"We won't have a functioning democracy until more of our representatives . . ."

[ProfessionalLeftist]

". . . stand up for the principles in this document."

No one thought it would pass. It's far too good-- too sensible, too weighted towards the non-rich-- for any Republican to consider voting for it. It failed today 84-327 and, sure enough, not a single Republican voted for it. But, then again, neither did most Democrats. More than a few non-Progressive Caucus Members voted for it-- like Stephen Lynch who desperately wants Massachusetts Democratic primary voters to think he's a progressive-- but I was horrified and disappointed by the CPC members who didn't vote for it, as well as by other progressives who voted NO.

Last week, writing at Huffington Post, R.J. Eskow, explained why the CPC budget vote is the most important budget battle in the country.

We won't have a functioning democracy until more of our representatives stand up for the principles in this document. That's why every Representative's vote for this budget matters. It's why each member of the House, and each of us, needs to stand up and be counted.

The CPC budget is smart, effective, and practical, creating up to seven million jobs while reducing the Federal deficit by $4.4 trillion. And yet it's being marginalized by the press and dismissed by leaders of the CPC's own Democratic Party. Its provisions are enormously popular with voters across the political spectrum. And yet in Washington's insular world of self-fulfilling prophecies we're told that this budget is unimportant because "it will never pass."

MORE...

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-back-to-work-budget-didnt-pass.html

[Scuba]

1. How to help ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022528986

[ProfessionalLeftist]

2. Signed & tweeted multiple times

Seems people don't like to sign those things. Do they just hate signing up at the site?

[demwing]

5. I just don't think they have value

Petitions are feel good measures, but have any actually accomplished anything?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

7. Not often for sure.

Is it true that when one of these WH petitions gets x number of sigs they're supposed to notice/do something with it? If not, it's a waste of time.

[demwing]

3. Here's the Roll Call

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll085.xml

[bighart]

4. White House Petition: Make Lawmakers Wear Logos Of Financial Backers On Clothing, Like In NASCAR

Saw this headline on HuffPo and I love the idea. Change the dress code and make them wear "sponsor suits" so we all know who they really work for.

[rhett o rick]

6. CPC equals Congressional Progressive Caucus

[wiggs]

11. Anything coming from CPC is doomed. They should repackage the exact same bill and

get another group to sponsor it and it will do better. Would be great if a bipartisan group could bring it forward...

But even some democrats don't want to be associated with the word progressive in such a visible battle. Running for office every two years and having a biased press and a gop money machine that can drop millions of dollars on any single campaign will do that.

Agree that the press applies zero pressure, using fair and objective analysis, to politicians to do the right thing. In the absence of pressure of some kind, our congressional leaders will first secure the potential to live through another election.

[rhett o rick]

15. For the same reasons we wont have a progressive candidate for president in 2016.nm

[HereSince1628]

8. Reality Lesson: Pragmatists do not stand for principles, they stand for a tactic

and that tactic is COMPROMISE.

Their goal is "TO DO WHAT CAN BE DONE".

This is quite a different goal than "TO DO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE"

When faced with dug-in opponents who will not budge, the thing to do is to MOVE TOWARD THE OPPONENT'S POSITION UNTIL THEY AGREE.

This requires an unfettering from all principles which could possible impede compromise toward the opponent's position.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

9. "moving toward the opponent's position until they agree"

isn't an option when opponents are Teabilly, Ayn Randian greed-driven psychopaths.

I understand the need for/value of "compromise" but not the total oblivion about/obstinance about reasonable and fair solutions that help the most people. After all, that is one of the core Democratic principles.

[HereSince1628]

10. You're reply suggests that you really are not pragmatic enough to be a DCdem

The point is that being pragmatic requires letting go of silly Santa Claus fantasies...things like belief in CORE democratic principles are 'base' ideas for the base. The most ideological member of the Sen Democratic caucus is an Independent, NOT a democrat.

Just review the behavior of DCdems, over a period of the last 5 years or even the last 15 years and see if the proposition that the DCdem are unchained to principles, yet committed to compromise, isn't a view that is increasingly explanatory.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

30. Exactly right. I'm not a DCdem.

I'm just a Dem. And I don't much care for those DCDems allegedly "representing" me, because they don't.

Would rather have REAL Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

35. Yes, but to get what we vote for requires properly identifying the problem.

I think we who don't like this have keywords to listen for:

The need to seek bargains, willingness to compromise, putting all things on the table, getting things done, setting the past behind us, getting beyond special interests...

