Progressive Dems hold Democrats and Republicans Responsible to 57 Million

[Kevin Spidel]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact:
Thursday, November 18, 2004 Tim Carpenter
877-368-9221

Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party Announces First Policy Statement and Ongoing Mission Organization Pledges to hold Democrats and Republicans Responsible to 57 Million Voters


Washington, DC — Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) announced its first policy initiative today in its drive to influence the platform and agenda of the national Democratic Party. Citing the slim 2.6% majority vote achieved in the recent election, the new statement released by PDA asserts, “We do not believe that the November election was a mandate to destroy Iraq while saving it nor an endorsement of the President’s management of the conflict.” (See full statement below.)

“Our objective is to demonstrate that the progressive movement is alive and growing both inside and outside the Party,” said PDA director, Tim Carpenter. PDA was established as a counterbalance to the Democratic Leadership Council. Many rank-and-file Party members feel the DLC appeased conservatives and allowed a policy shift to the political right.

High profile thought leaders like writer and journalist Tom Hayden have endorsed the PDA position statement. “President Bush admitted to ‘miscalculations’ in the management of this war,” said Hayden. “It’s time for Congress to hold the administration accountable and demand an exit strategy that ends the blood shed, invites N.A.T.O. and the U.N. into the process and leaves Iraq stronger than before we invaded.”

PDA currently has 11 state caucuses with 15,000 registered members. The group has begun to work with its 22 other allied progressive organizations to launch a grassroots effort to influence the Democrats to put pressure on the current administration. In the wake of the November general election, this effort indicates the resilience of the grassroots movement established during the 2003-2004 Democratic Primary is still alive and represents the heartbeat of the Democratic Party. For more information go to www.PDAmerica.org.

The new PDA policy statement on Iraq reads as follows:

A Time To Break the Democrats’ Silence on Falluja and the Escalation of the War in Iraq

As Progressive Democrats we call on our Democratic Party leadership to break the public silence on the bloodbath in Falluja. Sixteen hundred Iraqi insurgents are said to have been killed and countless others maimed, crippled or injured in a single week. Over thirty American soldiers are dead and several hundred are wounded. Over eighty major attacks have been launched on American positions in several other uprisings from Mosul to Baghdad. Despite military and administration public relations, the US-trained Iraqi forces cannot or will not stand on their own.

America is creating a slaughterhouse in the name of democratic elections. As foreigners, we are dividing Sunni from Shiite and Kurd in the name of a fragmented Iraqi unity. We are ominously alone, abandoned by fifteen of our Coalition allies - so far - and by the United Nations.

This military strike was timed to occur after the American presidential election. While the main responsibility lies with President Bush, the national Democratic Party leadership has supported and encouraged the military offensive in Falluja as well. Both parties have bloody hands.

It is time for the bipartisan collusion in this war to end. It is time for the Democratic Party to become faithful to its faithful rank-and-file through becoming the party of opposition. It is time to declare clearly that this war is a mistake. The conduct of the war is a mistake. America is squandering the lives of its soldiers, the revenues of its taxpayers, and the trust of its people for a mistake.

When will our party leaders join in asking who will be the last American to die for this mistake?

Progressive Democrats will neither wait nor be silent. We will organize locally as voices and voters for peace. We will hold our Congressional representatives accountable if they support a $75 billion blood-stained check for the Iraq war. We will point out the daily cost of the war to our deficits, our cities, health care, housing and anti-poverty programs. We will demand greater candor and respect for our combat soldiers while also honoring those troops and their families who choose to oppose the war in the tradition of the young John Kerry.

During the presidential campaign, we gave one hundred percent for a Democratic ticket that felt compelled to defend a mistake. We do not believe that the November election was a mandate to destroy Iraq while saving it nor an endorsement of the President’s management of the conflict. It is George Bush’s mistake now, and the role of all Democrats and concerned Americans is to make him end his denial, accept responsibility and take significant steps to end the American occupation and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.


###

[peacetalksforall]

1. I am shamefully ignorant...I thought 'progressives' was just a name

for those who are dissatisfied with the mainstream Democratic Party who are, on close examination, barely one hair different from the Republican Party on many issues. I had no idea there was an organization. How long have I been in the dark?

There really is a place for people opposed to the war and the backward slide of the country?

Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich are formal members?

