fight we have against Wal Mart and the Iraq war are an
extension of many other battles throughout history. What you
taught was the "Liberal" or "Progressive"
takes on very different meanings when you understand these
differences.

You might want to look at Woodrow Wilson's "Espionage
Act" and see how it lines up with Bush's "PATRIOT
ACT". Both are very unliberal in who they targeted and
what the rhetoric of their day claims to represent.

Knowing how Cindy is more than just a one trick pony when
looking at history is very important. 

[The Magistrate]

29. Language, Sir, Is The Ultimate Democracy

A word means what the great majority understand it as meaning,
for by the use of it, it is impossible to communicate to them
anything but their understanding of it. To put a word in
quotes, or precede it by "true", is to confess
defeat from the outset.

[balzac]

43. Yes.

It's that simple.

[sandnsea]

5. On the other hand

Maybe "liberals' have a long way to go to in
understanding that Eugene Debs was a socialist and most of
America didn't agree with him then, don't agree with him now,
and wouldn't agree with "liberals" if that's the way
you define them either.  Cindy wouldn't defeat Dianne, and
unless CA ran Alan Keyes, she wouldn't win in the GE if she
happened to pull it off.  In fact, if Cindy did manage to beat
Dianne, I bet Camejo or Arianna could beat her.  She's a sweet
soul, she's just not a politician.

[inthebrain]

7. I hate to bust your nuts

Arianna would never dare run against Cindy Sheehan nor would
Camejo. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they come out and
endorse her run.

Yes Eugene Debs was a Socialist. Yet he also worked hand in
hand in liberals and many of his causes are liberal causes.
Socialist meant something very different back then than it
does now. It is a term that has been demonized very much in
the same light as "Welfare", "Liberal" and
"Secularism".

Debs movement is primarily responsible for the reforms of FDR.
FDR didn't start that New Deal because he was feeling good one
day. He had to offer concessions to the socialist movement in
order to save capitalism.

The ver same reason why LBJ passed the 1964 civil rights act
to maintain some kind of order in society.

Are you against labors right to organize?

How about keeping children in school rather than wroking in
factories and sweeping chimineys?

Do you support SS?

How about a Welfare system for the poor?

How about fair pay and a living wage? Do you think the
corporations are going to wake up one day and give them to
you?

How about the Iraq War? Are you for ending it?



If so, Eugene Debs causes are your causes. 

There is no reason for you NOT to support Cindy's run.

[sandnsea]

9. Busting nuts, well my my

Isn't that egalitarian of you.

I didn't say Camejo or Arianna would run against Cindy, I said
they could beat her if they did.

As to the rest of your post, if that's what you've decided to
believe, I'm not going to be able to change your mind.  But
yes, socialism meant exactly the same thing then as it does
now.  The people own and distribute the products and wealth of
the economy.  Labor was fighting for their rights before
Eugene Debs was ever born.  

You don't have to support everything a person says in order to
stand with them on a specific cause or two.

[inthebrain]

12. Those are Liberal causes, yes?

Which do you dissagree with?

And no, socialism as most believe today is very different from
Debs. You are DEAD WRONG on that point!!!

“Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses
to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I
could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back
again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing
that you cannot do for yourselves.” 
From an address on Industrial Unionism delivered at Grand
Central Palace. New York City, Dec. 18,1905.

Do you dissagree with this statement? How would Wal Mart
workers view this statement?

How about those in Red States?

[sandnsea]

19. What's that go to do with anything???

Workers have been striking since the first Poles came here in
1619.  If you think Eugene Debs is the end all be all to the
labor movement, then you're the one who is dead wrong.  

http://www.iam837.org/Labor%20History.htm

[Moochy]

36. Only off by ... a few millenia

from http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/timelines/topics/workrelations.htm

Strikes and labour relations in Ancient Egypt

Strikes
The treatment corvée workers received from their employer, the pharaoh i.e. the state and its officials, was to a large extent dependent on the economic and political stability of the country. In his Great Edict Horemheb tried to curb some of the excesses of the system. But ordinary workers in full-time state employ were also put upon. When corruption and inefficiency towards the end of the reign of Ramses III had made the country barely governable and the workers in the necropolis of Medinet Habu had not received their food rations, they organized the first recorded strike in history (year 29 of Ramses' reign).

Food was generally doled out once a month and was often barely adequate. When they ran short the workers declared
We are starving to death. Another eighteen days remain until the beginning of the new month.
Then they assembled all in one place, near a stela
We will not return. Tell this to your taskmasters who are assembled there, at that place.
The hungry crowd approached the storehouses, but did not force the doors. One of them spoke up
We are starving hungry. Our tongue wasted away in thirst. No cloth is left. We are lacking oil. We have no fish, not even vegetables. Send to Pharaoh our master, send to the king our ruler, so that he may give us sustenance.
He repeated their complaint in front of the officials, but his comrades feared for him and agreed that in the end all would be well. Others refused to disperse unless they received their rations immediately. The officials considered this and called a clerk.
Check the corn you have received and give from it to the men of the necropolis.
And Pe-montu-nabiat was brought and we received a ration of grain every day.

I'd wager that this was not the very first labor strike.

[sandnsea]

38. So it wasn't Eugene Debs??? n/t

[Moochy]

39. Not being trying to be pedantic was just curious as to

The earliest labor strikes I could find... I didnt find anything in babylonian texts available online, but I bet they struck there too!

:toast:

[sandnsea]

40. It's very interesting, isn't it?

I knew there had been strikes of various kinds all along, but I hadn't heard of the Polish striking when Europeans had barely gotten here. And for voting rights of all things, isn't that a kick? We just do not know our history, that's a big part of our problem. I'm always fascinated by these little tidbits of info, here and all over the world.

[The Magistrate]

41. Strikes Were Organized In Medieval Europe, Ma'am, Certainly

Particularly in the city states of Flanders and Italy, where weaving had taken on industrial quality. It was a capital offense, and classed as rebellion against God, as well as against the state.

