Hard words for DNC from Progressives

[Comadreja]

Published on Thursday, September 30, 2004 by the Black Commentator
>The November Third Movement
>by Margaret Kimberley
>
>November 2 is Election Day. On November 3, 2004, a new movement must
>begin, regardless of that election's outcome. If Bush emerges
>triumphant the reasons for opposing his regime are obvious. His
>agenda is so horrific that opposition is a necessity. America must be
>saved from corporate corruption, a loss of individual rights, and
>unending war that threatens the entire world.
>
>Of course the painful situation we find ourselves in makes the
>possibility of a Kerry defeat unthinkable. It would be the worst
>electoral defeat of a Democrat presidential candidate in modern
>political history. It would be worse than the Gore defeat of 2000,
>worse than the landslides that sent George McGovern and Walter
>Mondale packing. If a president who cheated his way into the White
>House, presided over the loss of one million jobs, and made war based
>on lies isn't defeated, the recriminations and blood letting must be
>immediate, public, and uncompromising.
>

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT. (ALSO: NEEDS LINK)

[jdj]

1. slick Willie and his triangulations

well, that's harsh, but then The Black Commentator minces no words.

[Selatius]

2. This guy has a point.

The only reason why I would vote for Kerry is because he isn't Bush. I was a Kucinich supporter because there is a man right there who stood up for the little man against big business. He proved it when he sacrificed his own early career to save the city he was mayor of from price gouging by resisting the selling out the power company to the bankers.

If Kerry wins, I'm going to hold his foot to the fire if he even so much as look like he's giving in to corporate interests, the same interests that supported the http://www.watpa.org/telcom.html">Telecommunications Act of 1996 and NAFTA, both signed into law by Clinton.

Given that I don't live in a swing state, I could easily vote for a 3rd party. That's the peculiarities of the Electoral College.

[Julien Sorel]

3. This piece of shit article already started a long flame war.

You're late.

By the way, Democrats are doing better in the South and Midwest than they have since Clinton, and this with a Massachusetts guy at the top of the ticket. Until the centrist Clinton, Mondale and Dukakis, "true progressives" got fuck kicked out of them. But the geniuses think the party should move left? Abysmal. No wonder they call them fringe.

[Selatius]

5. I live in Mississippi

It's true that the Dems are doing better around these parts, but people switching sides may be more to do with the war than it is with the party itself. In the grand scheme of things, this state is more likely than not going to go to Bush. Touting results better than during Clinton is--and I honestly mean no disrespect--jumping the low bar. Personally, I think the Democratic leadership's performance in the 1990s was the worst performance since the 1920s before FDR.

[Julien Sorel]

7. Really.

And you think moving further left, as this article whinishly demands, would help? Was that why the Democratic leadership was so bad -- they weren't left enough?

[Paxdora]

19. "whinishly"!!!

WTF! That reeks of Freepishness...omg!

Get over it, there IS a more progressive movement(coming from both the Left and the Right)developing in this country, and for some very good reasons. The DNC is moving AWAY from the People and settling comfortably in Corporatist laps, just so they can keep getting their effing corporate kickbacks!

The DNC has slowly devolved into another herd of swine, feeding at the Corporatist trough. After this election, I am dropping out of the "Democratic" party and going Independent. I will work for the Green Party from now on, the DNC does practically nothing to champion the things that mean the most to me.

[IrateCitizen]

21. "... progressive movement (coming from both the Left and the Right)"

Did you happen to see the episode of NOW with Bill Moyers that aired this week? In it, David Brancaccio sat down with the four "minor party" Presidential candidates -- Ralph Nader, GP nominee David Cobb, and the nominees from the Libertarian and Constitutional parties.

It was amazing how all four of them agreed about the major issues that both major parties are ignoring (even if they differed on solutions), and how they all said that the major parties were selling out the American people to corporate interests.

Sadly, they were all right in this regard. However, I don't necessarily believe that a "third party" is the answer -- especially as long as we don't have IRV. The machinations of the Democratic Party are waiting there for progressives to take it over, and it's high time we start doing so.

[Paxdora]

22. But that's just IT, friend!

The two major parties have been squelching all efforts to institute a more egalitarian voting system such as IRV. That would, essentially, weaken their power bases and quite possibly put them out of the picture.

IRV IS Direct Democracy for progressive Americans.

