A quick question for progressives/lefties

[iamthebandfanman]

Poll question: A quick question for progressives/lefties

Do you feel like we, the left, are being screwed this election?

Maybe its just me but, it seems like nobody is really pandering to us even though we have set the tone of the party for the last 7 years.
just for record ill vote for anybody who gets the nomination, it just seems like no matter who we select we really arent being represented correctly.

[ixion]

1. progressives have been screwed over for the past few decades...

I don't see anything coming down the pike that is going to change this, unfortunately.

[iamthebandfanman]

2. i just cant figure it out

why is it that the republicans got 8 years of pandering to their small EXTREME right, yet we cant even expect a year of doing what we stand for from any of these people running?

[HereSince1628]

11. Simple, because people to the right don't pander to the left.

[RuleOfNah]

14. Why? Rightie monopolies on money, greed, avarice...

How else could one possibly explain the survival of a voting block religiously supporting a Moon/Bush alliance, with gay sleepover reporting, that steals everything not nailed down while generating a flood of debt caused by their need to kill people, places, and things?

Their own prophesies warn them about themselves. :crazy:

[Kolesar]

7. Actually, I think the people "get" globalization and our jobs being sucked overseas

They "get" that we are in a quagmire for the protection of oil
They "get" that elections are stolen
They "get" that the insurers are keeping us in a state of "medical terror".

The candidates sometimes can couple to this. The leaders usually don't.

[Kolesar]

3. Ha! Could base a whole website on that premise. Call it the "Democratic Underground".

Media coverage and republican messaging has always had the flaw of talking down to us. Or to quote 21st century political theorist Jon Stewart "they talk to us like we are retarded".

All the while, the substance of the issues is lost. And the candidates end up campaigning on bullshit spinoffs of the real issues. Petroimperialism turns into a trial in the media of whether you "support the troops".

[electron_blue]

4. Well you said it - you'll vote for anybody who gets the nom.

I don't feel the progressive/very left has been pandered to, and of course it is being ignored, but they know they can get away with it. They know we'll vote for them anyway. We're not going to vote for Romney or McCain or anyone else likely to win the GOP nom. And there are no viable third party candidates right now.

It wouldn't make sense for them to "pander" for votes that they are pretty much guaranteed to get that would simultaneously turn off many borderline voters. Keep in mind that once in office, a candidate can play a different tune and be an ally for more progressive agendas.

[iamthebandfanman]

6. but they risk so much by doing that

hence why there has been a third party canidate the last times around
everyone wants to blame nader for 2000, yet they dont do anything to stop the problem that created a person like nader. it makes no sense.

[electron_blue]

13. I, for one, am looking forward to the day when the far left is pandered to. :)

[Jackpine Radical]

5. OK--I'm reasonably content with my candidate (Edwards) as a progressive, but

he's getting such short shrift by the press that it feels like a Hill/Barack railroad job, so I feel screwed. I voted Yes.

And besides all that, I'm just damned mad that in the year when we have a serious black contender and a woman candidate, they're both so damned conservative that I end up supporting the white Southern guy.

[Kolesar]

9. Barack has a well conceived message of international responsibility

So says this "Edwards funder" in Ohio.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. His health care plan is bad. Policies toward corporate regulation--

what are they? Recipient of big-time corporate $$, that's for sure!
Environment, energy, social safety nets, free trade--where is he?

[Kolesar]

39. He had a poor position on coal, but Obama backtracked away from that

I think Mr. Obama is getting a "pass" from his "fans" and not answering the tuffie questions.

[Yael]

8. Of course. They know we will lock step behind the nominee

They need to court the indies and moderate Republicans. You know -- the Obamacans as Barack calls them.

It is what it is.

[iamthebandfanman]

12. as i said to another reply

dont they risk alot by having that mentality ? i mean, they want to blame nader for 2000 yet they do nothing to prevent people turning to a person like him.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Uh, well, no, "we" won't be doing anything of the sort.

Most of "we" will be writing in a candidates' name if/when we get stuck with Mrs. Inevitable. I doubt you'll get much movement from the progressives with Obama either. Edwards? Maybe and that's a BIG maybe.

[Yael]

21. I have the same struggle

about voting for her.

I am sure that cooler heads will prevail by Nov.

[Individualist]

26. "we" don't vote lockstep.

Rewarding enablers with votes only encourages more enabling. That's why the party is FUBAR.

[krabigirl]

32. it wears me down, really.

[Annces]

10. I am glad there are still elections

If it were left up to Exxon Oil, we would be in a dictatorship.

[Dhalgren]

15. It is left up to Exxon Oil and we do have a dictatorship.

Where have you been for the last 8 years? (p.s. - like the 'ancient deer' site...) :hi:

[Annces]

17. Thanks

I wanted to basically take a look at the subject of the Scottish Deer Cult, but it kept getting more involved. I had to just stop and leave it or I would never get out.

[Dhalgren]

18. That whole culture is very "under" studied, I think.

It is so rich and varied, I can really see where it would turn out to be a serious, major undertaking. Anyway, I like what you have done and will be going there to read, often. Keep it up!

:thumbsup:

[On the Road]

20. By DU Standards,

I probably don't even qualify as a leftie, but I wholeheartedly agree that the left wing of the party is being ignored and frozen out. And it burns me up.

[wuushew]

22. I doubt that. Where are you on the political compass?

most people here are in the Ghandi/MLK quadrant.

[On the Road]

38. Kind of a Strange Mixture

I have an MBA, work for a large corporation (Verizon), and in my less politically aware days was a Republican. I appreciate the benefits of the market and of trade, but realize that laissez-faire is returning the US to the Gilded Age and that Republican policies are reaming everyone except the upper class. We need more economic leveling, but it is preferable to use simple and non-intrusive methods such as a high minimum wage and a progressive income tax structure rather that create . Worldwide, the last decade or so has seen tremendous benefits to many poor people through capitalism and free trade. But it is not without a cost. Government programs are often perverse and ineffective, and those realities have to be recognized to win over conservative independents and make government action more effective.

On foreign policy, It is important to see the US as an often amoral agent rather than as a force for good in foreign affairs. I love Chomsky, Zinn, and wsws.org, although I do not agree with everything from those sources. I even think Marx needs to be part of the spectrum -- his proposals were hopelessly naive but he had a good eye for the structure of society and economic power.

On social and moral issues, I am an atheist (although an ex-evangelical). However, many Americans have strong religious beliefs that have to be taken into account in defining the public sphere and administering the country. For example, I tangled with some people by proposing that Christian groups should be allowed to censor films on their own for resale, provided that they pay royalties. The anti-abortion people are asking the right question (is it a child?) but get the answer wrong (that life begins at conception).

On environmental issues I believe strongly that an effort against global warming and peak oil is needed. However, I think that the solution is going to look more corporate and less grassroots than most environmentalists would like to see. The EPA is great and needs better enforcement, but the specific standards are a strange mixture of overly lax and overly restrictive. Some issues seem to me to be overstated, like the recent thread of replacing plastic t-shirt bags with reusable containers. Others like groundwater may be understated. Everything has to be evaluated on its own merits, based on the science, with the human and economic costs of compliance factored in.

-------

Bottom line is labels are misleading and lull people into us-against-them thinking. You have to fight, but be acutely aware of the merits of your opponent's positions.

Bottom line is that I support Edwards this time around, although I would have preferred Gore or Dean, who have records as executives rather than just as proponents of legislation.

Hope that answers your question. Thanks for asking.

[Rydz777]

23. Absent Kucinich, Edwards is the best we can get. I'm not optimistic

about what's coming. We need really major reform - out of the war, serious energy independence through conservation and renewables, saving what's left of our industrial base, and the list goes on and on. It looks like what we are going to get is stagflation and compromise.

[Echo In Light]

24. The corporation and its aims/interests are ALWAYS "represented" ahead of humane concerns

[Mountainman]

25. The country wants change but it is not ready to move sharply left.

Maybe if we get a Dem pres and a Dem congress with enough power we can begin to move more left just as Reagan moved things more right.

[Echo In Light]

29. Well, Reagan's regime pushed to the ugly right while disguising it just enough for dupes who require

That level of Orwellian language subversion to cover their own sins and crimes. In other words, we need a shift to the genuine, humane, liberal left, not a phony left emulating the 80s phony right, which was fascist in nature, not "conservative."

[dpbrown]

27. The "left" doesn't represent a constituency they feel constitutes a great enough threat

Until the situation is like it was when FDR found that he had to adopt part of the socialist platform, the "left" will be left out.

[Echo In Light]

28. Yep, time for mass non-violent CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE to shake em up

[krabigirl]

33. Perhaps that will change after this recession/depression takes it's full toll..

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. Well, yes. Ever since Kerry and Kennedy came forth to endorse Obama. 2 different scenarios have run

through my mind on why they are doing this because they are both very LIBERAL, no?

1. They know Obama is going to lose the nomination and when Hillary wins, they will back her. This gives them cover in the Senate as far as niceties go. Hillary has to be pissed as hell over these endorsements, IMCPO. Obama gets endorsed and so does Hillary. Their asses are covered.

2. The Congressmen and Senators know about the LA Times and NY Times sitting on the Bill Clinton affairs since leaving office story and they just don't want to have to go through fighting that battle again, so they are endorsing Barack to squelch that scandal.

Then, another thought I have is (I know this is thought 3, but it makes no sense to me, so it's not as serious a thought as the other 2 are :))......Obama is not as "Moderate" as he portrays himself to be (I have seen no proof of that though) and the Senate Dems know this, but he cannot expose his more Liberal side until he's in office. The Dems are wanting to "purge" the Clinton politics and move the party back to the LEFT...not the center/right, where Clinton took it. Then again, Obama is not a Progressive (in public), IMCPO and wants to "play nice" with repukes which doesn't sit well with me and I just can't imagine that it sits well with people like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy who are endorsing him! :crazy: Then again...we have people like Rahm Emanuel telling Bill Clinton to shut up....and Hillary is the President of his DLC, right?:crazy: I wish I was a fly on any wall on Capitol Hill so I knew what the hell they are doing.

[krabigirl]

31. Not just yes, but HELL yes, and it's our turn! Tired of the right-wing pandering!!!

[undeterred]

34. At the presidential level only

But at the Congressional and other levels, Progressives have stepped up. Lets get behind them.

[orleans]

35. i wonder what it would feel like to be "pandered" to.

to hear politicians speaking the thoughts and words of liberals

to see them voting with liberals in mind (rather than trying to appear so fucking middle of the road that they win the shrugs of the voters)

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. I want to know why they want to become the party we hate! WHY would Democrats want to be "Moderate/

Right of Center" when the country is moving LEFT? People now detest the repuke party. Why do the Dems in Congress want to become them? I-Don't-Get-It!

[orleans]

37. maybe they never got the memo about the country moving left?

whatever their lame excuse--it sucks!