[Moochy]

30. Words Change...

"But yes, socialism meant exactly the same thing then as it does now. "

Meanings of words evolve, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Think of the word "propaganda" It was used to describe the US corporate Public relations and advertising industry. A Propagandist was not a negative term before 1939, and it became associated with "Nazi propaganda."

The term "Ghetto" must now be modfied when talking about the Jewish parts of Warsaw.
"Jewish Ghetto" is a backformation wherein the speaker has to add the modifier "Jewish" It's meaning went from a strictly jewish term to a term used to describe minority communities, and now in order to arrive at it's original meaning it has to be modified.

Liberal is a dirty word in many circles, but we've been able to take it back, and its worn as a badge of honor by many; more so today, than say 8 years ago. Some still run from it, for whatever reason, be it an irrational fear, or an actual understanding of the political idea, and a true dislike of the philosophy.

I agree that perception of the word "socialism" has shifted over the years, certainly so since Eugene Debs' day.
It has been demonized and associated with foreign enemies, and their own use has given it a less than positive connotation, apart from it's intrinsic meaning as a political philosophy.

[The Magistrate]

31. What Has Happened To The Word Socialism, Sir, Is Most Unfortunate

It seems to me no more than simple justice that the people who do the work should be those to gain the most benefit from it. In my view, to call some proposal "socialistic" is to call it a pretty good and fair idea....

[Moochy]

34. Commonwealth vs State

On a slight tangent, but somewhat related, I heard George Lakoff today say that states should be called commonwealths again.

The Commonwealth of Massachusets, is a good term, as it invokes a benevolent frame and invokes the proper role of a state.
And getting back to the subject in the OP, it seems a more evocative and liberal term than state.

( found via googling )http://www.magazineusa.com/lv2/politics/i_commonwealth.asp

* Massachusetts,
* Kentucky,
* Pennsylvania
* Virginia.
By keeping the expression 'commonwealth' in their name the four states make a symbolic reference to commonwealth units in general, the Commonwealth of England in particular, and demonstrate their belief in that kind of political unit: the English Commonwealth was the beginning of the new era after the period of Kings, Queens and kingdoms ruling the country.

[The Magistrate]

35. It Is A Good Word, Sir

It does indeed frame the thing in a light conducive to co-operation and community and mutual responsibility.

[sandnsea]

32. Do you know what they did to FDR? (large graphic)

They were just as brutal to him then as people are to Democrats now, with the exact same socialist, commie crap. Republicans have not changed one iota, they have always been vicious money-grubbing bastards.

I don't know which political group this came from, but I can guess. Lincoln suffered the same assaults that progressives face today. In his time, he was the progressive and today's Republicans don't represent anything resembling this.

[The Magistrate]

33. Probably The Breckenridge Faction, Ma'am

[sandnsea]

37. Constitutional Union Party???

Running on "the Union, the Constitution and the Enforcement of the Laws." Sounds like the Republicans I know, the ones who say one thing and then trash their opponent. But I really don't know, could have certainly been the Breckenridge too.

[madfloridian]

11. Busting nuts now, are we?

I am sorry, but some of this is overboard.  There must not be
a loyalty oath on this.  

[radio4progressives]

14. Why do you always back up assertions with "Most Americans don't Agree"

Do Most Americans think it's ok we've spent nearly 500 Billion
dollars on a war based on lies? 

Most Americans disagree, with the war and disagree this is how
our treasury should be spent. 

Do Most Americans prefer single payer health care? 

Polls show that Most Americans want universal health care. 

Do Most Americans agree that Public Services should be well
maintained, like Public Schools, Police and Fire EMS, Roads
and Public Transportation and the like? 

Yes, most Americans want all these public services maintained
well. 

Would most Americans prefer Free Education rather than these
rip off tuitions and predatory Student Loans? 

Yes, Polls show that Most Americans can no longer afford
Higher Education for their College age kids, and that the
nightmare of contracting loans and be in debt for a lifetime,
given the instable job market is something they would agree. 

These are a but a few SOCIALIST VALUES which "Most
Americans Agree with", if you don't put the word
"Socialist" in front of it that is. 

[LWolf]

68. I'm thinking that

it really wouldn't matter to me if "most of America"
didn't agree with the Bill of Rights, didn't agree with the
separation of church and state, didn't  agree with social and
economic justice, weren't peacable, or any of the other things
I support.  I'd still support them, barring some actual
evidence to the contrary, because I think I'm right.  

The fact that "most of America" doesn't agree with
my socialist leanings, doesn't agree with my assessment of
capitalism as destructive to many of my personal values,
doesn't change my pov, either.  

I don't know if I would support a "Eugene Debs" for
office, but being a socialist wouldn't swing my support away
from a candidate I thought was right on the issues.

[eridani]

112. Since FDR stole the platform of Debs--

--and the New Deal is still pretty popular with working
people, I't have to say that most Americans did in fact wind
up agreeing with him.

[snowbear]

6. Hey "inthebrain"

Somehow or another, when you copied and pasted your post... 
it changed the font for everyone's response.

Also, I think it somehow wacked out the smilie function.

I just noticed it was only this thread.

Strange!    Wonder why that happened?   

[Moochy]

44. uncheck the Message format

Message format ( ) Check here if you want to format your message in plain text. Use for posting code snippets.

[madfloridian]

10. You have to be common sense about demands.

Yes, I know I risk being called a neocon or Good German or DLC
troll, and I am none of those. 

You said Democrats have a long way to go with liberals.  They
will go only so far, I fear.  

I am not going to give my feelings on Cindy here, because that
should not be the issue at all.   The issue is that when you
demand allegiance to Cindy, and as some did to me the other
day...demand allegiance to Chavez over my own party and
country (hey I like him fine...don't bite), when you demand
all that from our Democrats you are not going to get it. 

All demands have to be sensible.  That is a rule of thumb for
all negotiations.  I was on a negotiation team for teachers'
salaries for a few years.  

Guess what.  I did not always get to set the terms.  There had
to be compromise, there had to be common sense. 

Cindy lost her son.  She lost her son in an unjust war.  She
has a right to speak up and speak out.  I supported her.  I
still do, but NOT when she tries to humiliate good Democrats. 
I will not go there with her. 

 

[inthebrain]

16. Humiliate good Democrats?

Which ones?

There has to come a point when the issues at hand are more
important than party loyalty. As far as Cindy goes, she offers
much needed constructive critisisms. Something that this party
has a hard time discerning from right wing propaganda.

Some terms are non negotiable. Martin Luther King and Malcomm
X understood this when it came to Civil rights.

Helen Keller and Eugene V Debs (Who were both deemed lacking
common sense) understood this when looking at issues of Child
Labor and the right for labor to organize.

Do you see the Iraq war as being any different?

Cindy Sheehan is a continuition of all those causes. Many
issues (FDRs New Deal and LBJ's Civil rights act) that
democrats use to promote their parts were bold and
conservaitve considered lacking common sense.

I'll ask this question again;

“Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses
to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I
could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back
again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing
that you cannot do for yourselves.” 
From an address on Industrial Unionism delivered at Grand
Central Palace. New York City, Dec. 18,1905.

How doies this apply to the Wal Mart worker? FDR once said
that people who live in poverty are not free. 25% of the
children in this country live in poverty. Of all
industrialized nations we are 16th in infant mortality.

You live in a country where building wapons is more important
than feeding the poor. How do you propose we
"negotiate" to change that?

[The Magistrate]

28. Have You Ever Heard Of Senator Beveredge, Sir?

From Indiana?

[sandnsea]

42. Oy

What a piece of work.  Shameful and disgusting.


http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/phlpqust.htm

[Selatius]

13. Wait a second. Sheehan is no Debs.

Debs was not only anti-war, but he advocated changes far
greater than simply getting out of WWI.  He was a socialist
and constantly railed against what he thought was the
inhumanity of the capitalist system enforced by the state, and
he was not a Democrat.  It was a Democratic administration
that persecuted him.  That administration was no other than
the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson.

[inthebrain]

18. He "was" a democrat

"1879—Elected to first of two terms as City Clerk of
Terre Haute on Democrat ticket."

"1884—Elected state representative to the Indiana General
Assembly as a Democrat representing Terre Haute and Vigo
County. Served in 1885."



http://www.eugenevdebs.com/pages/histry.html

Woodrow Wilson on the otherhand was no liberal. Debs later ran
on a socialist ticket. Cindy Sheehan is in many ways an
extension of what Debs was fighting for.
It was WWI where the first example of this countries millitary
industrial complex reare its ugly head. We were not on good
terms with England until we began selling arms to them in that
war.

WW1 was a clusterfuck in many respects as Iraq is and Vietnam
was. Do you think Cindy should be subject to the
"Shouting Fire in a crowded theatre" as orgainizers
like Debs were?

[The Magistrate]

21. Not Liberal By What Standard, Sir?

By those common at the time he was considered quite liberal.
You might want to refresh your recollection of the Fourteen
Points, though they moved M. Clemenceau to remark that God had
contented himself with ten....

[inthebrain]

24. Woodrow Wilson was no Liberal

The following was excerpted from Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE'S
HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (pgs 346-349).

     "a telephone linesman going through the ruins of the
     Ludlow tent colony ... found the charred, twisted bodies
     of eleven children and two women.  This became known as
     the Ludlow Massacre."

The Ludlow Massacre

"... shortly after Woodrow Wilson took office there began
in
Colorado one of the most bitter and violent struggles between
workers and corporate capital in the history of the country.

"This was the Colorado coal strike that began in
September 1913
and culminated in the 'Ludlow Massacre' of April 1914.  Eleven
thousand miners in southern Colorado ... worked for the
Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation, which was owned by the
Rockefeller family.  Aroused by the murder of one of their
organizers, they went on strike against low pay, dangerous
conditions, and feudal domination of their lives in towns
completely controlled by the mining companies.  ...

"When the strike began, the miners were immediately
evicted
>from  their shacks in the mining towns.  Aided by the
United
Mine Workers Union, they set up tents in the nearby hills and
carried on the strike, the picketing, from these tent
colonies. 
The gunmen hired by the Rockefeller interests -- the Baldwin-
Felts Detective Agency -- using Gatling guns and rifles,
raided
the tent colonies.  The death list of miners grew, but they
hung on, drove back an armored train in a gun battle, fought
to
keep out strikebreakers.  With the miners resisting, refusing
to give in, the mines not able to operate, the Colorado
governor (referred to by a Rockefeller mine manager as 'our
little cowboy governor') called out the National Guard, with
the Rockefellers supplying the Guard's wages.

"The miners at first thought the Guard was sent to
protect
them, and greeted its arrival with flags and cheers.  They
soon
found out the Guard was there to destroy the strike.  The
Guard
brought strikebreakers in under cover of night, not telling
them there was a strike.  Guardsmen beat miners, arrested them
by the hundreds, rode down with their horses parades of women
int he streets of Trinidad, the central town in the area.  And
still the miners refused to give in.  When they lasted through
the cold winter of 1913-1914, it became clear that
extraordinary measures would be needed to break the strike.

"In April 1914, two National Guard companies were
stationed in
the hills overlooking the largest tent colony of strikers, the
one at Ludlow, housing a thousand men, women, children.  On
the
morning of April 20, a machine gun attack began on the tents. 
The miners fired back.  Their leader, ..., was lured up into
the hills to discuss a truce, then shot to death by a company
of National Guardsmen.  The women and children dug pits
beneath
the tents to escape the gunfire.  At dusk, the Guard moved
down
>from  the hills with torches, set fire to the tents, and
the
families fled into the hills; thirteen people were killed by
gunfire.