[madfloridian]

2. DFA and PDA and Progressive Majority are partners.

Take your pick. Kevin can explain PDA the best.....DFA works to support candiates and is working with PDA.

www.democracyforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

Dean has been meeting with some state leaders of the DFA as you see at the blog. Organization is ongoing.

You can join one or two or all 3.

[loudsue]

3. This Needs More Exposure!!! Are Any DUers Members/Organizers???

It's time that we started getting involved in this. This could be an excellent way to get rid of some of the DINO's in the Dem party, if we ever get a legitimate vote.

And it MAY be an "organized" way to GET a legitmate vote! So far, State and County Elections Officials can still be moved aside by people who actually understand the bbv problems.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Skidmore]

6. I joined online last weekend and just passed this on

to a couple today. We need to return the party to being the party of the people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Surely this is a bad idea.

You've just narrowly lost an election. Surely what you should be trying to do is get more people *in* to your party, not kicking people *out*. In practice a DINO still means someone more liberal than nearly all Republicans.

More people turned out to vote for Kerry than have voted for most winning presidential candidates in the past, I believe. Your problem wasn't that you failed to motivate your base, it was that the enemy succeeded in motivating theirs. You need moderates to reduce the Republican turnout.

[loudsue]

11. I completely disagree with that.

Just because a DINO means someone is "more liberal than nearly all republicans", doesn't mean they represent the will of the PEOPLE over the corporations. Having corporations running the government is THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT to Democracy there is.

The DINOs in the Dem Party, such as the DLC, and NDN (National Democratic Network) have as a key part of their policy to NOT GIVE SUPPORT to candidates who declare a "populist agenda"... as in, they don't give support to those candidates who are for the PEOPLE.

Those are the kinds of politicians we need to get rid of in BOTH parties, because this is SUPPOSED to be a country ruled BY THE PEOPLE. That one major fact has gotten completely lost in the massive party greed for power and funds.

While I am absolutely IN FAVOR OF healthy corporations, ones that FOLLOW laws rather than MAKE laws, ones that employ people and are responsible for the welfare of the people who make them profitable, and responsible for the environment we all have to live in, and responsible for the integrity of the products they sell, I am NOT in favor of corporations that seek to create a slave labor market in hopes of re-creating the robber baron days of old....whether they do it here in the U.S., or whether they do that overseas and let us subsidize them with our tax dollars.

:kick:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I think you're confusing several things

There are many valid criticisms against DINO's, but that they don't represent the will of the people is not one of them: "the will of the people" is a weird idea, but if you mean "add up the political opinions of all Americans and divide by 250 million" then you'll get something much closer to a DINO than to a more liberal Democrat.

The accusation I think you should be making is that the *interests* of the people are better served by a more liberal government, which is a completely different kettle of fish, and I would agree with you entirely on it. But the *will* of the people as defined above is precisely why we *do* need "moderates".

I don't think populist means "for the people". Populist is not a terribly well-defined term, but I get the impression that - at least in the UK - it means "pandering to the lowest common denominator" (another nebulous accusation, although less so). I.e subjugating principle to popularity, trying to persuade people to vote for one because one prefers fish and chips to guacamole, and suchlike, and is generally (in my view validly) used as a criticism. Does my experience tally with other peoples?

Describing "greed for power" as a bad thing is, I think, also wrong: the direction the government takes is extremely important; and if I enter politics I moreorless ipse facto believe that my policies will be better for people than those of my opponent, or I have no business running. In such circumstances I think trying to achieve power is not merely not a sin, it's a duty.

Saying that "we need to get rid of these kind of people in both parties" is all very well; but the Republicans are never going to do so, and if the Democrats purge themselves pf all those who like and are liked by major corporations then they will lose elections, as simple as that.

My apologies for raking you over the coals like this; I do agree with you that having more liberal people in power would be better, I just disagree about the best way to achieve this.

[loudsue]

13. Mr. Rankin, either you are uneducated or uninformed...

I don't think populist means "for the people". Populist is not a terribly well-defined term, but I get the impression that - at least in the UK - it means "pandering to the lowest common denominator" (another nebulous accusation, although less so). I.e subjugating principle to popularity, trying to persuade people to vote for one because one prefers fish and chips to guacamole, and suchlike, and is generally (in my view validly) used as a criticism. Does my experience tally with other peoples?


Main Entry: <1>pop·u·list
Pronunciation: 'pä-py&-list
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin populus the people
Date: 1892
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
- pop·u·lism /-"li-z&m/ noun
- pop·u·lis·tic /"pä-py&-'lis-tik/ adjective

About the DLC/NDN Alliance:

http://www.coosnet.com/jzkingjz/revs2001.html#HDLC

"Although its public base is minuscule, it has forged alliances with Fortune 500 corporations and the K street corridor in Washington. It is disciplined and single minded. Its aim is to represent big business and its free market, deregulation agenda along with other Republican economic positions. Names of prominent corporate supporters and the roles of players such as Senator Joe Lieberman are described.
Within the DLC is the New Democratic Network, the political action arm, founded in 1996. It purportedly acts as a "political venture fund to create a new generation of elected officials". Fundraisers promote the mingling of candidates and business patrons. "To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire..." NDN then interviews each and determines which will get support. Quoting Senator Wellstone: As the DLC influence makes the Democratic party more of a money party, it makes it less of a grass-roots party.
Abandoning working and middle class voters, the DLC is now appealing to the upper middle income strata of the individualist "new-economy", dumping populism, unions, social contracts and the New Deal."

From your post:
My apologies for raking you over the coals like this; I do agree with you that having more liberal people in power would be better, I just disagree about the best way to achieve this."

No need to apologize....'cause you're not raking me over any coals...you're showing your conservative stripes, as well as you lack of knowledge.

:kick::kick:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. What you're giving is a dictionary definition of "populist";

What I'm giving is a description of those politicians to whom I've seen it applied. In the UK, at any rate, populist almost always implies right-wing.

You may well be right about the DLC not being populist if you take the word to mean "believing in the rights, virtues and wisdom of the common people", but that's certainly not how the term is used over here.

I take it from your post that this is different in the US, and I've seen the economist describe leaders of third world countries as "left wing populists", although they always use the qualifier, and the artcicle it accompanies is usually a hostile one, but in general, at least on this side of the pond, I maintain that "populist" is usually used to describe politicians who are a) conservative and b)not approved of by the speaker.

Ignorant? Well, for obvious reasons I'm less informed on the specifics of US politics than most posters here - which is why I specifically clarified my post "-at least in the UK-", but I hope other posters from Britain, if there are any lurking about, will agree with me that over here UKIP are regularly described as populist, and Labour is not. Which side is better described as "believing in the rights, virtues and wisdom of the common people", would you say?

Conservative stripes? No.

[CAcyclist]

14. Enemy?

I don't look on the republican party as the enemy. Opposition, yes, but there is a world of difference.

We need to get the corporate influence out of both the Democratic and the Republican parties and then we will have our country back. Fascism is the enemy - the people voting republican are just misguided.

[mrgorth]

4. This is great but...

how many of these groups are we going to form?

[madfloridian]

5. They are for different purposes.

Go the websites and see.

DFA is for supporting grassroots candidates...Progressive Majority also....PDA is explained at the website.

[Kevin Spidel]

8. DFA, PDA, and PM

DFA (Let a thousand flowers bloom) runs all progressive, and will help any and all who are progressive. Progressive Majority (more strategic) works with candidates that DFA flushes out, then takes a more specific look at them, combnes strategy and "win-ability" and will fund them, train staff, and help with field operations. PDA (the activists base) realizes each campaign flushes out new activists. We keep them empowered during and post campaigns to move throught he web of the party, promoting themselves in the beuacracy of the party system and eventually nominating progressive DNC members. We grow progressive activists at the precint level and help ring the community of all three groups recognized and offically institutionalize the progrsive movement within the party via progressiv cacucses at the state level. We are all working toghether, and each play a significant role. We are all ally's, friends, and partners. Howard works with us, as well as conyers, lee, kucinich, etc.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Let's get this right: it's far more than 57 million

let's find out how many of our voters were kept from having their votes count.