(How come Americans are so much 'slower' than Europeans? Yeah, yeah...that is a rhetorical question).

[IrateCitizen]

23. You don't have to sell me on IRV -- I'm already there!

In fact, if IRV were in place right now, I would cast my vote for David Cobb as my #1 and John Kerry as my #2.

I find it completely maddening that the Democratic Party has opposed IRV at virtually every turn. And you're dead-on about the reasons why.

It's similar to how the Dem big-wigs all came out to support Gavin Newsom for SF Mayor when it appeared that Green Matt Gonzales had a real shot at winning. Contrast that with how the Democrats were MIA from NY in 2000 when Carl McCall was running against George Pataki, a Republican. We had friends in SF at the time of the mayoral election, and they both are Dems, but they said the whole spectacle was sickening.

[Paxdora]

24. I wanted to vomit then...

and I still want to vomit now! I simply couldn't BELIEVE the non-support for McCall, and Pataki being my state's Governor is a living hell for me right now...

[bread_and_roses]

39. furious here too, fellow NY'er

We worked as hard as we could locally on McCall's election, what a missed opportunity, it still makes me furious.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Your argument is based on some pretty flimsy premises, Billy...

First off, neither Mondale nor Dukakis were "true progressives". In 1984, and moreso in 1988, the candidate running a "true progressive" campaign was Jesse Jackson. He was running a "true progressive" campaign not because he was running further to the left, but because he dared to try to appeal to people's BETTER instincts rather than their worse ones.

For instance, Jesse would make speaking engagements in predominantly white regions of Appalachia -- areas not known for being overly welcome to minority groups and causes -- and talk openly of the need for poor whites and poor blacks to unite around the common causes and experiences they share. And the amazing thing was -- he actually got people to LISTEN to him.

Here's a passage from a recent article profiling Jackson's 1984 and 88 runs, "The Rainbow's Gravity" from the 8/2/04 issue of The Nation:

Jackson likes to recount a story from 1989, about a visit to Camp Solidarity in Virginia, where miners were in the midst of the historic Pittston strike. They were, for the most part, large men, white, partial to camouflage, 10,000 strong. Jackson thought they looked pretty fierce. Rich Trumka, then president of the United Mine Workers, told them, "Y'all probably wondering why Jesse Jackson is here. Last year we were told to be scared of him. And this year the folks we gave our money to are nowhere to be seen. So I want you to ask yourselves, Which would you rather have, a black friend or a white enemy?"

It was a question other Southern white trade unionists had raised during the campaigns with their memberships, many of them Reagan Democrats. As elsewhere, the miners listened and responded enthusiastically. Jackson always maintained that a progressive candidate could reach such Democrats with straight talk, empathy, class-angled economics and an appeal to common human values--what veteran activist Anne Braden, who'd organized Rainbow rallies in Appalachia that drew thousands of poor white nonvoters or registered Republicans, called "appealing to the best instincts of Southern whites as opposed to the worst, which is what Bill Clinton played to."

What the author is talking about in regards to Bill Clinton playing to the "worst instincts" of Southern whites is the contrast between Jackson's approach, and the Clinton denounciation of Sister Souljah in 1992.

Further on in the article, it talks about how the Clintonistas tried to distance themselves from Jackson, to perceive him as a threat rather than someone who might be able to swing things in a progressive direction AND win.

As outlined in Kenneth Baer's Reinventing Democrats, From and Co. were straightforward about rolling back the party to its pre-civil rights past, where the issue of "special interests" would be submerged for the goal of winning, and winning would mean reinstituting what Congressman Jackson calls the "Democratic Legacy of the Confederacy." In the run-up to the 1992 race, Clinton's people, as recounted in Marshall Frady's book Jesse, would confer with old Mondale hands asking, "Why did you guys give so much to Jackson? You shouldn't've got pushed around like that." The iconic image of '92 would be Clinton and Senator Sam Nunn posing at Stone Mountain, Georgia, the graven images of the Confederacy's heroes looming in the background, and in the middle distance, a group of black prisoners.

BTW, the entire article can be found here: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040802&s=wypijewski

Progressives are not looking to drag the party further to the left, despite your protestations. Rather, we just want our politics to confront the real issues of the day -- a militarist foreign policy that is breaking us economically, increasing power of transnational corporations, the giveaway of our commons to those same corporate interests, etc.

I was watching NOW on PBS last night, and they happened to have the four top minor-party Presidential candidates on for long interviews/debates. The funny thing was, the four candidates there -- Nader, David Cobb of the GP, the Libertarian Party nominee and the Constitutional Party candidate -- all agreed on the biggest problems facing America today. They may have disagreed on the solutions, but they agreed on the problems -- and these were largely problems that were NOT being talked about by either the Republicans or Democrats. I've found similar experiences in talking with other people in the military who come from a hard-right perspective. We may have different philosophies, but we both agree on what many of the problems are and that neither major party is addressing them.

Of course, we're probably all just "fringe" in your book, which enables us to be written off much easier rather than possibly listened to so that you actually can hear what our major concerns are.

[sangh0]

50. You will always be able to find someone who is "more progressive"

but that doesn't change the fact that Mondale and Dukakis were "true" progressives. They were both for civil rights, a progressive tax code, multi-lateralism, etc. And I don't think that either of those two ran campaigns that appealed to our worser instincts.

It is hard to have a reasonable discussion on this issue when some insist on overheated rhetoric (not you, you're generally pretty reasonable, but it applies to the article) like how the DNC is "in shambles", which bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

In spite of close to four years of, if you listen to the author of this article, of progressives getting sick and tired of Dems backing down, Dem registration is way up and out candidate is doing extremely well, and he's even getting the votes of repukes. So are our Congressional candidates. So where is the "shambles"?

on edit: I particularly like this ridiculous prediction:

>Of course the painful situation we find ourselves in makes the
>possibility of a Kerry defeat unthinkable. It would be the worst
>electoral defeat of a Democrat presidential candidate in modern
>political history. It would be worse than the Gore defeat of 2000,
>worse than the landslides that sent George McGovern and Walter
>Mondale packing.

It seems these BS artists not only KNOW that Kerry is going to lose, but they also say they know it's going to be by the largest margin in history. Since they can't even predict the present, I doubt they can predict the future.

[welshTerrier2]

4. my two cents ...

i might agree with almost everything the author said ... but what a total jackass to say it now ...

there is no question that deep differences divide democrats on many issues ... but one thing is certain, today we are united ... and we will remain so through the election ...

to bring up talk of our differences at this time is nothing but divisive and counter-productive ... so, for being a total neanderthal, albeit a progressive one, the author of the article gets my much coveted WT2 Macaroon Award ...

call me next month ... we'll talk ...

[Kanary]

6. Then, you can give me the same award, because I feel the same way

The differences are very real, and head-in-sand isn't "unity", it's counterproductive.

I always thought Democrats were big enough to accept reality.

Guess I was badly mistaken.

The urge to rip each other apart is *very* strong.

Kanary, who has just been put in the "neanderthal" category..... :mad:

[blm]

14. And THAT is exactly what makes it easy for Republicans to steal elections.

Some people are amazingly obtuse. And those who know this crap helps the GOP and STILL promote it are TRAITORS to the human race and democracy, itself.

[MadHound]

27. Ooo, so now we are "TRAITORS to the human race and democracy, itself."

Simply because we dare to criticize the DNC/DLC for how they have sold the American people down the river for their thirty pieces of silver. Yeah, whatever.

Look friend the DNC/DLC has been the ones who are aiding and abetting corporate America in their conversion of this country to a corporate fiefdom. Need I remind you who it was who voted for the Patriot Act? Or who voted for the Iraq war? Or who voted for further telecom monopolization(hurting their own self interests)? Or who presided in the Presidency as this country saw a record setting gap emerge between the rich and the rest of us? Or who sold the middle class down the river with so called "free" trade and NAFTA? Or who ripped away the social safety net for the poor with welfare "reform"? The list of DNC/DLC and their operatives' transgressions against the American people is endless, a wretched record of their worship at the alter of corporate lucre.

Yes, this article is spot on, and his advice needs to be followed. You say that this article helps the GOP, well quite frankly this article doesn't help the GOP nearly as much as the DNC/DLCs' own actions do. There has been a systematic effort underway at the top of the party to pull the Democratic party ever further rightward for the past twenty years. In fact it has gone so much to the right that it has become virtually undistinguishable from the GOP. It has left many of us on the left, and even the middle, with no true representation, instead we're left with the choice of the lesser of two evils. No wonder the majority of people in this country don't vote, why bother, we're all going to be screwed either way.

And yet you dare to castigate us for following that great American tradition of finding representation that acutually does represent out views. How very facist of you friend, don't you know we live in a democracy? Face it, if the Democratic party doesn't reform itself, it is doomed to the dustbin of history, much like the Whigs were. People in a democracy want a party that actually goes out and represents their views and concerns, not one that merely pays lipservice to them while bending over for their corporate masters. Yes, we may be allied with you for now in order to rid ourselves of the evil of Bush. But come Novemember 3, especially if Kerry gets in, that alliance is over. It is time for new leadership in this country, leadership that doesn't bow to corporate power. After the election, we are going to go out and bring that about. Whether it is reform of the Democratic party, or the rise of a third is entirely in the hands of DNC/DLC. Hopefully they see the writing on the wall and act accordingly, if not, well it will be their loss.

[Paxdora]

31. A splendid screed!

Huzzah! You actually gave me goosebumps...you are a true American democrat who knows which side the bread is buttered on. Thanks so much for your passion.

Paxdora

[blm]

35. THREE Fing WEEKS before the election and this stuff can't WAIT?

You're damn right anyone who USES this crap to divide the left is doing the GOP's job for them.

You're screaming out loud to moderate voters that Kerry's election will be held to hostage demands by the left if he wins. Can't you just use the man's THIRTY YEAR RECORD of progressive actions to see where he's going to lead instead of some gawddam neophyte activists who just woke up in 2000?

My undergod, some of you are so nasty about Kerry and refuse to acknowledge that NOONE in government has a more stellar LIFETIME record for progressivism and noone comes close to exposing the amount of government corruption that Kerry has.

No...you're all so gawddamed BETTER than Kerry and have done way more than he and all know better, too.

Give it a rest for THREE WEEKS.

[MadHound]

47. You are both over-the-top and laughable in your slavish devotion

Essentially what you are saying is that somehow being critical of the DNC/DLC=helping the GOP=being a traitor to the human race. Do you ever listen to yourself, examine your pretzel logic?

And instead of answering these legitimate charges you blast all of us, painting us with the broad brush of being traitors to the human race AND democracy. Wow, the Democrats and Republicans HAVE drawn closer together, one only used to hear this kind of sick, twisted rhetoric from the radical right, now we're hearing it from Democrats also.

And while you tout Kerry's record as a solid progressive, fact belies your fiction. Remember, this is a man who has supported the '96 Telecom Act, NAFTA, welfare "reform", the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act. Sounds pretty moderate to me friend, of course in today's new Dem paradigm, moderate is now the left end of the spectrum for both Dems and 'Pugs.

And why should we withhold criticism? Making Kerry aware that we're going to hold him accountable might, just might, keep him a little honest, rather than completely caving in to corporate interests once he gets into office. Besides, I highly doubt that what is said on little known blogs, or internet chat rooms, is going to effect the outcome of the election. Look, you've got our votes friend, but don't expect us to worship at the alter of Kerry, OK. We're voting against Bush, not FOR Kerry. So don't expect him to receive a mandate from us to do as he wishes. He needs to realize now that he sits atop a very precarious coalition of the left, and if he wants to keep it together he needs to do some serious negotiating in order to accomplish his agenda. If not, he will go down in flames, and the Democratic party with him. We on the left are sick of being taken for granted, and while we are once again voting for the lesser of two evils, we will be expecting some payback for those votes. That is the way politics works friend, it is all about compromise and horsetrading. We on the left have been shut out of the tent for too long, and quite frankly we are sick of it. Either pay us back for our support, or realize that come '06 and '08 the Democratic party won't be able to elect somebody for dogcatcher.

You don't like that? Too bad, get used to it. The Democratic party's ever rightward movement has left many many people, from the far left to the moderates, high and dry for too long. Well Dean and DK helped us find our voice within the party, and you will be hearing from us whether you like it or not. And if that doesn't work, we will go outside of the party to find our voice. That is the way things work in a Democracy, and threats, demagoguery, and inflated rhetoric won't change that basic fact. So you, Kerry and the DLC/DNC have a stark choice in front of you; deal with us, or go the way of the dinosaur. It is up to you now.

[Kanary]

55. I second Paxdora! Looking at reality *is* Patriotism.

Allowing the party to die for lack of courage to see it's faults for what they are is certainly not "party loyatlty".

This whole line that those of us who see the problems in the party and dare to speak it are traitors is exactly the same tactics of the Neocons. Exactly the same.

Thanks for your words of hope!

Kanary

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[IrateCitizen]

67. No, blm. Kerry's patriotism IS very real.

However, many people within the Democratic spectrum believe that he isn't fully in touch with what many people in the country see as the deeper problems we face. We want him to acknowledge those problems. We want him to say them out loud, and to not be politically afraid to confront them. We want him to offer up solutions that address the overarching concern of "everyday Americans" over those of corporate business interests. In a way, one of the biggest gripes I ever had against Clinton is that he KNEW what life was like for the working poor, having grown up in that demographic. Yet, he embraced the centrism and "triangulation" strategies of the DLC that ultimately are hurting a lot of the working poor. At least Kerry has never been in that demographic, so his unawareness of the real challenges some people face is understandable.

Is that too much to ask? Is that somehow working "against" Kerry? Or is it a goal that we could all agree to work towards?

[sangh0]

68. But even more people in the Dem spectrum agree with him

and we live in a democracy. Kerry represents us too.

We want him to say them out loud, and to not be politically afraid to confront them.

It's obvious that Kerry doesn't agree with you. He voted for IWR, and he continues to insist that he did the right thing, so I don't know why you say he is "politically afraid" when it's courageous of him to take a position that he knows many Dems disagree with.

We want him to offer up solutions that address the overarching concern of "everyday Americans" over those of corporate business interests.

He is already doing that. He has promised no draft, his tax plan will help everyday Americans, his medical plans will get them health care, and he will help keep them from getting killed in unecessary wars.

In a way, one of the biggest gripes I ever had against Clinton is that he KNEW what life was like for the working poor, having grown up in that demographic. Yet, he embraced the centrism and "triangulation" strategies of the DLC that ultimately are hurting a lot of the working poor.

For all of his faults, the number of poor people decreased under Clinton, and more poor people got health coverage. Minority home ownership rates increased, while indicators like drug use and teen pregnancies went down

Is that too much to ask? Is that somehow working "against" Kerry? Or is it a goal that we could all agree to work towards?

Ignorance of what Kerry has done and is proposing to help those people do "work against" Kerry. That's why the repukes spend so much time and effort distorting Kerry's policies.

[Kanary]

38. WOW! I'M A TRAITOR! SHOOT ME NOW!!

:crazy:

[blm]

40. Anyone who promotes the GOP agenda to suppress Dem voter turnout is

a traitor. If you include yourself as someone looking to help that GOP goal then that is your burden you give yourself.

[Kanary]

44. That's the rule here....... denounce anyone you disagree with as a freeper

*THEN* wonder why the Dems are struggling.

There are *many* lifelong Dems who are saying much the same thing. So, get rid of them all, then wonder why the party is dying.

Insinuate that those who disagree with you are traitors, but denounce the GOP tactics you use.

Way to go.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

An open mind is a GOOD thing.

Kanary

[blm]

46. Wrong, Kanary. I say anyone who helps the GOP agenda is a TRAITOR

and IF that is your goal then that is YOUR burden.

Why should I trust ANYONE who seeks to suppress Dem voter turnout with ill-timed screeds against Democrats? I am nowhere near naive enough for that.

[Kanary]

48. And *YOUR* definition of "helps the GOP agenda" is those who

disagree with you.

What's hurting the Dems and helping the GOP is the DLC.

*THAT'S* what's lost power for the Dems.

Keep your eyes on the true enemy.

Kanary

[sangh0]

51. No, it's the definition for a lot of Democrats

but the oblivious haven't noticed.

[blm]

66. The TRUE enemy these next 3 weeks is ANYONE helping GOP agenda.

If you fit into those shoes then that is your burden. Thanks for screwing the country because you want your voice to be louder than Kerry's.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Telling the truth is suppressing the vote?

And, you accuse others of being "traitors"? Traitors to what? Blindly following the DLC party line?

Joe McCarthy lives.

[sangh0]

52. Traitors to the people

who will be hurt if bush* is allowed to remain squatting in the WH.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. So, suppressing the truth will keep Bush in the WH?

An interesting concept about truth and democracy. Or, is it about "traitors"? Do you mean the traitors of the DLC who promote republican ideals in the name of "moving to the middle". To move to the "middle", which direction does the party have to move? Certainly not to the left.

[sangh0]

56. You are getting incoherent in your rush to distort

The distorted argument that you should have used is the oppposite of what you used. You should have asked "So, suppressing the truth will get Kerry elected?". The distortion is that the claims of the DNC being "in shamble" are ridiculous. The treason is repeating the lies of that famous repuke, Ralph Nadir.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Nader is a Republican? Links?

How Republican is he? As Republican as the DLC that continually attempts to move the party to the right?

Did I say the DNC is in shambles? Show me. I disagree with what the author of the article states, "That the DNC is in shambles." I think the DNC is in the pocket of the DLC and the "triangulation" purveryors who are the real "traitors".

[sangh0]

61. Yes, Nadir is a repuke

He takes money from the repukes.

But that's ok with you.

Did I say the DNC is in shambles? Show me.

The article you agree with says that. Or did you not read the article?

disagree with what the author of the article states, "That the DNC is in shambles." I think the DNC is in the pocket of the DLC and the "triangulation" purveryors who are the real "traitors".

LOL!! According to you, the DNC is being controlled by a repuke group (ie the DLC) and at the same time you say the DNC is NOT "in shambles".

Yeah, right!! The DNC is SO strong that it's been taken over but it's NOT "in shambles". The looney left strikes again!!

[camero]

63. Wow, freeper logic at it's best.

Denouncing the pacifists as traitors and then going so far to say that the pacifists support the GOP, who started this screwy war on terror.

Get a life.

[sangh0]

64. Yes, you are using freeper logic

Denouncing the pacifists ...

They are not pacifists. Freepers also use lies and labels in their arguments.

[Selatius]

8. Discussion is good, imho

If given the choice, I'd rather choose a discussion where people, in a civil manner, sit down and hash out the disagreements, whatever they are, than simply fall in line and not say anything. All the article is saying is that Kerry better work not only to defeat Bush but also to live up to the standards people demand of their leaders, especially progressive Americans.

People can have disagreements, and I think that's fine, but there's no point in pigeonholing anyone because he or she voices concerns. That's just muddying the waters. People who have concerns we're gonna get a candidate who is gonna sell us out or sell us short are people with perfectly valid concerns. Talking is the best way to handle issues as they come.

[Kanary]

9. A Voice of Reason! Thanks, Selatius!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

And, welcome to DU!

:toast:

Kanary

[Guaranteed]

12. Look, I'm in the change boat, but this can wait three weeks.

Let's get the White House and the Senate and then we'll beat the crap out of those responsible for this.

[blm]

16. It also attempts to validate the perception that Kerry is a centrist when

his lifetime record proves he is the most progressive nominee of our lifetime.

Anyone who bought that crap that Kerry was to Dean's right is a political moron whose opinions are not based in reality.

[IrateCitizen]

18. No, he may be the most LIBERAL, but he's not the most PROGRESSIVE

A progressive candidate would not be running a campaign with an Iraq strategy based on winning militarily. A progressive candidate would not be endorsing "free trade" policies that are designed to drag down labor and environmental standards. A progressive candidate would not endorse the further entrenchment of the imperial presidency by saying that the IWR was justified, when it was in fact a blatant disregard of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then again, it's not like the Constitution has stopped such matters at any time in recent memory....

Look, I'm going to vote for Kerry, and do it enthusiastically, given the alternative -- but don't try to sell him as something he isn't. His record in the past is solidly liberal, and I'll readily give him that. However, there is a difference between liberal and progressive, and that difference is inherent in many stances Kerry has taken, especially in recent years.

[bread_and_roses]

49. YES. and Yes to IrateCitizen, Paxdora, Kanary and the others

maintaining some clarity of vision and perspective on the point on the political compass that Kerry's campaign stances represent.

I have been working on electing whomever the Democrats nominated since last November but I refuse to look at the candidate with some sort of rose-colored glasses. Kerry was my 2nd choice, largely for his environmental record and history on anti-Vietnam activism and Iran-Contra. He is light years ahead of the insane little tin-pot dictator-wanna-be puppet occupying the White House. He is light-years less a danger to the world than the fascist fanatics actually running this administration. But he is not running a campaign that even speaks to the real problems we face - the appalling class divide, the ever-growing inequality, the corruption of our corporate bought elections and legislation, the rot of racism fueling the ever-growing disparity in health and prosperity between people of color and white Americans, etc., etc., etc.

The Democrats abandoned their base over the past twenty years and in doing so lost their strength. They ceded the economic/class war to the Right. And in doing so they left the electorate to vote on differences in guns, god, and gays - a losing strategy if there ever was one. It is always easier to rally people around clan, difference, predjudice, fear, than around principles of equality and justice.

The Democratic party has been complicit in our march toward a third-world class structure and a Fascist/Corporate/Theocratic government.

I have a secret hope that along with a landslide victory, we will see some of the principles of the young Kerry in evidence once he achieves his life-long ambition of the Presidency. But it will be up to us to make sure that he has the political space in which to do so. And that means pressure year round, work year round, starting day one after the election for anyone not already involved in peace and justice organizations AND local/State politics. It can be done. The Right did it, so can we - and we can do it better and faster. We have to.

[sangh0]

54. Wrong, Kerry is the most progressive candidate

the Dems have ever NOMINATED.

A progressive candidate would not be endorsing "free trade" policies that are designed to drag down labor and environmental standards.

Litmus tests are for the ideologically committed. Many of us reject that sort of thinking. Kerry's policies on labor and particularly the environment are as strong as ANY Dem nominee's.

A progressive candidate would not endorse the further entrenchment of the imperial presidency by saying that the IWR was justified, when it was in fact a blatant disregard of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

I don't know where you got this one, but there's nothing in the Constitution that rules out IWR. Nothing in the Constitution restricts what Congress can vote for; It only limits what laws can be put into effect (ie. Constitutional laws) That's why IWR was NOT the first war resolution. There was one for GW1 also

[Oak2004]

10. I disagree

Even after President Kerry is sworn in, our job isn't done. We need to fight the radical right till we de-fascistify (is that a word? :) ) our nation. We've got to break up the media conglomerates and build our own media. We've got to catch the criminally dirty tricksters and practitioners of treason, convict them, and lock them up. We've got to catch the corporate crooks who sucked the national treasury dry. We've got to break up the worst of their activities with RICO suits, and rip the tax exemption from those primarily political organizations who've been disguising themselves as churches. And, finally, armed with persistence and the truth, we've got to strip away the wool those fascists have pulled over the eyes of so many people.

Then, and only then, after the shadow of fascism has been lifted from our nation, can we afford to engage in the sort of power struggles this article advocates. That's not to say that we shouldn't, from the first moment, pressure for peace, restoration of civil liberties, economic justice issues, etc. But we can't afford to fracture over these issues until the job of defending democracy is done.

In fact, I believe we will need to divide ourselves once the threat is gone. Within our ad-hoc coalition to defend against fascism are, I believe, the seeds for a healthy multi-party system. I sure know that the leadership of what is currently masquerading as the Republican Party has, by dint of its war on our constitution, lost any claim on legitimacy.

[lastknowngood]

11. I like Bill but this guy is 100% right.

n/t

[Q]

13. Let's wait until after the election...no wait...

...we can't talk about it then because it would weaken Kerry as he fights the GOP-controlled congress. Let's wait until 2008. No...we can't talk about it then either because Kerry will be running again and we don't want to 'divide' the party.

- The much needed discussion about the direction of the Dem party will never happen as long as the 'new democrats' hold the purse strings and the ear of the chosen.

- I'm convinced that 'liberals' and 'progressives' will have to form their own party after the elections because the Dem party has already been taken over by corporate interests. The only thing that will prevent this is if the party has a serious dialogue about ALL Democrats having a voice in the direction of the party.

[Guaranteed]

15. No, this discussion is going to take place, because we're going

to make sure it does.

[sangh0]

57. They want to pretend that THEY are THE ONLY ONES

who want to change the direction of the party.

[Paxdora]

20. Please provide the URL for this?

Thank You!

[jonnyblitz]

25. here is a link to the article

http://www.blackcommentator.com/107/107_freedom_rider_nov_3_pf.html

[Paxdora]

26. Thank you

Freedom Rider's blog is quite good, too...

http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/

[robbedvoter]

28. Black commentator is a freeper. Gore won in 2000. My qualms with DNC

are not gonna be fueled by a freeper site.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Please provide proof for this assertation, robbedvoter

If you're going to out Black Commentator as a Freeper, it seems some proof (besides your venom) is required.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Still waiting...

:boring:

[robbedvoter]

36. Been seing his writings during the primaries - attacks were NOT

progressive. I have no intention to visit that sewer again - the point was made successfully at the time.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Well, if robbedvoter says so, that's all the proof I need!

</sarcasm>

[Paxdora]

41. IMO

that is no kind of "explanation". Can you point to a particular article so I can get an example of your point?

[Paxdora]

32. Yeah!

Please 'splain whatcha talkin' about. Yo no comprende...

[realFedUp]

29. It's early, but I concur

I don't think Kerry will lose and
I do think there will be calls to
overhaul the DNC and DLC. Kerry/Edwards
will be held to a much higher standard
by Dems than Bush has ever been held
by anyone in this country.

[Paxdora]

33. Kick!

n/t :-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Hurrah for a voice of truth.

Isn't it interesting to see some of the voices of "democracy" here trying to shout down dissent.

The Democratic Party, over the years, and especially during Clinton's reign, has become little more than a pale imitation and partner of the
Republicans.

"triangulation" was a cute word for moving the party to the right and abandoning it's principles in favor of appealing to the right. The DLC/DNC is still trying to do the same.

I'm voting for Kerry only in an attempt to keep the truly "greater of two evils" out of the White House. A real progressive he is not.

[the_real_38]

43. Dittos, ....

... well put and important - the Democratic party is putting no agenda on the table - it's just "Bush Sucks". The corporate hacks at the DNC have to be stood up to, if we're ever going to get this country moving in the right direction.

[sangh0]

58. Rove agrees with you

so does bush*. They both same the same exact thing - no one likes Kerry. They just hate bush*

The corporate hacks at the DNC have to be stood up to, if we're ever going to get this country moving in the right direction.

Funny how "moving this country in the right direction" means NOT criticizing bush*. I guess everyone has their priorities.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. So?

Do you think that the people who don't particularly like Kerry but hate Bush shouldn't vote for Kerry?

And, what makes you think that those who don't like Kerry, don't criticize Bush? Most, if not all the posters, here who criticize Kerry for his "moderation" also criticize Bush.

Or, is Kerry above reproach?

[sangh0]

62. I think people who repeat Rove and bush* lies, and support repukes

like Nadir hate Kerry more than they hate bush*.

[bread_and_roses]

69. Nonsensical accusation

to suggest that anyone criticizing Kerry and the DLC is supporting this illegal administration or trying to suppress the vote.

Such accusations put the authoritarianism of Party line over principle, free speech, or healthy democracy, and are not supported by anything I see in the polls, in the reports from activists across the country, or in my own political work.

Sensible people are not going to stay home this election because Kerry is not St. George. The vast majority of those who define themselves as progressives seem to be firmly in the vote Kerry camp. Certainly I, and I would bet others above, are working as many hours a week as we can to GOTV and get him elected.

But that does not mean we are going to suspend critical analysis. One difference between anti-authoritarian thinkers and authoritarian followers is that anti-authoritarian thinkers tend to THINK FOR THEMSELVES and not swallow some canned creed wholesale and without analysis. To support the DLC and all of Kerry's positions because one agrees with them is one thing. To demand that everyone support them because they are the party line is authoritarianism no better than that demonstrated by the Neo-Cons and Fundamentalists.

[sangh0]

70. Your accusation is nonsense

to suggest that anyone criticizing Kerry and the DLC is supporting this illegal administration or trying to suppress the vote

That's why I never suggested that.

I spoke of people who repeat Rove and bush*'s lies, NOT "anyone criticizing Kerry and the DLC"

Sensible people are not going to stay home this election because Kerry is not St. George.

And sensible would be able to tell that I didn't say anything about people who criticize Kerry WITHOUT repeating the RNC's lies.

One difference between anti-authoritarian thinkers and authoritarian followers is that anti-authoritarian thinkers tend to THINK FOR THEMSELVES and not swallow some canned creed wholesale and without analysis.

People who repeat RNC lies are NOT "thinking for themselves". That's just nonsense

To demand that everyone support them because they are the party line is authoritarianism no better than that demonstrated by the Neo-Cons and Fundamentalists.

So where did I make any demands, or is that just some rhetoric you use to misportray me as an "authoritarian"?

[Moderator]

71. I'm locking this thread

Flamebait w/ lots of personal attacks.