We hear the words but don't act on them. Rather we say, hey, the other guy is worse, and pragmatists take us for granted.
It's never going to seem like we are represented until we elect people who share our principles, people who will make a stand for those principles and accept that a loss on a vote is OK because their are moral and morale offsets to being true to values.

[dreamnightwind]

44. Here Here

"We hear the words but don't act on them. Rather we say, hey, the other guy is worse, and pragmatists take us for granted.
It's never going to seem like we are represented until we elect people who share our principles, people who will make a stand for those principles and accept that a loss on a vote is OK because their are moral and morale offsets to being true to values. "

Yes, and by standing for the correct principles, you may lose the battle but you can change the frame of debate, your fight can educate people as to what the correct policy actually is, and why, and that policy then has a chance to win on another day.

[Fuddnik]

12. People like to pretend that we live in a functioning democracy.

We have no fucking such thing.

We have a reality show of competing cults. He, with the best advertising and P.R. team wins.

[rhett o rick]

17. The ruling oligarchs give us good politician/ bad politician. And in the last 30 years, both have

been drifting bad. We do not have a representative democracy. We may get to vote but the winners all (statistically all) work for the oligarch overlords. This will continue, some times quickly and some times a lttle slower, but continue none the less until we are all either in prison or poverty.

But have a good day.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Exactly.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Ever notice the Republicans are never asked to compromise?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

31. Yes. Isn't that interesting? n/t

[HereSince1628]

32. When dealing with the DCdem pragmaticism, the R's don't need to compromise.

That's what Dems' obvious proclivity to compromise cultivates.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. A lot of this dates back to the time when Dems dominated congress....

We had such a vast majority for 30 years before 1995 that it was considered to be rude not to let the Republicans have their say.

When Republicans got the majority they went overboard. Didn't MATTER how much courtesy we showed them for decades, they acted like they had just had an armed coup. It's like they envisioned a new McCarthyism where the question asked would be, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Democrat (sic) Party?" Grover Norquist talked about hunting us down with dogs and the Pigman was at the height of his power. Talk of bin Laden and Middle East Terrorism was dismissed as an effort to distract from Impeachment.

That was AFTER Clinton dropped all the Iran-Contra stuff "to be nice".

Let's face it. These people don't know what the hell they are doing. They have no vision of their own for the future, they just have a wish list passed to them from Corporate America who really believe they already own America and all of the people in it. Republicans feel it's their job to be the PR people to con America into accepting that fate,...for the good of all.

[HereSince1628]

38. IMO we fail to understand the philosophies of the dems we elect,

We tend to think in terms of being left vs right, liberal vs conservative, libertarian vs authoritarian.

I don't think those axes actually measures or explain the politics of most DCdems. The DCdems seem most interested in re-election above all else--and DLC, Third Way, folks have come straight out and said as much.

At one level, such attention to constituents could be all well and good in a way...elected reps should reflect the interests of their constituents.

But what we have, typified by Rahm Emanuel whose actually gone on record with it, is politicians willing to take for granted the dem base and concentrate on capturing those further to the right. Hence American politicians on average are positioned well to the right of the people they represent.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. The DLC was all about winning back the South....

They kept HAMMERING Liberals with Clinton's two term win.

Look at all the "Red States" he won.



In the House and Senate it has proved to be a DISASTER for the DLC as they kept running people the base hated in an attempt to get mythical "Clinton Republicans". (A theoretical anti-mater version of the "Reagan Democrat" but which only existed on a white board as an equation.)

Harold Ford (Media Darling and LOSER) being a prime example.

[HereSince1628]

41. And 'triangulation' the most obvious symptom

of unprincipled political pragmatism of the 90's...

thank-you Dick Morris (aka the mole on the toe)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. What the DLC didn't get is that the reason Clinton won,...

...was because the Republican Convention in Houston was insanely Right Wing to the extreme. They actually ran on banning abortion led by Pat Buchanan. They tried to paint Clinton as a hippie and it backfired because America would rather have a hippie than a former CIA guy.

[Fuddnik]

13. Kick and Rec!

[NCcoast]

16. Publicly Funded Elections

Period

[rhett o rick]

19. That's a statement and not even a talking point. How are we going to get the oligarchs to

agree to that? We have no leverage.

[NCcoast]

23. What it means is we'll never have a government...

that represents we the people until we fund our elections and our elected officials are beholding to us and us alone. And if you're not going to try to do anything that the oligarchs don't support you're dead in the water right now. First you identify the problem, politicians owned by special interests. Then you identify a solution, publicly funded elections. Then you make a plan to get where you need to go. I don't have such a plan but I do know what the problem is, and I know what the solution is.

[rhett o rick]

24. I recognize the problem. I have lobbied for public funded elections since

about 1970. I have a response from WA Sen Magnison from about that time discussion the problem. Looks to me like our form of government doesnt give us the leverage to accomplish this.

[socialist_n_TN]

43. We'll never have a government UNTIL.....

the working class takes political power and FORCES economic democracy on the oligarchs. It's always been this way, it's just more obvious now.

[Fuddnik]

25. And publicly funded media.

Asswipe broadcasting and print media cover nothing.

Have you ever seen a policy debate on TV or in the newspaper? It's all "He said-She said". Who made a stupid gaffe. How much money was raised. Did someone say something controversial?

[Maineman]

18. How to clean up government(s):

1. Require structured campaigns. Campaigns will consist of
- a specified minimum number of broadcasted debates among all reasonably viable candidates
- equal numbers of interviews by professional media personnel
- biographical information or resume provided by the candidate and checked for accuracy by the media, no random reports disguised as news will be permitted

2. If any primary media entity (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine) accepts a paid ad for one candidate, the ad may not be run until that media entity has ad buys for equal time from all reasonably viable opponents. All ads will be charged at equal rates.

3. No effort can or should be made to control Internet communications.

4. Media entities that do not follow the rules will have their license suspended for a minimum of one year. This applies to all relevant prinicpals not just the name of the media entity.

[JDPriestly]

21. Good ideas.

[rhett o rick]

26. Good ideas but we have no leverage.

We dont live in a Democratic Republic, if we ever did. We live in an oligarchy, with a pretend democracy.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

33. "pretend democracy"

That's exactly it.

The plutocracy tosses enough crumbs to make it appear (or make us feel) it's a Democracy (or Democratic Republic or whatever you wish to call it) -- but in reality, it's an oligarchy or plutocracy and "we the people" have exactly Z E R O voice in it. We are only its slaves, working to uphold the wealthy and corprat class. When we can no longer do that, we are to drop dead. Quickly. We're of zero value to the ruling class unless we can work to provide them with wealth.

[noiretextatique]

39. +1000 nader said there was no difference

between democrats and republicons, and he was right on substance. we just get more crumbs with democrats.

[caseymoz]

22. It will never pass until we have a legislature . . .

. . . where the top 1% actually have 1% of the vote representation. Hard to do, I know. But when about 4/5ths of the people in Congress are among the top 1%, they tend to be isolated from the rest of us.

I know that sounds impossible. So draw your own conclusions.

[forestpath]

27. Most of the Democrats in Congress are on the side of the rich.

Just like all of the Republicans.

And the president.

I have written and called numerous times (I have "Democrats" for a representative and Senators) and it's like talking to the wall. They won't let anything come between them and helping the rich help them get even richer.

[davidn3600]

45. Yep. The sad truth many in here don't want to admit

Both parties are working for the rich.

We don't have a party for the middle class.

[rhett o rick]

28. Nothing will change until things get bad enough for more Americans

to get off their lazy, apathetic butts and make their feeling known.

Now if you were going to cancel "Dancing with the Stars (?)" You might get a reaction.

[KoKo]

29. Sad K&R....

but, it was to be expected...

[The Wizard]

34. Carlin was right, as usual

[Plucketeer]

37. This should have been a State of the Union speech.

Can you IMAGINE the seat squirming on both the Right AND the Left? Think of the grimmaces and head-shaking from the heavier side of the SCOTUS as the words "judges in their back pockets" were uttered.

Carlin, Stewart, Colbert, Fuegalsang, Cenk et al - all saying it like it is - with damned few listening. Maybe we NEED the repeal of "Obamacare" - maybe we NEED to short-change SS and M&M. Maybe with European-style austerity measures forced on us, enough folks would re-inflate Occupy to rout the fetid leeches from DC. I confess I doubt it tho.

[cbrer]

46. *WRONG*

"We won't have a functioning democracy until WE FORCE OUR CURRENT, OR ELECT NEW representatives . . ."

". . .to stand up for the principles in this document."