David Cobb: "We're moving towards a one-party system"

[welshTerrier2]

We've had numerous arguments on DU about the differences between the two major parties ... I think it's ridiculous to say there is NO DIFFERENCE but after reading some of the voting history, i think it might be fair to say there is nowhere near enough difference ...

If, based on actual votes, you can make a strong case that the Democrats have been effective in standing up to the republican's corporate agenda, I'd like to hear it ...

check out the arguments presented by the Greens ... does it have merit or doesn't it ???

NOTE TO MODS: this is a press release and is not subject to the normal copyright rules ... thanks ...

source: http://www.gpus.org/press/pr_2005_05_16.html

Democrats are Rubberstamping the Bush Agenda.

Greens condemn bipartisan support for the Real ID Act and Iraq occupation appropriations.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party leaders claimed that Democrats are supporting some of the most damaging and extreme agenda of the Republican Party, citing the unanimous Senate vote to institute a national identity card for all Americans.

"We're moving towards a one-party system, with Democrats rubberstamping most Republican legislation," said David Cobb, the Green Party's 2004 presidential candidate.

Senate Democrats and Republicans, unanimously and virtually without debate, approved the 'Real ID Act.' This legislation mandates electronic ID cards for all Americans in accord with Homeland Security Department specifications.

Greens called the Real ID Act, which was slipped into an otherwise uncontroversial spending bill, a major step towards universal surveillance, a violation of the right to privacy and freedom of mobility, an ineffective security measure, and a vicious attempt to blame undocumented immigrants for the nation's problems.<skip>

The Senate also voted unanimously on May 10 in favor of $82 billion in emergency appropriations for military expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. <skip>

Green Party leaders noted that mainstream Democrats have long agreed with Republicans on numerous major issues, favoring antidemocratic supranational trade authorities (NAFTA, WTO, etc.), the war on drugs, the 1996 Antiterrorism and USA Patriot Acts, the death penalty, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, welfare reform that penalizes the poor, expanded drilling for oil in Alaska, bills privileging credit card and other financial corporations over working Americans <http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_04_21.html>, and surrender of Congress's constitutional power to declare war to the White House. Last month, Democratic Party national chair Howard Dean endorsed the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. (Greens take the opposite position on all these issues.)

Democratic Party leaders have also rebuffed attempts within their own party to introduce national health insurance, repeal Taft-Hartley restrictions on workplace organizing, and grant statehood to the District of Columbia.

"When John Kerry scolds his fellow Democrats for supporting same-sex marriage and Howard Dean hopes that Bush's Iraq policy is 'incredibly successful', it's painfully clear that the U.S. lacks opposing leadership," said Pat LaMarche, Green candidate for Vice President in 2004.

"Democracy demands an opposition party to challenge and debate the direction of our nation. The U.S. is in grave peril with no voice but that of the administration, amplified by the Democrats."

[Mark E. Smith]

1. Sorry Orwell. It's still a two party system

Or, if you figure in the Greens, a 2 and 1/20th party system.

[welshTerrier2]

2. did you read the article?

looks like quite a bit of "rubberstamping" going on, doesn't it ??

i agree it's still a two-party system but i hate that the Democrats are far too often a "go along" party instead of an opposition party ...

[Selatius]

3. The Democratic Party suffers from massive conflict of interests

On one hand, you have responsibility to the voters, the ordinary people, the workers who built America. On the other hand, you need money to run for office, but who has the most access to wealth and resources in this country?

How does one reconcile responsibility to the people, while attempting to solicit donations from very wealthy interests in order to wage a political campaign? I would assert that it is not possible in a great many cases. This is why the Democratic Party's message is muddled at best. This is why Joe Biden would vote for that stupid bankruptcy reform bill.

The problem will exist as long as candidates must solicit money for their campaigns. There is no taxpayer subsidized election system.

The term "Republicrat" does have *some* basis in reality. Don't forget that.

[Q]

8. This is why we've heard no further discussion about Public Financing...

...of campaigns. It seems the system is rigged so that campaign cash donated by corporations ends up back in their hands through the corporate media.

Is it any wonder why corporations don't want public financing or any sort of reasonable caps on spending?

American politics has turned into one big cash cow for the corporate media. Politicians running for national office 'have to' raise a 100 million dollars...most of it going towards media expenses like advertising.

And let's not forget that Dems and GOPers alike must give something in return for these generous corporate donations. The 'payback' is usually in the form of voting for legislation that benefits the corporate donors.

[libodem]

4. to tell ya the truth,

I'm on board with all of the green's agenda. I just can't see leaving my party, ever. I've always felt that they should be with us. I guess they must find representation, somewhere. BTW, it makes me really mad when the Dems vote with those pigs. I have nothing but republican representation in, Idaho. I look to the Democratic leadership from other states to represent my views. I feel disappointed when they let us down, even if they aren't from my state.

[Radical Activist]

5. I might care what Cobb things

if he or the rest of the Green party leadership had the slightest clue about how to organize a successful political party.

We do need a progressive third party but the Greens have their heads too far up their asses to be the one.

[welshTerrier2]

6. that's nice ...

would you like to have a go at responding to the question now ???

this was not a post supporting Cobb nor was it a thread complimenting the Green Party ... the thread is about the often too narrow line between the Democratic Party and the republican party ...

attacking David Cobb and or the Greens is not really the point ...

[Pepperbelly]

7. I think maybe the point was that ...

Cobb's credibility as an analyst is suspect.

[Radical Activist]

9. Yes...

this kind of argument from Cobb is moot because even if he's right that there is a need for a third party, the Greens haven't shown the ability to make it happen.

[welshTerrier2]

11. even a broken clock ...

is right twice a day ...

i think it's often important to evaluate the message separate from the messenger ... Cobb was only a prop or a vehicle to raise the discussion topic ...

we are NOT discussing whether the Greens should or should not be the alternative to the two party system; we're discussing whether the Democrats are too similar to the republicans ... the fact that Cobb is making that point is really of no consequence ... you either agree with the statement or you don't ...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[NMDemDist2]

15. Actually, technically that is incorrect. as the rules clearly state

Stay on topic. Do not jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Q]

10. Suspect or not...

...it's a fact that the 'two-party system' prevents any third parties from gaining a foothold towards breaching their monopoly.

You don't have to listen to Cobb or believe his 'analysis' to understand that the parties have grown closer on numerous issues. It's also true that both parties have become addicted to corporate cash and the corruption that goes with it.

[fujiyama]

13. Meaningless bitching

Cobb may have a point (I'm not pleased with the way many Dem senators have voted in recent months), but Cobb doesn't offer any meaningful alternatives.

Instead he'll claim a third party is the solution...That'd be nice, if there were a viable third party, which could prove that it could garner more than 1-3 fuckin percent of the national vote.

Until the greens or any other third party can prove that it has the support of more than 3%, I'll stick with the only possible opposition to the puke agenda. Contrary to what Cobb may believe, there are Dems out there doing what they can to oppose the Bush agenda.

[Zynx]

14. Now is not the time to have a more liberal than thou argument.

We have real issues to fight right now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Exactly. Our focus should be on

media and election reform ow we will never get this country sorted out:
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Hidden Stillness]

17. Eventually, Attacking Dems Becomes Their ONLY Focus

This news release shows why third Parties are so destructive, as the representative of that Party does little other than bash and attack the Party that was actually the closest to that person's own Party, rather than standing together with it to oppose the worst threat to democracy during our lifetimes, and leaving people with the (false) sense that everyone in the world was a horrible criminal--except me, of course. All this does is increase people's oppressive sense of hopelessness and futility, leading to only more disconnection and refusal to act, on anything. We already know about all of these problems--why was this statement even made? Oh, of course: 1) "Democrats are Rubberstamping...(etc.)"; 2) "Greens condemn...(etc.)"--a sales pitch. Switch from them to us; kill them. How useful--to Republicans.

This comes at a strange time, exactly when Democrats have shown more fight than for many (bleak DLC) years, actually acting alive at times now. They have even won a few huge victories, a real accomplishment when you are a clear minority, and are getting more on track and in sync with a finally awakening American people. I believe that real change can only start by the people of the non-political, non-corporate arena, the ordinary, non-organized citizens, because only they can express anger, outrage, come right out and say things, and not suffer the threat of loss of job the others, more directly related, can, and are presumed to have a right to complain. This is why the first signs of rebellion, even of disagreement, (Social Security, Terri Schiavo, outsourcing, Iraq war, etc.), came from the crowds of usually censored people, and the "corporate/media/pseudo-public world" reacted to it, following behind, rather than starting or causing it. They would've been attacked by the media in a certain way that they cannot attack us, because they hold nothing over our heads as a threat. After the first signs of protest on our part, then, politicians and others can THEN be more free to express the same, because now they can prove that it was a real, popular, opinion out here. You sometimes have to "wait" your way through a terrible time and just hope to hold on to the world you knew, and then when you are starting to feel safe to come out again, more organized and with "the stars lining up"--then, strike. You sometimes can't do it earlier, and anyone with any wisdom about life knows it. Things only come at their time, and there are eras when certain things or people prevail whether we all hate it or not, and the only thing constraining them is law, so the only thing you can pray for is that they will not kill the protections of our government. Attacking anyone who cannot momentarily fight against the oppresive bastard regime that the Republicans have become, rather than pinning it all on Republicans, gets more offensive to me all the time.

Then of course, we get their own "hugely important" statements of "issues," such as the rich "leisure class"'s favorite, "gay marriage," even though there are civil unions. I won't wait for "Trendsetter" to pay any attention to the millions of adults working at poverty level wages for multi-national corporations, who never have any time to search for jobs and who are therefore trapped there. Solve that one, or the destruction of pensions and benefits. Attacking Howard Dean for hoping for a good end to the Iraq mess is just weird. We caused it; we had better fix it.

If you want to find an example where Democrats did not stand up and fight and should have--rather than the standard, expected attacks on John Kerry, the one I always get angry about is: when Kerry was under attack from the Republican Swift Boat Liars and their media during the campaign, why did not a single Democrat, even once, attack back on Kerry's behalf? They should've come out swinging as a group, demanding decent treatment of our candidate, and yet did nothing.

Whenever people suddenly come along later with a statement about things that actually, we all already know, like they just invented it, it serves no purpose at all--just more worthless, "framing" ad-pitch game-playing. The question is: How can Democrats solve these things and get corporations out of the process, how complicated will it be? Will you have to bring a lawsuit and strike down "corporate personhood" and all the abuses that went with it?--because, as always, only Democrats will solve these things.

When third Parties do nothing but attack Democrats, all you get are more Republicans.

[Adelante]

19. This isn't quite accurate or fair

If you want to find an example where Democrats did not stand up and fight and should have--rather than the standard, expected attacks on John Kerry, the one I always get angry about is: when Kerry was under attack from the Republican Swift Boat Liars and their media during the campaign, why did not a single Democrat, even once, attack back on Kerry's behalf?

Be angry at the Kerry campaign, if you want to be angry at somebody. The shots were called on this by the campaign.

[NVMojo]

18. Repukes have been telling me this for years, that we don't need 2-parties

and of course the one remaining will be under their control. What a bunch of touchy-feelie assholes.

[genius]

20. OK. The min leaders are making it a one-party system

Clearly the Senate Democrats are almost no different from the Republicans. However, there are 57 rebels in the House and I don't see them sitting still while the other Democrats sell us out. Maybe it's time for a new Democratic Party - one that is true to Democratic values.