"The following day, a telephone linesman going through
the
ruins of the Ludlow tent colony lifted an iron cot covering a
pit in one of the tents and found the charred, twisted bodies
of eleven children and two women.  This became known as the
Ludlow Massacre.

"The news spread quickly over the country.  In Denver,
the
United Mine Workers issued a 'Call to Arms' -- 'Gather
together
for defensive purposes all arms and ammunition legally
available.' Three hundred armed strikers marched from other
tent colonies into the Ludlow area, cut telephone and
telegraph
wires, and prepared for battle.  Railroad workers refused to
take soldiers from Trinidad to Ludlow.  At Colorado Springs,
three hundred union miners walked off their jobs and headed
for
the Trinidad district, carrying revolvers, rifles, shotguns.

"In Trinidad itself, miners attended a funeral service
for the
twenty-six dead at Ludlow, then walked from the funeral to a
nearby building, where arms were stacked for them.  They
picked
up rifles and moved into the hills, destroying mines, killing
mine guards, exploding mine shafts.  The press reported that
'the hills in every direction seem suddenly to be alive with
men.'

"In Denver, eighty-two soldiers in a company on a troop
train
headed for Trinidad refused to go.  The press reported: 'The
men declared they would not engage in the shooting of women
and
children.  They hissed the 350 men who did start and shouted
imprecations at them.

"Five thousand people demonstrated in the rain on the
lawn in
front of the state capital at Denver asking that the National
Guard officers at Ludlow be tried for murder, denouncing the
governor as an accessory.  The Denver Cigar Makers Union voted
to send five hundred armed men to Ludlow and Trinidad.  Women
in the United Garment Workers Union in Denver announced four
hundred of their members had volunteered as nurses to help the
strikers.

"All over the country there were meetings,
demonstrations. 
Pickets marched in front of the Rockefeller office at 26
Broadway, New York City.  A minister protested in front of the
church where Rockefeller sometimes gave sermons, and was
clubbed by the police.

"The New York Times carried an editorial on the events in
Colorado, which were not attracting international attention. 
The Times emphasis was not on the atrocity that had occurred,
but on the mistake in tactics that had been made.  Its
editorial on the Ludlow Massacre began: 'Somebody blundered
...
'  Two days later, with the miners armed and in the hills of
the mine district, the Times wrote: 'With the deadliest
weapons
of civilization in the hands of savage-mined men, there can be
no telling to what lengths the war in Colorado will go unless
it is quelled by force ... The President should turn his
attention from Mexico long enough to take stern measures in
Colorado.'

"The governor of Colorado ask for federal troops to
restore
order, and Woodrow Wilson complied.  This accomplished, the
strike petered out.  Congressional committees came in and took
thousands of pages of testimony.  The union had not won
recognition.  Sixty-six men, women, and children had been
killed.  Not one militiaman or mine guard had been indicted
for
crime.

[...]

"The Times had referred to Mexico.  On the morning that
the
bodies were discovered in the tent pit at Ludlow, American
warships were attacking Vera Cruz, a city on the coast of
Mexico--bombarding it, occupying it, leaving a hundred
Mexicans
dead--because Mexico had arrested American sailors and refused
to apologize to the United States with a twenty-one gun
salute. 
Could patriotic fervor and the military spirit cover up class
struggle?  Unemployment, hard times, were growing in 1914. 
Could guns divert attention and create some national consensus
against an external enemy?  It surely was a coincidence--the
bombardment of Vera Cruz, the attack on the Ludlow colony.  Or
perhaps it was, as someone once described human history, 'the
natural selection of accidents.'  Perhaps the affair in Mexico
was an instinctual response of the system for its own
survival,
to create a unity of fighting purpose among a people torn by
internal conflict.

"The bombardment of Vera Cruz was a small incident.  But
in
four months the First World War would begin in Europe.
                           --oOo--

http://www.spunk.org/library/places/us/sp000937.txt

[The Magistrate]

26. Proffessor Zinn Has His Views, Sir

They are not the views of the political culture in the first
decades of the twentieth century, though, under which
standards he was generally regarded as a liberal and
progressive figure. His insistence on self-determination for
the subjects of the European land empires, and promotion of
the League of Nations, is quite sufficient to establish that.
It is odd for me to expend even the slightest effort in
comments that could be construed as a defense of this fellow,
as he is in my view one of the more disasterous figures in
modern times, though the routine matters you have mentioned
form no part of this judgement: he did some very big, and very
bad, things, and did them always in the absolute conviction he
was doing the very best thing from unimpeacheable motives.
People who think that are the most dangerous critters this
planet ever sports....

[annabanana]

45. My son has been assigned his book

in his Freshman year. I have not read it and I wonder if it
should come with caveats? Can anything be construed by the
fact of it's assignment?

[sandnsea]

47. One thing

My son didn't get it until AP history his junior or senior
year.  Your son is getting a very advanced education, you can
certainly construe that!!  :)

The teacher who assigned it was just a nice, middle-aged,
married man, we have a slightly conservative school.  I
wouldn't necessarily construe anything about the teacher
except that he isn't a wingnut.  It's a great book, lots of
bits of history that kids don't get otherwise.

[Moochy]

54. The thing I love about it

Zinn uses primary sources and first-hand accounts of the working people living at the time. This is much different kind of history than most are used to, and it's very compelling to read the words of the people struggling against oppression and how things are the same now.

It reminded me of my medieval studies classes I'd taken. The professor was dead-set against the students reading historians accounts and analysis and beleived firmly in exposing students to the voice of the people living at the time.

[Selatius]

22. True, but he left the Democratic Party. That says enough. n/t

[wyldwolf]

46. Dems are liberals

Dems WOULD have a long way to go with leftists if that's the
direction they wanted to go.

That isn't directed at Cindy, who started with a good cause,
but rather to the leftists who hijacked her mission and helped
make her the pariah she is.

I highly reccomend [i]Party of the People : A History of the
Democrats[/i] by Jules Witcover for those in need of a handle
on the subject.

[inthebrain]

48. Cindy is a pariah?

That's just wrong on so many levels. I put her in the same
category as those that came before her, MLK, Rosa Parks,
Eugene Debs, Emma Goldmann, Hellen Keller and Sojourner Truth.
Cindy is a hero and much smarter than many give her credit
for. All these people mentioned above were also famous for
critisizing Democrats.

Unlike much of the Democratic party Cindy KNOWS what she is
doing.

Dems on the other hand are not Liberals. They have flashes of
liberalism in their past but that about it. They are just as
capable as Republicans of increasing the millitary budget,
building more prisons and throwing poor people off of public
assistance. 

The Democratic Party is not the Liberal Party. A real Liberal
Party would behave very differently.

[NoPasaran]

52. I think that calling Cindy a pariah is going a bit far

I think that she is absolutely dedicated to her cause of peace in Iraq and a bit naive about what some of those who've attached themselves to her would like to accomplish. I would hate to see her end up as the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War.

[Moochy]

53. Pariah?

So she's a pariah now? Maybe in your circle of friends (circle jerks?) but not among the thinking people whom I consider democrats and allies. Even moderates can recognize that she's only a "pariah" in the mainstream press, because she's human and isn't a politician... yet.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

55. so you resort to a personal attack?

instead of making your case?

[Moochy]

59. Like I need to make the case

Like I need to make the case to you or anyone, that Cindy sheehan is not a pariah.

Making my case... lol. Oh and welcome to ignore

[wyldwolf]

60. I'll wear it like a badge of honor...

... that one more leftwinger can't make their point, so they stick their head in the sand. "Ignore."

[Moochy]

61. After the upgrade, Oh look my ignores are gone.

and I see you had to get the last word in.

!@#!#@ Pariah.

[wyldwolf]

63. oh, look! You didn't REALLY put me on ignore.

Cindy = Pariah

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

65. when you can't speak to the fact, personal attack

[MrBenchley]

78. Telling, isn't it?

[Moochy]

87. I've learned these tactics from the dynamic DLC duo

Centrist Wacko Powers Activate!

The Power to flip positions and re-write the past!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951353

[MrBenchley]

66. Right on the money....

By the way, it's funny that conservative John Murtha, who's
four-square for such right wing nostrums as school prayer,
never gets even the slightest word of criticism from our
leftists. 

[LincolnMcGrath]

70. Not true, but what else is new with one of your 'righty' posts.

MANY folks pointed out his blue-dog Dem positions. 

[MrBenchley]

71. It's absolutely true....

Now be sure and dredge up your ancient links and wave them
around in your usual silly manner....

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. Prove it. Oh wait, Thats not your style. lol

How young would a person have to be to consider a few months
ancient? And if said few months is, in fact, ancient, would a
year or two be considered prehistoric or primordial?

[MrBenchley]

73. Dredge up those ancient links again, why doncha?

[LincolnMcGrath]

74. You made a statement. Back it up. Or admit you lied.

The choice is yours. 

P.S. Keep calling your words from a few months ago ancient, we
all need a good laugh.

[MrBenchley]

75. Dredge up those ancient links again

and pretend they're meaningful.

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. rotflmao Why repeatedly dodge the question? Got Credibility?

 :rofl:

[MrBenchley]

77. Yeah, I do have credibility....

which is why you're waving ancient links of mine and behaving
in such a silly and futile manner.

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. If so, back up your statement with facts. Otherwise, NO you don't.

[MrBenchley]

80. Been there, done that....

Now wave that ancient link around, why doncha......

[LincolnMcGrath]

81. Really? I don't suppose you have links to that either do you?

Now keep calling YOUR words from a few months ago ancient, why
doncha......

[MrBenchley]

82. Sure I do....

Just look at any of my posts....maybe you can find another
that you can distort and wave around....(snicker)

[LincolnMcGrath]

83. Tee Hee Hee...... You got nothing. Back YOUR Murtha issue claim,

or admit that you have got nothing.

Now keep calling YOUR words from a few months ago ancient, why
doncha......

Better yet, claim someone is distorting them...... :rofl:

[MrBenchley]

84. I sure see nothing worth responding to....

Now see if you can dredge up some more old quotes of mine to
show how much YOU matter....(snicker)

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. Translation: MrHonesty has got nothing. tee hee hee

Now keep calling YOUR words from a few months ago ancient,
why doncha......

Better yet, claim someone is distorting YOUR words......
:rofl:

[Moochy]

89. Pre flip flop

Everything changed on 11/11!!  Somebody got a job.

[MrBenchley]

90. Oh no! Not flip-flopping!

Geeze, you two sure as shit are just as progressive as the
swift boatters.

[LincolnMcGrath]

96. How about I post 100 threads of your childish name calling?

In blocks of ten.

[MrBenchley]

99. Post whatever the hell of my posts you like....

It's not like you have anything to say yourself that's worth
hearing....

[LincolnMcGrath]

104. I would love a link to something you have posted that was worth reading.

[LincolnMcGrath]

97. lol

[Greyhound]

109. He(?) is the sole occupant of my ignore list, and apparently will

remain so.

[LincolnMcGrath]

69. Hannity, Limbaugh , and O'Liely agree 100% with this statement.

"That isn't directed at Cindy, who started with a good
cause,
but rather to the leftists who hijacked her mission and
helped make her the pariah she is."

[SaveElmer]

49. Pure populism inevitably fails electorally....

This has been true through history. The occasional populist
may take a congressional seat, and in the 30's a couple made
it to the senate, but in general populism as a movement is a
loser in  statewide and nationwide elections.

The reason for this is simple, populism rarely represents the
concerns of a majority of people. Even at the height of its
popularity in the late 19th century, and during the depression
it never gained a majority. William Jennings Bryan, Eugene
Debs, Henry Wallace, Huey Long and  possibly George McGovern,
all failed.

Populism, by its very nature encourages confrontational
politics and class conflict. This has never gone over well
with a majority of the voting public.

Lastly, populism can have influence, by bringing some valuable
ideas to national attention. But these ideas are inevitably
incorporated into the platforms of one of the two major
parties, and eventually populist groups like The Farmer-Labor
party of Minnesota and Non-Partisan League in North Dakota
merge with the local Democratic party (in the 20th century).

Cindy Sheehan has no chance of beating Diane Feinstein...none.

[inthebrain]

50. FDR is proof that populism works

He embraced a populist platform and was re elected three
times.

Class warfare is here in America already. It has been declared
by those that 1% that controls 40% of all the wealth. Whether
you choose to acknowledge that fact or not is your choice.
Denying it does not mean that it doesnt exist.

The civil rights movement and the labor movement were both
reactions to it. The Robber barons were famous for waging
class warfare;ie JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and Scaife.

They are waging it right now as we speak. Wanna win some
elections via a landslide in some of those red states? You are
going to have to to acknowledge that it exists. Bush took
advantage of it in order to steal two elections.

Class warfare has already been embraced by the corporate
Republican party. Many Democrats are beneficiaries of it and
do not want to rock the boat.

[SaveElmer]

51. FDR was not a populist...

In fact ran on a platform not substantially different than
Hoover, advocated a balanced budget during the campaign, and
later curtailed the growth of government programs because of
alarm at their growth. FDR was not elected or re-elected on a
populist platform. The true populist of the era was Huey
Long...FDR and the Democratic Party incorporated some of
Long's issues in their platform thus neutralizing what
influence he did have. 

I never denied class warfare exists, what I said is that it
does not work as an electoral strategy. The middle class just
is not threatened enough by the rich to the point where a
populist message is going to rouse them. 

[inthebrain]

56. I said FDR embraced populism

Relative to his time period his three "Rs" were
revolutionary in this country. There were some instances where
Hoover and FDR repeated the same things though.

Look at FDRs 1934 relection campaign. It was loaded with
populist themes. This man was re elected three times for a
reason.

Populism does not fail by any stretch. In the long run it has
proven successful time and time again. FDR's administration
although nothing like Debs acheived a mass political
reallignment within the Democratic party. One thing is clear
was his goal was to save capitalism by offering concessions to
the populists/ Socialists and Communists who were on the verge
of making some major gains.

The bread riots and the national strikes had an effect on him
as well.

And the middle class right now is very much threatened by
those one percenters right now. Take a look across this
country and the health care situtation. Look at all the Middle
Class people going back to school who just had their jobs
outsourced!!!!!

Regardless, any attack on the poor is also an attack on the
middle class. Removing welfare benefits and food stamps has an
effect on the middle class. So does limiting unemployment
benefits as well. One thing you have pointed out (knowingly or
not) is that the middle class serves as the guardians of our
capitalist system.

They are starting to fall rapidly. What comes next shall be
interesting!!!!!

[SaveElmer]

57. FDR did not campaign on populism...

Nor did he embrace it himself. His measures were designed for
one purpose, to save capitalism from itself, in an extreme
crisis. he did not embrace a fundamental realignment of class,
did not embrace measures which would permanently redistribute
wealth. I agree he was revolutionary in that increased
governmental regulation of the economy became acceptable, but
is a far cry from a true populist agenda.

FDR was re-elected three times becasue he offered action where
Hoover offered stagnation. FDR offered government help where
Hoover tried to get private charities to take over aid. And he
was re-elected in 1944 because we were in the middle of a
World War.

[inthebrain]

58. Your wrong on some of this

FDR was the first president to legitimize labor unions.
Although he didnt seek a redistribution of wealth (Why this is
the key tenet to somes definition of populism is kinda funny)
it was a recognition of class interest. FDRs New Deal was
loaded with populist style reforms.

I did not seek a reallignment of class (I never said this). He
did acheive political reallignment in this country which is
very different. The wealthy were quick to point out that FDR
was a "traitor to his class". 

Looking at many populist movements and FDR's New Deal (He did
run on this in his first reelection campaign. His three Rs
were also an embrace of populist rhetoric.) it is accurate to
say that he embraced populism. He may not have been a
"populist" as many are wuick to point out.
http://www.populist.com/00.15.o'leary.html
Why the obsession with race, in particular? Partly, it has to
do with the make-up of the country. The United States is an
increasingly multiethnic, multicultural, polyglot nation,
whose diverse citizenry demands group recognition and responds
to the emotional appeal of race and ethnicity. Partly, it has
to do with the simplicity of racial politics, which requires
less sophisticated understanding than a class politics based
on at least a rudimentary knowledge of complex economic issues
and one's place in the socioeconomic structure.

Then, there is the fact that Americans, who tend to think they
live in a classless society (except for the middle class, to
which we all feel we belong), have been taught from birth to
believe in pure, unadulterated individualism and to reject the
more communal concept of class. This mindset has been
reinforced by America's mythologized history as a land of
freedom, opportunity, and social mobility. History may now be
unfolding in another direction, with large institutions
overwhelming individual autonomy and closing down options for
all but a fortunate few, but the myth still outpaces the
reality.

There are other reasons for the race obsession. For one thing,
race is a handy diversion from fundamental economic issues
potentially threatening to the status quo. The American right,
though steadfastly maintaining the fiction of a classless
society, lives in fear of a class war fomented from below. As
the defender of the nation's wealthy elite and corporate
establishment, it sees Marxist revolutionaries lurking behind
every tree and bush. If the national conversation continues to
be focused on racial issues, however, that fear is abated. A
country consumed by the politics of affirmative action, for
instance, won't be thinking about tax fairness, income gaps,
corporate malfeasance, and the like. And if the races can be
divided against one another, so much the better.

Actually, there is surreptitious class war already underway in
America, but it's being waged from the top down. Much of the
last twenty years has seen an application of Robin Hood
policies in reverse: taking from the relatively poor to give
to the relatively rich. Conservatives can naturally be
expected to support such quiet class warfare; it's the noisy,
turbulent class conflict boiling up from below they find
disturbing, distasteful, and un-American. The surprise is that
many liberals go along. They, too, ignore questions of class
and embrace the politics of race, but for entirely different
reasons.

Contemporary liberals are not using racial politics as a
distraction; they sincerely believe in it. First, it assuages
the well-known phenomenon of liberal guilt -- the deep-seated
need to do something for the less fortunate -- without (in the
case of well-to-do liberals) requiring much introspection
about the sources of one's own wealth and good fortune, or
threatening one's own personal luxury. It also provides a safe
outlet for the liberal reform impulse that doesn't necessitate
a down-and-dirty confrontation with the powers that be. Who,
after all, can be against racial fairness and equal
opportunity? Even Charlton Heston joined the 1963 march on
Washington for civil rights.

The liberal tendency to ignore class has produced odd
developments in American politics over our recent history. One
has been to change the very definition of "liberal."
During the New Deal/Fair Deal era of FDR and Truman,
liberalism was populist; it was assumed that to be liberal
meant you favored interventionist economic measures aimed at
advancing the cause of working Americans at the expense (if
necessary) of big business and the wealthy. Sometime between
the 1960s and 1980s, that concept was lost, replaced by the
notion that a liberal was simply someone who supported civil
rights and interest-group social preferences.

This change has produced the spectacle of generally
conservative presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
being labeled liberals largely on the very limited grounds of
their opposition to discrimination against blacks and other
officially established minorities. Often, the mere ability to
appear comfortable in an African-American church has been
enough to establish progressive credentials. Meanwhile, the
politics of economic class, the who-has-what and who-gets-what
conflict that really makes the world go around, has been dying
from neglect.

The disconnect between liberalism's class-based past of
economic populism and its race-based present of moderate
social activism goes a long way toward explaining the current
malaise of American politics in general and of the Democratic
party, liberalism's historical engine of expression, in
particular. From Jefferson through Jackson, Wilson, and FDR,
progressive politics at its most relevant has always had a
core economic component arising from the class conflict
between capital and labor inherent in a capitalist system.
Corporations, after all, may provide the basis for economic
growth, but they won't provide economic justice unless
compelled to do so by political pressure.

In the end, simply ensuring racial and other social minorities
equal access to the so-called free market is not enough.
Without abandoning the cause of racial tolerance, it's time
once more for American liberalism to re-focus its attention
and energies on economic issues. If that means raising the
specter of class in national politics, so be it.

Wayne O'Leary is a writer in Orono, Maine.

[sadiesworld]

116. Good stuff.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

62. I saw a great talk by George Lakoff on CPAN yesterday.

He is a Berkeley professor, author of "Don't Think of an
Elephant" who talked about the six types of progressives,
i.e., oppressed, anti-authoritarian, spiritual, etc., saying
all are right.  He talked about how the word
"liberal" has been demonized so successfully, it
would behoove all those left-of-center to adopt the title
"progressive" because it polls better.  

He said Democrats in Congress are on the defensive because of
the status quo and that people should not expect them to just
stand up and have magical words that will lead us out of the
wilderness.  He said there is no echo chamber, and that we
must become that to make it easier for our leaders to step
into and fill the vacuum.  We can start with terminology,
framing issues that are truthful and to our benefit, i.e.,
talking about freedom and life, the core values of
progressives.  

What I am reading here is the incessant divisiveness of some,
a litmus test to prove how pure one is.
   
I don't think we would be here if we didn't have shared goals.

[MrBenchley]

67. Irony is a wonderful thing.....

"it's quite disturbing how many claim to understand
progressive causes and have such a poor understanding of
history."
Debs ran for President four times and never got much over
900,000 votes.....

And the most important thing about Cindy Sheehan was never
Cindy herself or her poor dead son....it was that pResident
Capon, whom supporters were touting as "tough, brave and
manly," ran and hid in terror from an unarmed middle-aged
lady.

[cleveramerican]

86. there are liberals and progressives and conservatives in each party!

 Same as it ever was.

 Liberals and progressives have to get better at selling their
ideas to ordinary un-enrolled Americans in order to have any
shot at success. I think the general distaste the public has
for"liberals" is largely the response to some highly
skilled campaigners on the other side of the aisle. 
 In politics; if you allow your opponent to define you, you
loose. This simple truth has to be re-learned by every liberal
or progressive leader in the congress.

[Moochy]

88. Mr Cognitive Dissonance is too busy rewriting history

Give it up, It's a lost cause. I challenge anyone to find a thread where MrB is not posting in an abusive and purile tone. (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

92. The word is puerile, moochy.....and it fits your sniveling

[Moochy]

93. Hey at least you are good for something

a backup spell-checker. (tee hee) (chuckle) (guffaw) (snort)

[MrBenchley]

94. You're not good for anything, moochy

except inadvertant hilarity.

[Moochy]

95. Cry

Now you are just being mean. Oh wait, that's par for the course for you, DU's resident Internet Tough Guy.

[LincolnMcGrath]

98. Spelling is not really his forte either. Name calling is his true passion.

Spellchecker :rofl:

Be sure to do a screen capture as someone will surely try to get this locked.

[Moochy]

100. Whatever you say dimwtis n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

103. lol

:hi: Swiftboater! lol (with one t......snicker)

[MrBenchley]

91. Exactly so....

I think a large part of the distaste the public has for
liberals comes from the ranting and idiocy of the far fringe
left.

Look at how last fall's anti-war march had its message
derailed by the imbeciles from ANSWER.

[inthebrain]

101. Thanks for the talking points

and for proving my point.

The Democratic party is not the Liberal party. For the most
part they are the Center Right party to the Republicans far
right party. If it was a liberal party you wouldnt feel so
comfortable in it.

"Far Left Fringe"?

That's kinda a funny when you look at the fact that Democrats
have been losing to far right fringe candidates for the last
thirty years. Yet, it is the "far left fringe" that
gives the party a bad name?

I wonder what happens in this scenerio;

What you call the "far left fringe", decides to go
out and form their own party. You are then left with a far
right party and a center right party. Both split the
conservative vote. I wouldnt be any different than what we saw
in the eighties and nineties with roughly 37% to 43% of voters
voting for them.

Meanwhile the liberal party focuses on economic justice that
levels the playing feild in our class based society. Our
foreing policy is focused on seeking viable alternatives to
war and reducing the millitary budget by 50%. The money saved
from the millitary budget goes into funding Welfare programs,
Healthcare for all, and housing for the poor.

The liberal party abandons the idea of nominating people who
are "electable". Instead the nominate candidates on
merit and those that communicate their ideology effectivly.

I say in twenty years, Republicans and Democrats alike would
be on the verge of extinction.

[MrBenchley]

105. LOL!

"What you call the "far left fringe", decides
to go
out and form their own party"

The pathetic goons have already done that. More than once.

The latest incarnation is the Green Party, and it's as welcome
to voters as an onion fart.

And here they are YET AGAIN, vainly screaming for a purge and
singling out Democrats to hate hate hate.....

[inthebrain]

106. Think hard on this one

You purge "the leftist fringe" and you are left with
nothing.

What are you going to do? Scream scare words; "Far left
fringe", "Communist", "Socialist" and
"Liberal" at them?

In the wake of the Alito debacable many are of the opinion
that something stinks like a rotten fish in this party. Here's
a hint, it ain't "the leftists" who are out trying
to make someting of it!!!!

If anythin you risk losing those that are in the party
(Kucinich, Conyers, Boxer, Sharpton, The black caucus) and are
left with a geriatric party with no teeth. Not to mention a
few others that I have left out. The people that I did mention
would be the moderates in the party.

There is a sleeping giant in this country and it resides in
the fly over states. Those states are the birth place of
populism in this country. They have in the past gotten many of
their candidates elected to public office.

It was FDR that brought many of them back into the fold (There
was also the fact that Debs was thrown in jail. That was much
earlier though).

I have no problem seeing Sheehan elected into the senate.
That's one person I don't have to worry about voting for the
Bankruptsy Bill, an Alito nomination, Iraq war, or CAFTA. That
is also a face I want in front of Bush and the Republicans but
many "fake left" democrats as well.

[MrBenchley]

107. LOL! Funnier and funnier....

Nobody much gives a shit whether the leftist fringe goes or
stays.  It's not like they're any help either way.

In fact, it's notable that many of the prima donnas who
announced just a few days ago that they WERE going are still
here clogging up the forum.

"What are you going to do?"
I'm going to continue to work to elect Democrats and continue
to jeer at the Junior Joe McCarthy Club and their dreary
message of hate.

"I have no problem seeing Sheehan elected into the
senate."
The view must be breathtaking that far from reality.....

[inthebrain]

108. I was accused of offering up a "Litmus test"

Is thas what you are offering to those that are fed up?

Posts to this forum is poor evidence to back up your claim.
The 06 and 08 elections may be a more usefull measuring stick
than rhetoric. If what Mike Malloy says comes true, (That the
Alito votes along with the CAFTA votes will cost this party)
you have a long roe to hoe in '08. What many feel they are
getting from this party is "token dissagreement".

Quite frankly I'm not into the flame war aspect of this debate
if you can't offer up any real refutation. The fact that
"other attempts have failed in the past" is a poor
measuring stick. All political movements are wrought with
successes and failures.

Other than that, I get a slight chuckle out of your responses
as well. The fact that you think Dems and Reps splitting the
conservative vote is encouraging kind of amusses me. Perhaps
you will explain why? Perhaps not.

[The Onyx Key]

111. "Far Left Fringe" ... "Far Right Fringe"... bah -- what y'all need is

a refringerator!!

:silly: 

Sorry...

Anyway, if Cindy were to get elected, I fear she would be
squashed like a grape and/or rendered irrelevant by the
establishment politicians.

[MrBenchley]

114. Funnier still.....

"The fact that you think Dems and Reps splitting the
conservative vote is encouraging kind of amusses me."
It amuses me to watch you desperately trying to distort what I
said and sounding so silly doing so.

"you have a long roe to hoe in '08."
Always have. Always will.  And the fringe far left hasn't been
one fucking bit of help during my lifetime.

"All political movements are wrought
with successes and failures."
Funny, the fringe far left has an unbroken record of failure
and disgrace.

[LincolnMcGrath]

102. You're not a liberal anymore either?

 Think carefully

[Senator Lamb]

110. Cindy started out great

but like I said in an earlier post, she was the woman next
door who simply wanted an answer for her son's tragic and
possibly avoidable death.  Now she has rallies with Hugo
Chavez and muddled her message with an ideology many Americans
won't buy.  

[cleveramerican]

113. at first I thought Cindy was a breath of fresh air.......

 but all too soon she found herself bogged down with a whole
lot of baggage brought by others. She lost me when she started
to pontificate about Israel. I'm against the war as much as
anybody but I'm not interested in throwing myself on somebody
else's sword, which is what Cindy has done in my estimation.

[noonwitch]

115. I thought her protest during Bush's vacation was dead-on

It should have ended when he went back to Washington.  

If I lived in CA, I'd still vote for Feinstein.  I was against
the war, but now that our troops are there, I still hope they
can help the Iraqis establish a stable democracy, for
everyone's sake.