[Kevin Spidel]

10. CORRECTED VERSION OF THE RELEASE

* * * MEDIA ALERT * * *


Progressive Caucus
Joins National Effort to Advance the Progressive Agenda,
Reshape the Democratic Party and
Influence National Policy


WHO:
¡ñ
¡ñ

WHAT: ¡ñ Organizing activists to support national progressive agenda
¡ñ Working to influence

INTERVIEW OPPORTUNITIES:
¡ñ Tim Carpenter, National Director
Progressive Democrats of America
¡ñ

MEDIA CONTACT:
¡ñ




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact:
Thursday, November 18, 2004 Tim Carpenter
877-368-9221


Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party
Announces First Policy Statement and Ongoing Mission
Organization Pledges to hold Democrats and Republicans Responsible to 57 Million Voters

Washington, DC ¡ª Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) announced its first policy initiative today in its drive to influence the platform and agenda of the national Democratic Party. Citing the slim 2.6% majority vote achieved in the recent election, the new statement released by PDA asserts, ¡°We do not believe that the November election was a mandate to destroy Iraq while saving it nor an endorsement of the President¡¯s management of the conflict.¡± (See full statement below.)
¡°Our objective is to demonstrate that the progressive movement is alive and growing both inside and outside the Party,¡± said PDA director, Tim Carpenter. PDA was established as a counterbalance to the Democratic Leadership Council. Many rank-and-file Party members feel the DLC appeased conservatives and allowed a policy shift to the political right.
High profile thought leaders like writer and journalist Tom Hayden, have endorsed the PDA position statement. ¡°It is George Bush¡¯s mistake now,¡± said Hayden, ¡°The role of all Democrats and concerned Americans is to make him end his denial, accept responsibility and take significant steps to end the American occupation and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.¡±
PDA currently has 11 state caucuses with 15,000 registered members. The group has begun to work with its 22 other allied progressive organizations to launch a grassroots effort to influence the Democrats to put pressure on the current administration. In the wake of the November general election, this effort indicates the resilience of the grassroots movement established during the 2003-2004 Democratic Primary is still alive and represents the heartbeat of the Democratic Party. For more information go to www.PDAmerica.org.
The new PDA policy statement on Iraq reads as follows:

A Time To Break the Democrats¡¯ Silence on Falluja and the Escalation
of the War in Iraq

As Progressive Democrats we call on our Democratic Party leadership to break the public silence on the bloodbath in Falluja. Sixteen hundred Iraqi insurgents are said to have been killed and countless others maimed, crippled or injured in a single week. Over thirty American soldiers are dead and several hundred are wounded. Over eighty major attacks have been


(PDA Statement on Iraq, continued)


launched on American positions in several other uprisings from Mosul to Baghdad. Despite military and administration public relations, the US-trained Iraqi forces cannot or will not stand on their own.

America is creating a slaughterhouse in the name of democratic elections. As foreigners, we are dividing Sunni from Shiite and Kurd in the name of a fragmented Iraqi unity. We are ominously alone, abandoned by fifteen of our Coalition allies - so far - and by the United Nations.

This military strike was timed to occur after the American presidential election. While the main responsibility lies with President Bush, the national Democratic Party leadership has supported and encouraged the military offensive in Falluja as well. Both parties have bloody hands.

It is time for the bipartisan collusion in this war to end. It is time for the Democratic Party to become faithful to its faithful rank-and-file through becoming the party of opposition. It is time to declare clearly that this war is a mistake. The conduct of the war is a mistake. America is squandering the lives of its soldiers, the revenues of its taxpayers, and the trust of its people for a mistake.

When will our party leaders join in asking who will be the last American to die for this mistake?

Progressive Democrats will neither wait nor be silent. We will organize locally as voices and voters for peace. We will hold our Congressional representatives accountable if they support a $75 billion blood-stained check for the Iraq war. We will point out the daily cost of the war to our deficits, our cities, health care, housing and anti-poverty programs. We will demand greater candor and respect for our combat soldiers while also honoring those troops and their families who choose to oppose the war in the tradition of the young John Kerry.

During the presidential campaign, we gave one hundred percent for a Democratic ticket that felt compelled to defend a mistake. We do not believe that the November election was a mandate to destroy Iraq while saving it nor an endorsement of the President¡¯s management of the conflict. It is George Bush¡¯s mistake now, and the role of all Democrats and concerned Americans is to make him end his denial, accept responsibility and take significant steps to end the American occupation and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

###

[KoKo]

15. I'm into this.....It's the last step before I leave the Dem Party...If we

can't build a resistence to the DNC/DLC then I will have to go third party. I'm sick of it all, but something has to be done. :shrug: