The Democratic Party "retards progress toward presenting a genuine alternative."

[Karmadillo]

A genuine alternative might consist of a party that stops wasting a trillion dollars a year on the military, that ends criminal wars and prosecutes the criminals that started them, that promotes genuine health care reform, that preserves social security, that leads in combatting global warming, that fights global predatory capitalism while pursuing global justice, that guarantees a fair economy with employment for all, that guarantees a quality public education for all Americans, that acts to reduce the gap between rich and poor and isn't afraid to say that gap is a far greater threat to democracy than deficit spending, and that actually fights for the vast majority of the people of this country every single day. Could we make the Democratic Party that alternative? Could that alternative Democratic Party win elections? Or is the Netroots message of take what you get and be glad it's not worse the best we can hope for?

http://www.wellstone.org/about-us/wellstone-legacy/speeches/paul-wellstone-quotes

Paul Wellstone: "The Democratic Party has lost much of its credibility with working class and low-income people. It retards progress toward presenting a genuine alternative." (Essay entitled "Commentary on Electoral Strategy," co-authored with Tom O'Connell, undated)

[glitch]

1. Heartbroken K & R nt

[divideandconquer]

2. Democratic party acts as release valve for discontent

Been watching this phenomenon for decades

[AmericaIsGreat]

3. For now

The "Netroots message of take what you get and be glad it's not worse" is definitely all we have.

Our Democrats are not liberal enough, and yet we now have a bunch of independents saying Obama and the Democrats are "too far on the left" and siding with the right or even tea baggers.

I think we have an illusion about how many progressive people there really are in this country; how many people who would say that Obama's problem is not being left enough.

If the Democrats and Obama could pass laws regardless of what Republicans wanted it would be a little better, but until the stances on policy of the majority of congressional dems are more like Al Franken's and less like Blanche Lincoln's then it'll be a "you guys are sucking but we'll take it" type of relationship.

[BzaDem]

4. When the people actually start believing in the positions you are talking about, the Democratic

party will change.

For example, while the term "criminal wars" is popular here, very few people believe either war was criminal "let alone both." Not even close to a majority supports single payer when both parties air their arguments, and especially right now in this recession, few would support raising energy prices as a way to combat global warming (even though it is necessary to do so).

And even the people who support all of the above do not necessarily enthusiastically endorse them. (And the ones that do enthusiastically endorse them spend more time whining about Democrats than actually convincing people.)

The problem is a lack of demand, not a lack of supply.

[depakid]

15. The public option polled well over 70% time and again

to give just one of dozens of examples.

What happened to that?

(I think we know, but the rationalizations of the day are always appreciated).

[BzaDem]

20. Lieberman killed it.

There were 56 obvious supporters of the public option in the Senate bill before Lieberman killed it (and Landrieu/Lincoln/Nelson followed suit to try to act conservative for their electorates). Of course, you think it was a conspiracy and that Obama actually killed it with his light saber, but I am not going to continue to debate such a ridiculous theory.

It is really funny how you and many others keep saying that the country is so progressive, wants single payer, etc. etc. etc. Yet somehow, each and every Congress elected hasn't even considered enacting such a policy. If the people really wanted the policy, wouldn't the elect people who supported the policy? If politicans continue to oppose such a policy for almost seven decades, and yet the people keep electing Congress after Congress that keep opposing it, isn't that per se evidence that the people really don't care all that much about it?

The idea that the vast majority of the country supports progressive policies but their politicans keep turning them down, is such a joke. This is a logical impossibility. If so many people supported all of these policies, they would elect politicans that support them.

[bread_and_roses]

25. Congress considers "enacting such a policy" only if approved by corporate paymasters

in whose pockets the Ds are as deep as the Rs.

And polls show over and over again that a majority of the public supports positions that we would call progressive - a public option most recently, strong environmental protections regularly, strong support for income support for those in need, etc., etc., etc. Somehow we not only don't get them, but our D electeds rarely even mention them.

take something really simple - like no taxpayer subsidies for corps that offshore jobs - think most Americans would not support that? But we don't get it. The "why not" is simple - corporate campaign $$. Same with everything else..

There's your answer as to why "congress doesn't even consider."

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. Yep!

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

26. Lieberman the all powerful!

That was a sorry spectacle- we can probably agree, watching the President grovel to a guy who campaigned against him and who nevertheless kept his Senate Chairmanship.

Sorry to say though- much as it's nice to have a fall guy, that's just false. We didn't need his vote- and Obama and his advisers decided long before that point (which is about when their poll numbers plummeted) that the public option- no matter how popular and effective it was- wasn't worth fighting for.

Insurers, PhARMA and other corporate right interest groups might have gotten angry.

And we can't have that.

[HughMoran]

29. "We didn't need his vote-"

When you say stuff like this, you lose all credibility.

Emote until you're satisfied I suppose. :eyes:

[depakid]

30. No, when I say this stuff it's because it's so

The public option required 50 +1 via reconciliation and if it there was actual leadership on the matter- instead of the sorry spectacle that we got, it would have been concluded before the fall.

As the administration announced when we started down this path in April/May 2009.

I was paying attention and analyzing the policies and the politics- where were you?

[HughMoran]

32. "if it there was actual leadership on the matter" "sorry spectacle"

Conversation over - spewing of talking points has begun.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[depakid]

33. Actually it's the way the rules work- and also this little deal called arithmetic

Tends to end conversations with folks who recognize they're in the wrong on certain points.

[HughMoran]

34. Spewage

[depakid]

37. Reconcilaition- 50+1 made Lieberman & Nelson irrelevant (Conrad lately of Bush tax cut fame, too)

That's just the way it was (and is on other matters, too).

No sense in crying over spilt milk though- if the Dems want to seriously cut their losses, they'd be well advised to toss out some major bones to their constituencies in the next couple of months.

And it doesn't have to come from Congress- there are matters that can be done through the administrative agencies that would go a long way.

[HughMoran]

39. Nope. Many more would NOT agree to PO in reconciliation

AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

I'm sick of these rewriting history BULLSHIT stories.

[depakid]

42. Well, I was there doing the analysis for a domestic non-profit- paying close attention

One of us ain't telling it true, based on the rules and the numbers reported at various times.

Readers (and those with accurate memories) can judge for themselves who that is.

[LooseWilly]

18. You may be right. I hope your tone offends a few more into abandoning politicians who also mock them

... using the same talking points that you do. :)

[BzaDem]

21. A tiny part of me hopes for the same. It will hasten the process of them converging with reality.

The sooner people you speak of are forced to realize the reality of our two-party political system, the sooner they can resume being informed participants in the system. If we need to go through another cycle where people vote for a Nader but then regret their decision en masse, we may as well get it over with quickly. Maybe 2 wars wasn't enough for these people. Maybe they need to see 3 or 4 wars before they really "get it" in an up-close-and-personal way. I would obviously hope another 2000 wasn't needed, but if some anti-Democrat voters are so thick that it is needed, the quicker it is gotten over with, the better.

[SunsetDreams]

22. 3 or 4?

Why not World War III? Bush was alienating multiple allies.

[BzaDem]

23. Good point. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

24. Democrats keep us out of wars? End wars? eh?

Could have fooled me.

[Karmadillo]

50. But they secretly desire to keep us out of wars. They secretly desire to end wars. Isn't

that enough? Can't you be satisfied with words? Must you insist on actions?

[LooseWilly]

53. Ok, you've sold me. Cthulu it is...

[ProSense]

5. And Wellstone would have been attacked for voting for DOMA.

A few weeks back, I posted this, and it was unrec'd into oblivion. Why?

Everyone is looking for any argument to hype a party that never existed. There has never been perfect Democrats, they will always disappoint on occasion.

[laughingliberal]

11. He did vote for DOMA and later, it haunted him.

"What troubles me is that I may not have cast the right vote on DOMA," he writes. "I might have rationalized my vote by making myself believe that my honest position was opposition. This vote was an obvious trap for a senator like me, who was up for reelection. Did I convince myself that I could gleefully deny Republicans this opportunity? . . . When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Mathew Shepard, I thought to myself, 'Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?' . . . I still wonder if I did the right thing."

http://www.progressive.org/?q=node/1439

[Cary]

44. Anti-democratic party "Democrats" seem compelled to buy into

. . . and aid and abet the "conservative" strategy.

[asdjrocky]

6. The answers are simple even to me.

How is it they don't see?

[Phlem]

7. Yep

but it's hard to hear the truth still.

-p

[slay]

8. This is my biggest complaint about the Dems!!!

They prop up a Republican pro-corporate governing style while doing very little to address the structural flaws that have resulted in the largest income gap between the rich and the poor since the great depression, and possibly ever. Tweaking a system that the Republicans not only broke, but don't even want to work in the first place does nothing other than keep that system in tact until the next group of Republicans regain power. The Dems desperately need to present a TRUE, REAL alternative to the Republicans indeed! And WHY are the Democrats engaged in this horrible, murderous, war for profit in Afghanistan - and why is Obama increasing funding for it, AND saying we will now be there til at least 2014 while this country goes to shit? WTF is going on here?

I think the Dems have totally lost touch with the average person I'm afraid to say. Wellstone was right back then when he said that quote, and it's a sad reflection on us as a society that it is still going on today, 8 years after his murder.. er.. death.

[anAustralianobserver]

9. Instant-runoff voting: a simple solution that would only improve the 2 big parties :D

and would be supported by progressives, Tea Party people and NWO-OMG libertarians alike.

Called "preference voting" in Australia. Also called "alternative voting", but I think that's bad branding in the US coz it sounds too hippytrippy pinko greeny :)

[Warren Stupidity]

38. yup

and of course it is 'not on the table'. Why would the duopoly want to let go of their comfy hold on power?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

54. Instant Runoff Voting does not work as advertised, and has unintended consequences

Instant Runoff Voting does not work as advertised, and has unintended consequences

IRV is not "as easy as 1-2-3" and hurts third parties by entrenching the two-party political system wherever it has been tried. IRV does not save money, does not reduce negative campaigning, does not simplify elections, does not increase turnout and does not provide a majority outcome in most elections. In San Francisco, implementation of IRV corresponded with a drastic drop in voter turnout in mayoral contests; IRV consistantly suffers from majority failure and usually provides a plurality result. Several states' fiscal analysis show that IRV creates new and higher costs in elections. There are other ways to improve elections or help third parties without the drawbacks of IRV

www.instantrunoffvoting.us

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[SunsetDreams]

13. who are the weasels?

[Scurrilous]

17. Careful..

...weasels are not to be trifled with.:P

[laughingliberal]

12. K & R nt

[SunsetDreams]

14. Didn't he die in 2002, how is this relevant to today?

You are using words he said in the past in reference to today.
How do you know what he would think today?

[depakid]

16. It's relevant because Wellstone stood up for- and didn't just pay lip service to

traditional Democratic values.

[HughMoran]

35. You mean Wellstone the Pragmatist?

<snip>

"Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstone’s legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive. Wellstone fought for liberal principles and wasn’t afraid to criticize bad policy and bad bills. That’s where the similarities end. Wellstone understood the basic fact that all no votes are equal. He understood that a pragmatic half of a loaf was better than the purity of no loaf at all. As his friend writes:

But to be pragmatic is not a bad thing. It is not the same as rank opportunism. To the contrary, pragmatism is the very essence of a political calling, for it means to make the most of the means available to further the ends of politics. The question always is, what ends? Paul viewed politics as a moral enterprise, grounded in basic convictions about democracy, equality, community, and mutuality. Those convictions guided his career in the Senate and shaped the compromises he made."

http://bluewavenews.com/2010/06/28/feingold-will-vote-to-protect-wall-st-from-financial-reform

[depakid]

48. Nope- not tawdry talky pointy memes- but courageous deals

like this:

"At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."

Wellstone cast his vote for his conscience and against the Iraq measure, the lone Democrat involved in a tough 2002 election campaign to do so. And a few weeks later on Oct. 25, as he appeared to be winning his re-election bid, Wellstone, his wife, Sheila, his daughter, Marcia Markuson, three campaign staffers, and two pilots died in a plane crash in Minnesota.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x973521

[eridani]

19. If you ever hear of a third party that bothers to take elections seriously, let me know

Of course the problem with the Dems is that they take nothing BUT winning elections seriously, which makes it very hard to get that virtuous feedback loop known as the Wellstone Triangle in motion.

[amborin]

27. K&R

[HughMoran]

28. dumping syndrome n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

36. Wellstone the Pragmatist

<snip>

"Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstone’s legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive. Wellstone fought for liberal principles and wasn’t afraid to criticize bad policy and bad bills. That’s where the similarities end. Wellstone understood the basic fact that all no votes are equal. He understood that a pragmatic half of a loaf was better than the purity of no loaf at all. As his friend writes:

But to be pragmatic is not a bad thing. It is not the same as rank opportunism. To the contrary, pragmatism is the very essence of a political calling, for it means to make the most of the means available to further the ends of politics. The question always is, what ends? Paul viewed politics as a moral enterprise, grounded in basic convictions about democracy, equality, community, and mutuality. Those convictions guided his career in the Senate and shaped the compromises he made."


http://bluewavenews.com/2010/06/28/feingold-will-vote-to-protect-wall-st-from-financial-reform

[MineralMan]

40. Paul Wellstone has been gone long enough to become an

icon now. People who have no idea who he was hold him up to be something he was not. He was a great Senator for Minnesota, but voted pragmatically many, many times. If he were currently in the Senate, we wouldn't be hearing all of this.

But, we have Al Franken, who is not dissimilar to Wellstone. He also votes pragmatically at times.

[HughMoran]

41. Agreed - and Franken is a great Senator

A little less passionate, but man can that man present the facts in an immutable fashion.

The 'deify the dead' BS that so many do here is an insult to the intelligence of all living beings on this planet.

[MineralMan]

45. I think he has the makings of a great Senator. I look forward to

seeing how he develops over what I hope is several terms.

[yurbud]

46. beyond sad but unquestionably true. Too many Dems are corporate enforcers who rely

on platitudes and happy talk instead of the GOP fear and anger, but work toward the same goals.

The wars and what passes for health care and education reform are some of the worst examples.

[Eyerish]

47. K&R

[EstimatedProphet]

49. So change it.

[blindpig]

51. Yes

that is it's purpose, a fake alternative to people power.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. Am I the only person who read the headline, um, differently?

Democratic Party retards progress toward presenting a genuine alternative.

Presumably Wellstone was referring to our elected officials. :crazy: