Is there anything you folks actually like about the Democratic Party

[Perky]

Some of you want to purge the party of all moderate influence.

A bunch of you are livid that Senators are not flocking to embrace the Feingold Resolution that you want to vote for their demise

Still more of you have threatened to bolt the party and vote Green.

I am convinced a good portion of would rather protest then govern: Actually think that a moderate Democrat is worse than electing another Republican.

If things are so friggin' lousy why are you still here?

[Beelzebud]

1. We need new leadership.

Reid and Pelosi are incapable of keeping the party on-message.

I mean, Reid goes out and calls them criminals one day, and the very next, he's out there with his tail tucked in between his legs apologizing to them.

We need leaders that are as bold as we are!

[zonmoy]

43. To me if they cower and bow to the republicans

they should be kicked out of the democratic party and told to go to the republicans who's boots they lick.

[AndyTiedye]

63. They Have Obviously Gotten to Reid

After a little bit of tough talk at the beginning, Reid is now worse than Daschle was.
To be sure, our position is far weaker than it was when Daschle was our leader in the Senate.

They had to sent anthrax to Daschle to get him to cave in.
I guess all it took with Reid was a little blackmail.

The fact that Reid would not be displeased if abortion gets banned doesn't help matters,
as it has made him far too disposed to let Bush** have is way with the judiciary.

I think WE are moderates. Our views are in the mainstream of America, according to polls.

Allowing abortion to be banned is not a moderate position.
Allowing extremist judges on to the Supreme Court is not a moderate position.
Supporting any part of Bush**'s legislative agenda is not a moderate position,
because that entire agenda is the right-wing fascists' wet dreams from wall to wall.

I think we can do better than Reid for a majority leader.
Besides, his recent submissive behavior would suggest that THEY have gotten to him somehow.

[Mrspeeker]

2. sad but true

where would I go?

[Quantess]

3. remember what happened when people voted for Nader?

It would be unwise for liberals to split into different parties, at this stage.

[zonmoy]

47. so you are advocating being the puppets of

people who are doing their best to be clones of the republicans while not quite being them. If the party that we are married to treats us either as second class members or even abusively should we keep being married to the party.

[Sammy Pepys]

4. Combination of all of the above for me

I think we need new leadership, that the party has too many disparate interests (or, at least hasn't settled on the big issues it needs to focus on), and that pretty much every option in that poll is related to every other one....with the exception of not knowing where else to go.

The one option I do think is a problem, but not nearly as much as the rest of them is the issue of moderates. Face it, we need a moderate voice in the party....shutting them out doesn't do us any favors. We just need to get everyone on the same page.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Ah cmon Perky

Let the kids bitch and moan and exercise grey material. You don't want rigid erect lockstepping do you? I enjoy all the discontent posted here.

Thanks to people like bush and reagan and frist and delay and limbaugh and faux news I'm a yellow dog democrat and I think the vast majority of those posting here are too; and will vote accordingly despite their rants. I'd like to think that protesting is an essential element of governing.

So cmon all you loveable liberal malcontents entertain me; then we'll kick some serious ugly gop ass in 06 and 08.

[LiberalVoice]

6. "I just think we need new leadership"

We need new democrats. Real democrats. Not this cowardly trash we have "governing". The republicans do as they please and these idiots are terrified of opening their mouths.




Makes me want to vomit.

[400Years]

7. I guess we shouldn't be participants in our own democracy?

[Perky]

11. Isn't Participating also governing as opposed to continually

being in protest mode?

[400Years]

16. your characterization is way off but if that's the way you see it.

I thought we were all here because we opposed the policies of the oligarchy and want to change this country for the better. People have a right to hold their representatives' proverbial feet to the fire and make them do the right thing. Too many in the leadership of our party are in bed with the corporate class and don't give two shits about representing us. Should we not be vocal about it?

[Lerkfish]

17. "appoised"? anyways: what are you suggesting?

it appears you equating "governing" with compliance with Bush, and "protest mode" with attempting to hold the administration accountable for admitted felonies.

If I am misreading you, please clarify.

IMHO, this current administration is not deserving of lapdog fealty from our dem leaders. All the more outrageous when they get it anyways. Perhaps you prefer lapdog fealty? If you do not, what do you propose to hold the administration accountable for their crimes?

Do you NOT consider them crimes, or do you think we should play nice and ignore the crimes?

[mattclearing]

21. If you don't protest, you are governed.

Are you suggesting we should just take whatever we get, even when it's clearly not adequate for our views?

[Perky]

27. No I am not suggesting that at all

I am suggesting that if all we ever do is protest rather than build the Party we may never govern again.

[mattclearing]

32. Most of us support the efforts of the Party, though.

Particularly Party-infrastructure-building efforts like the ones that Howard Dean has instituted at DNC.

It's a lot more evident in the GDP forum than it is in GD, though. GD is a bit more crazy that way.

[Lerkfish]

34. define "build the party"

does "building the party" mean permitting the executive branch to commint crimes without censure?

Please explain precisely what you mean.

[Perky]

45. Anything.

Registering new Democrats in the inner citties and in the suburbs

Attending Pary events and working phone banks.

Actibely working to elect Democrats to office even if you think they are too moderate.

[Lerkfish]

51. What does that have to with censure?

What does that have to do with asking current Dem leadership to stand up to tyranny?

I guess I'm missing something. What you're suggesting we do in your explanation, we do anyways. Why do you feel we do not?
Obviously, your thread was NOT about registering new Democrats or attending Party events. Your thread was your displeasure at "liberals" pointing out that Dem leadership is not uniting to hold the administration accountable.

this thread is an attempt to paint democratic progessives as unrealistic crybabies.
When, from where I stand, people are just asking Dem leaders to do what they were elected to do. Perspective is everything, I suppose.

[lpbk2713]

8. We don't have to be in lockstep

If we think outside the mainstream we don't have other Dems yelling at us to GTF out.


(Well, not usually anyway)

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. What I like about Democrats is

they are not Republican.

Usually.

And I will always vote for a squishy Democrat over a liberal Republican, because without the squishy dems we will not regain the majority. Simple as that.

[magellan]

10. New leadership, new committment to old values

It's time for heros, not wimps.

[RandomKoolzip]

12. "No taxation without representation."

There's a HUGE number of liberals in this country. And liberals, by and large, have no political representation in Washington. Why is that?

[Lerkfish]

13. Is there some reason why moderate = inability to stand on principle?

Are you saying moderates do not feel the president admitting to a felony worthy of censure?

Is there some reason moderates wish to abdicate governing to Bush as a unitary executive?

If you get right down to it, that's what you're saying here: that you're upset that people are upset at "moderate" dems not willing to hold the president accountable for felonies he not only publicly admits to, but show no remorse nor desire to stop committing.


Not sure your "moderates" have any great moral high road there.

Perhaps you can 'splain it to me?

[Perky]

19. Wow is the world realy that Black and WHite to you?

I never said any of those things.

[Lerkfish]

24. I asked you to explain yourself.

perhaps you could, if you feel my characterization is off.

You appear to be upset that people are upset when dem leaders give the administration a free pass.

Am I misreading you on that? If so, explain why I'm wrong.

as far as the world being black and white, YOUR"E the one who started this thread attacking people who want leadership held accountable, thinly disguised as a "poll". :shrug:

Arent YOU the one viewing it as moderates "white" and progressives "black"?

[Lerkfish]

40. deleted by author

[Perky]

41. No I am not you are reading way to much ito my post

I am suggesting that there are many shades of gray that need to be tolerated.

I am fully in support of the Censure. In fact I caled for that type of solution in the first week after the wiretap story brok.

But the expectation that all Dems need to fall in line is awfully myopic.when Feingold did a piss poor job at selling it to the caucus. Blaming this blowing up in Feigold's face on Moderates and coporatists and and the Friggin DLC is insideous and certainly naive. Wedon't win anything if all we do is protest everyone and everything that we happen to believe this week.


It can get as Tiresome as a two-year old's tantrum. It is not that Liberals are wrong it is simply that is all they do yammer on incessantly about MSM and the DLC and how the polictal world blows. Stop yammering about the party and get in there an FIX it so we can govern again or get out of our way.

[Lerkfish]

46. "or get out of our way"?

If we speak our minds on the issue, us "liberals", we should get out of your way?
Who are you, that we should forego our concerns to make you comfortable?

You ask for tolerance but offer absolutely none.

[Perky]

53. I have no problem with free speaking our minds

I have no problems with rants. WHat I have a proble with is this insideou ntipon that if you8 are a moderate on any issue you are my enemy,

[Lerkfish]

56. but you're the one who said "get out of our way"....wtf?

Your'e the one painting others as enemies.
I've said absolutely nothing against moderates, unless you are saying that to be moderate is to be collaborators with Bush.

[MrModerate]

14. Depends on how you define "moderate" . . .

I don't think that opposition to abortion rights (i.e., Casey in PA) is "moderate." I don't think that continuing support for the debacle in Iraq (i.e., Clinton in NY, plus a whole bunch of others) is "moderate." I don't think acquiesence to illegal wiretapping (apparently all the Dems in the Senate except for Feingold) is "moderate."

I call it wrongheaded or craven.

That having been said, and given the way the system works in this country, I'm going to grit my teeth and support a lot of DINOs and worse in November and 2008, because the Republican party has been taken over by traitors and mad people and must be pushed out of power in any way possible. Then I'll recommend working on Dem warts in a wholesale manner.

[quiet.american]

15. Dean, Conyers, CBC, Feingold, Murtha, Boxer, Cleland, Harkin

These are the main reasons I like and stay with the Democratic Party.

[kevinbgoode]

18. Defending the Constitution IS a moderate position

Just because the wingnut media declares any questioning as "left-wing" doesn't make it so. . .there are lots of people who are increasingly fed up with this Administration and our rubberstamp Congress.

[mattclearing]

20. Define "moderate influence."

People who are called moderate in the media are often just taking Republican stances on all but a few issues.

That's not moderate. And it doesn't deserve our support.

[TahitiNut]

22. I just had to look. Yep. It's still there.

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

Your push poll seems designed to promulgate the message of "you're either with us or you're with the fascists. Dissent is treasonous." I, for one, cannot "bolt the party" since I am not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a partisan. I subscribe to values and principles, not allegiance to labels or brands ... and certainly no label that stretches so far in its absence of core meaning that it offers cover to the ideologies demonstrated by Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Wellstone, and John Conyers.

When you say "If things are so friggin' lousy why are you still here?" I can only be thankful I'm an independent.

[Lerkfish]

25. well put.

thank you.

[Atman]

23. We have hotter women?

Way funner house parties?

George Clooney?

Gimme a minute....

[Quantess]

29. say that again, only.....

in the loud, deep gravely voiced announcer, the same one that does "MONSTER TRUCK RALLY AT THE COLISEUM!!!!":headbang:
LOL

[Beacho]

26. You forgot to add "Dump Corporate Whores"

Then I could participate

[billbuckhead]

36. The American Consitution is broken by allowing electoral duopoly

What if you only had two choices of meals? Of cars? Of religions? Of Banks? TV shows? Music?

It's no accident that corporate monopolies love this government duopoly.

[Little Star]

28. It's the only show in town that has a stage.

I use to love my party. I was proud of them even though there may have always been a few slackers. Now I only tolerate the party as a whole because of the self centered weaknesses. A hand full I can back fully, the rest I merely tolerate.

[ThatsMyBarack]

30. I voted for new leadership.

I don't think we need it--I know it! :patriot:

[Ufomammut]

31. Reliance on "leadership" is cowardly bullshit

It's a key aspect to how Americans are propagandized and controlled: you're taught to rely on a chosen few elite instead of doing for yourselves.

If you examine people's movements throughout history, any real change always comes from the bottom up, not the top down. It's the actions and seemingly small steps of countless scores of individuals who care enough to strive, to try, who have the wherewithal to say that the emperor has no clothes -- not the dim bulbs who prefer to sit back and let the "Heroic Leader" thwart the power structure villains, because such "leaders" are already on the power structure's payroll, and will serve their corporate masters while effectively deceiving you into thinking they actually give two shits for you and yours.

[kenny blankenship]

33. I thought the name of this site was Democratic *Underground*

So why are you still here if you don't care for the underground ambience?

[Perky]

49. A fair point

Maybe that really is the issue.


Are we content to stay underground lukring like the french resistance in WWII?

Are we content to live in Plato Caves and think the SHadows on the wall are reality?

[Lerkfish]

55. What was wrong with the French resistance?

The french resistance was a GOOD thing. They stood up to tyrants.
They saved a lot of lives. What is your beef with them?
Are you saying that instead we should be nazi sympathizers?

not sure you are making the points you're hoping to.

[Perky]

71. THe difference is obvious at least to me

The current Democreatic Leadership not Vichy Republic. We do not have to be underground. Ig you don't like the leadership.. Step-up Get out in the sunlight andstart working the land again Instead of spending all the time we have complaining about current leaders....become leaders ratherer than mere critics.

[Lerkfish]

83. do you even understand what the french resistance was?

do you even get the concept of "democratic underground"?

do you even understand the concept of "democratic"?

If I see something wrong with leadership, ANY leadership,
I"m going to speak up, whether that makes you uncomfortable or not.

I"m no sheep.

and I won't be a sheep, not for you, or anyone.

[kenny blankenship]

75. You managed to get the Allegory of the Cave backwards

Trying to use Plato as a prod to get people to drop their theorizing and to embrace the "moderate" consensus view is an embarrassment, whatever one's attitude towards Plato.

[HamdenRice]

35. I like the party cause Democrats got me braces when my teeth were crooked

as a kid -- that is my mother's union (she was a shop steward) negotiated with a city controlled by the Democratic Party, and they agreed to expand dental coverage when I was a pre-teen.

Democrats put my Dad to work when he was a starving 17 year old living on his widowed Mom's tobacco farm, after tobacco prices collapsed, and the tobacco agent offered her $5 for the entire year's crop. He was hired by the Civilian Conservation Corps and he and many others built Prince Edward Lake, which helped control erosion and provide recreation for the poor people, black and white of Prince Edward County Virginia.

Democrats led my father to fight the fascists in the war, where he for the first time met college educated black men -- the Tuskeegee airmen of the black Army Air Force. After the war, Democrats desegregated the armed forces of the United States under Harry Truman.

Democrats gave my southern relatives the right to vote under the leadership of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and took the terror out of southern life in the mid 1960s.

Democrats provided the student loans which enabled me to get a college education, and if I'm lucky enable me contribute even more to society than my parents were able to.

Democrats provided a secure pensions, social security and medicare health care to my elderly parents, enabling them to reap their just reward for building the country, fighting the great war, running the subways and schools (my parents were civil servants) and raising their children.

Democrats established the recognition of human rights and the establishment of the rule of a just international law, as the main goals of foreign policy under Jimmy Carter, a goal that republicans have excoriated and ridiculed for 30 years, while the advanced nations of the world have all embraced it.

Democrats (with some help from Nixon -- ugh!) established the system of protecting our environment, cleaning up our drinking water, protecting our forests, taking soot out of the air.

Democrats gave us peace and plenty for eight years under Bill Clinton's administration, when lots of middle class people became 401 millionaires, not through speculation, but prudent investment during prosperous times, when the only armed conflicts the US engaged in were multilateral peace-keeping or peace-making operations. Democrats ended genocide in the former Yugoslavia as the centerpiece of their foreign policy, apparently an achievement the republicans hate and scorn.

Shall I go on? Or does anyone want to add to this list?

[mattclearing]

37. The more I think about it, your subject line is really combative.

And it might be better if you included yourself by using "we" instead of "you."

This sounds like you are pointing the finger at DU, and is borderline flamebait, imho.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Having the Democratic Party around is better than starting fresh

Can you imagine how difficult it would be to fight the Republican Party as a brand-new organization, with all the obstacles they would put in our way? We'd be foolish to throw away what our ideological ancestors worked so hard to build.

Right now, there is a lot of potential institutionalized power in the Democratic Party. Most of those who have it are so traumatized from the Republicans' rise to power and their fall from grace that they don't know how to effectively use it.

There ought to be some kind of Democratic rehabilitation institute. It would provide a safe environment to heal Democratic psyches of their pathological need for media, Republican, and other elitist approval.

Meanwhile, those people don't know how to handle the netroots insurgency, so we will gladly take what they have no use for.

[Greeby]

39. I like people who actually act like Democrats

Not Repukes with D's after their name

And voting Green isn't necessary. 4 incumbents have primary challengers, can we get some more?

[Mythsaje]

42. I consider myself a fairly moderate voice

even if I do come down on the populist side more often than not.

But people have a right to bitch that our Democratic "reps" seem to be dropping the ball, that it's easier to go along with the rape of our treasury, the shredding of our Constitution, and the destruction of the perception of America abroad, than to stand up for our principles.

I don't even know why it's being questioned.

[madmom]

44. It's not the party of bushco.

[Lerkfish]

57. Here's the problem: I never see progressives attempting to bring moderates

to heel, like this thread.

[Bob3]

48. Define Moderate influence please

you make us sound like a bunch of Sans-Culottes sharpening our pikes and waiting for the word that the revolution has started.

We're not. We are disappointed by the spinelessness of the Democratic leadership in Washington, not only over the Censure issue but over the Patriot act, the supreme court, the bankruptcy bill (but the Censure dance is for many the straw that broke the camel's back). We have watched a cabal take over the gop and have watched as a checks and balances are replaced by something that sounds very much like the divine right of bush to do what ever the hell he wants to. We have a respect for the idea of the rule of law, of checks and balances, of a just society. It seems like the Washington establishment is more worried about nice lunches and getting along. We are concerned about things like the 4th amendment.

We don't think a moderate democrat is worse than a republican. We DO feel that a DINO (such as Lieberman) is worse since he can be counted on to a) undercut the party and b) given the way the media works these days get lots and lots of coverage as he does it thereby increasing the damage.

Last thought - if we sound offensive you make take it as a given that we are offended.

[FSogol]

50. Nothing wrong with moderates in this party, we merely need

people willing to fight for what they believe is right and damn the political cost.

[Nutmegger]

52. Moderate Dems are fine

I just wish they stick together on the important issues....

You know, like the Repukes. Post 48 pretty much sums it up.

[mainegreen]

54. Bolt the party and vote green? Not smart unless you live in

one of the very few places in America so liberal that the republican party is an afterthought in local elections. So, sure bolt if you must if you live in San Francisco, or Portland (the original) or one of the other ultra liberal communities in America. But make sure you are not helping the right wing vote out while you do so.

At our last green caucus here in Portland we actually had a very heated debate on the subject of the importance of making your vote count. Greens are great local activists, but we tend to think and act very locally. Very few greens I know vote for the green national candidates. Each year the republicans hold office, the weaker other parties will become. Republicans rig the system, throwing up barriers to the elect ability of any other candidates, green or democrat, cutting clean election funds, creating strange barriers to campaign adds, suing away votes, planting corrupt election officials and monitors. Perhaps when we (we being those who still actually like real freedom, not the idea of it) have control again of the political machinery of the government, it will be time to hash out the differences between the stuffy moderates and the loony left, but until then I suggest that we work for the only goal we really can accomplish right now: regaining control of our government.

[jane_pippin]

58. They'll have to drag me out of this party kicking and screaming.

But I don't think it would kill them to listen to what I'm screaming about once in a while either. And by listen I don't mean "focus group the issue" and "repeat back what the focus group said" to me. I don't want an infomercial. I want a party that isn't afraid to be itself. (Which means including a diversity of opinion, and then actually standing up for the principles we've stood for historically.) I don't think that's too much to ask. (And I don't think that request is by any means solely a "liberal" one.)

[Perky]

59. OKAY so the big thing is that WE NEED NEW LEADERHIP

How does that happen?

What does that look like?

Are we looking to have leaders who will simply stand up to BuschCO.

Or do we want people in charge who can help take back COngress and THE WH?

Can we have both?

Boldness has to be about more than pissing on the President's shoe.

[Lerkfish]

61. standing up to BushCO is good start, frankly.

you characterize it as pissing on the President's shoe....lol.
But let me put it this way: was it Historically better to stand up to Hitler or to collaborate with him?
What we have here is the latest Hitler: a maniac bent on world hegemony. I don't consider that "pissing on his shoe" to hold him accounable for crimes.

To minimalize and accept this facsism goes far beyond "moderates" and "liberals" within the democratic party.
What I'm telling you is this reality: there is no bridge later, THIS IS THE BRIDGE. If we do not oppose them NOW, we can never do so. Leadership deferred is not leadership: its cowardice, or at best, unenlightened self-interest.
WE elected them to do a job, they do not have the right to ignore that job and stop listening to us just because the road becomes difficult.

[Metta]

60. The progressives are marginalized. Right now only Feingold & Harkins.

Why the progressive caucus isn't more vocal is a mystery to me.

[AndyTiedye]

64. And Boxer

Boxer's office told me she's on board.
:kick::party:

[Metta]

65. Mazel tov.

Why aren't they all clamoring to be seen with this? It's a made to order scenario for them to make lots of hay on. If only they had the guts to step out and persevere. I'm sure it would be less awful than they feared and better than they expected.

[David Zephyr]

62. What do you like about the Democratic Party, Perky?

Your poll and question seem very accusatory in tone and text to me.

I've been a party activist for going on 40 years. I will always keep prodding my party to do better than it has and not to rest on its laurels.

I feel that your poll is insulting to a lot of us here at the DU who are more to the Left than you seem to be.

Trust me on this one: it's the activists who get people to the polls during elections, not the comfy party hacks. Lose the shoe-leather activists and you will continue to lose elections.

I firmly believe that the Green Party helps the Democratic Party more than it hurts it.

[Perky]

66. I have been a party activist since for 31 years myself

I have a long democratic pedigree. I love the party...I will never leave it. I have no real problem with criticism of the power structure. Progressives tend to be a little over zealous and certainly myopic when it comes to governance.

They are less concerned with the politics then the position take. Principled though they mnay be then tend to under ploitcal realities and the constant horse trading that gooes on.

I don't think Feingold was wrrong to ask for censure, but I think his timing and his political insticts are dull. SHould have done more than just waltz on to the set of THis week and announce He was doing this. Senate polotics is about coalition building and he did a poor job.


To blame Other Senators for not jumping on this bandwago is naive.

TO blame the DLC and corpoate interest do this is just silliness.

To say we have no leadershup is accurate...but a lot of folks don;t understand that leadership is about more than pissing on the opposition foot it is about figuring out how to retake the reigns of power and how to keep them.

[Lerkfish]

67. anyone who doesn't share your exact view is myopic and naive?

:shrug:

couldn't they have the same goal as you but disagree on the best course to get there?

[Perky]

72. Wow did I actually say that?

[Lerkfish]

74. yes. one post ago. need some memory refreshing?

I have a long democratic pedigree. I love the party...I will never leave it. I have no real problem with criticism of the power structure. Progressives tend to be a little over zealous and certainly myopic when it comes to governance.

They are less concerned with the politics then the position take. Principled though they mnay be then tend to under ploitcal realities and the constant horse trading that gooes on.

I don't think Feingold was wrrong to ask for censure, but I think his timing and his political insticts are dull. SHould have done more than just waltz on to the set of THis week and announce He was doing this. Senate polotics is about coalition building and he did a poor job.


To blame Other Senators for not jumping on this bandwago is naive.

TO blame the DLC and corpoate interest do this is just silliness.

To say we have no leadershup is accurate...but a lot of folks don;t understand that leadership is about more than pissing on the opposition foot it is about figuring out how to retake the reigns of power and how to keep them.

anytime you need to remind what you JUST SAID, give a holler.

[Perky]

79. The Question you posed was this

anyone who doesn't share your exact view is myopic and naive? I DID NOT SAY THAT. ALl I said was that blaioming other Senators for not jumping (immediately ) on the Bandwagon is (politically Naive) THere are any number of reasons why Saneators wanted to delay this effort.


couldn't they have the same goal as you but disagree on the best course to get there? Of course they could byt merely yammering about being coprporate whores and beholden to the DLC is again a silly and inmature response to a complicated ste of issues.

[Lerkfish]

81. LOL! I love it.

:rofl:

OK, I see this is pointless.

[Bob3]

73. while true - I unfortunately suspect that many Dems in Washington

are looking forward more to the perks and fat cash that come with power rather than what to do with it. To them the system isn't broken and corrupt, it's just that they are not in charge.

We need more than that now. Lines are being crossed that no one ever imagined being crossed. We have a government that reserves the right to torture people. We need to stand up and say stop stop now. We need people like Murtha and Finegold to stand up and simply tell the truth - the War is failure and Bush is breaking the law.

[David Zephyr]

82. Excellent observations and points, Bob3.

:thumbsup:

[Hubert Flottz]

68. AL GORE!

[K-W]

69. "rather protest then govern"

Huh? So because they want someone in office that represents them rather than settling for someone who represents you they would rather protest than govern?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. I'm a Democrat and will be voting Green in '06.

One of my senators is a staunch DLCer who voted for the war, voted for Alito, supports the occupation, and is generally a waste of space.

If she votes for Republican measures, I see no reason to vote for her. "Not as bad" is not good enough.

[leftstreet]

77. I gave up calling her after Alito

:eyes:

She's her own undoing. Maybe she can write a DLC For Dummies book with her new free time.

[NightOwwl]

76. "If things are so friggin' lousy why are you still here?"

Up until the past few days I would have answered: Because there is no alternative.

But you know what? That's no longer good enough for me.

I've had enough of their silence and their cowardice. They can't expect me (and other disillusioned Dems) to wait for them to grow a spine. If they haven't grown one by now, it is never going to happen.

I'm sick of them caving to the almighty Bush.

They are on notice.

My vote can no longer be taken for granted.

[Zorra]

78. We're still here because we are trying to keep freeper trolls from

taking over the Democratic Party.

[Neil Lisst]

80. I'm a real Democrat. I'll take ANYBODY!

Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore

Hell yeah!!

Just say NO to exclusionary party attitudes.

[misternormal]

84. Leaders with Cojones... n/t