Don't Do It

[Mythsaje]

I understand the frustration. I understand the anger. Gawd, how I understand the anger. What goes on in DC every day makes me want to scream and throw things. The fact that much of the Dem leadership seems either annoyingly complacent, or criminally complicit, frustrates the hell out of me.

If you're angry about what the Dem leadership is doing--or not doing--stand in support of challengers in the primaries, or stand up and run yourself. DO NOT refrain from voting in the general or, gawd forbid, vote for a Republican or a third-party candidate when your vote might make the difference between having a Dem (even a wrong-way Dem) in office or having a Repug in office. I don't care how pissed off you are.

Yeah, incumbents have a lot of security. That's just the way the system is rigged. Doesn't mean they can't be defeated, just that it's unlikely. And, if nothing else, it serves notice to them that their inability to stand for the people has not gone unnoticed.

As ineffective as they've been in stopping the Bush regime and the Republican Cabal in general, the Dems are our only option. Hell, when the general comes, I'll vote for whoever the party nominates, even if it's someone I don't like or don't trust. That's just the way it is. I don't see I have much of a choice, other than to stand down completely. And if I decide to stand down, what would possibly entice me to stand up again?

We need to get away from politics-as-usual. Something needs to change.

The only way we can affect change at this point is to start from the roots and build up. Do the same thing the Repugs did from the seventies on. I've said that before and no one seemed to be paying attention. If you want more progressive candidates in the Dem Party, we have to remake the party and replace the establishment people who are currently running it.

But in the meantime we can't afford a single day under Republican control past the point of the next election. Very bad things will happen.

Even a corrupt corporate Dem is better than the corrupt, crazy, and incompetent bastards we've got running things now.

Maybe we'll get lucky and get the right person into the White House. Stranger things have happened. Someone willing to fight for the Constitution, and the People. Someone who can motivate Congress to do the things that must be done to fix the damage that's been done.

All I know is that the only sure way to lose is to surrender. And I'm not willing to surrender.

[Skidmore]

1. Nothing will change if we keep opting for who practices the better

corruption. And clinging to the better corruption does not get you change, only more corruption.

[cali]

2. that would be true if the dems actually are as corrupt on the whole

as repukes, but they're not. You're perpetrating a myth that they're the same thing. And it sucks. The repuke party is the party of Halliburton, for example. Can you name repukes actually fighting that corruption? I can name dems who are- lots of them. The truth is that the way to strengthen the dem party, to make it more responsive, is to elect dems like Tom Udall. Elect as many dems as possible in 2008 and we stand a chance of seeing an increase in progressive legislation. Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but you're surely not likey to see change by not voting in dems.

[Skidmore]

5. Corruption is corruption, regardless of who does it.

And as we should be rooting it out of our own party as well while we are busy pointing fingers at the cesspool that is the Republican party. I will elect Dems when they are indeed progressive. I will not vote for corrupt Democratic Party candidates though.

I will see change when elected officials in this party start voting in and sustaining policies that reflect the values of their party and the needs of the ordinary citizen, and when they stand up for justice for the many and not the few.

[cali]

6. purer than thou

politics doesn't exist. Should Murtha be voted out? He's one of the most corrupt dem politicians in D.C. The primaries are the time to support progressive challengers. The only way to push the party to be more responsive and progressive is to expand majorities- hopefully with progressive/liberals, but I'll take Mark Warner over Jim Gilmore any day of the week.

[drm604]

19. Not voting or voting for a third party in the general election

is essentially clinging to the worst corruption. If my only choices are different levels of corruption, then I'll choose the lesser corruption. IMHO, that is the only moral and ethical choice under the circumstances.

When given the choice between a greater and a lesser evil, is it really all that noble to refuse to choose (voting for a third party in the general election is equivalent to this) when that refusal may lead to the greater evil winning?

Real change may take a long term effort starting from the grass roots. In the meantime we have to do what we can to keep things from getting worse, or to at least slow down the decline.

Vote with your heart in the primary. Vote with your head in the general.

[madokie]

3. not gonna do it, surrender

won't be happening here

[cali]

7. people like you shouldn't bother with politics. n/t

[madokie]

8. and what the fuck is that supposed to mean

[rhett o rick]

20. Whaaaat?? nm

[Usrename]

35. You must be right again. Why not help people like us see the light?

You seem to be saying:

Who cares if Fienstien wants to torture brown people?

What's important is that she is in the Democratic Party.

It's sooooo simple, even an idiot could understand it.



What we'd like to know is:

What have these "less corrupt" Dems actually done to turn this corruption bandwagon around?

You must have some evidence that they are doing something different than what the Republicans are doing.

Give me a clue on what to look for the discern this behavioral difference. What is it? What are they doing differently? It must be very obvious since everyone gets so upset when we just can't see it.

[izzie]

4. Congress does not change over night and Dem. need to be in

higher numbers. Guess both parties have their greedy ones and we need to vote those guys out of both parties. It does move slow but it is moving better now and I guess that is all we can hope for. I have been around to long to count on any thing going on over night. What happened in Congress after 911 was one big shock to me. To fast and no thinking. That is when one sees the evil of a one party state.

[mrfixit]

9. If Dems knew actually wanted change, Kucinich would win.

If REAL change (and not just for change's sake) is what is required, we need to get away from HRC/JRE/BHO. We need to elect a REAL DEMOCRATIC PROGRESSIVE candidate, not just another poseur. For Christ's sake, even Kerry was better than any of these other establishment Dems. In comparison to DK, none of the others have a lot of substance, or a different message.

I refuse to comprimise. Why should I HAVE TO? I refuse to vote Republican-Lite. I want REAL change...

I

WANT

DENNIS KUCINICH!

[dysfunctional press]

13. same here. i WILL NOT vote for another dino...EVER.

nt

[stillcool]

10. If Jesus Christ himself ..

were running as a republican I could not vote for him..regardless of how illogical that seems...even to me. My frustration really peaks when I am told from people I do not know that the most progressive candidate can not be elected, because...he is the most progressive candidate...and therefore can not be elected.

[crispini]

11. Hear hear!

:applause:

If I may add to your talk --- if you are mad at the "system," work to change it! Look into "Clean Elections" to find out how we can get the $$$ out of politics and reclaim our democracy.

There's work to be done. Let's do it.

[Perry Logan]

12. The view that the Democrats are little better than the Republicans comes from the media.

You've got to stay away from the media. The Democrats are fine. The Democrats showed the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years and backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

[eridani]

14. In the worst possible case, there is still more room for progressives to operate under a Dem admin

Clinton is the worst case IMO, but I'd be very relieved to end the war against science, put a stop to installing conservative whackjobs as judges, and getting some basic competence in government agencies like FEMA. She'd do those things, however hard we have to fight her on the war, health care and fair trade.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. "Vote Democrat,

they're not Republicans" will no longer suffice as a reason to vote Democrat. Sorry, but the Democrats must EARN my vote. "Even a corrupt corporate Dem is better than a corrupt, crazy, and incompetent bastards we've got running things now." Really? How's that? We should hold these people to a higher standard and continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils continues the status quo, which is unacceptable. I prefer to change the way we choose our candidates. Take the big boys out of it. If they are unwilling to enact REAL campaign finance reform and enact public financing legislation (there's no reason they should -- it's their golden egg) then the grassroots progressives may need to look elsewhere party-wise. But continuing to vote for the status quo who consistently work against what is best for the people and the country is insanity.

[BlueJac]

16. I will vote for the right person for our country......

Not Hillary

[emilyg]

31. I'll vote for her for you.

[IDemo]

17. I'll be writing in Dennis in the general election

There is zero chance Idahoans will send Democratic votes to the electoral college, no matter who the candidate is, so I may as well vote my conscience.

[caseycoon]

18. Not voting puts our country in more danger than ever!

Yes, I am very passionate about 'my' candidate. I absolutely do NOT want to vote for anyone else. HOWEVER if I refuse to go to the polls because someone else is the nominee, that means I won't be voting for any other Dems who are running for all the other positions. It also means, if enough of us don't vote, we will ben inundated with republicans AGAIN. In addition, if we don't have a Dem President, that leaves the Supreme Court open to more right-wingers. I don't want that on my conscience.
So, PLEASE, if you truly care about our country, VOTE no matter what! Those of us who don't, will be putting the whole country in jeopardy.

[OnionPatch]

23. Yep,

Not voting is basically just saying, "Go ahead and take over" to the corrupt bastards.

[Kajsa]

25. Well stated, Casey.

We can't afford another four years of a Repub in the WH.

;(

[kenfrequed]

28. I agree

However I worry that putting in a bunch of pro corporate Democrats could destroy the party forever and set the stage for a bunch of pseudo-populist repugniks to ride back into town Gingrich style afterwards.

Really this important aspect of attracting voters is something the republicans have done well at. They embrace the folksy 'good ole' days' aesthetic rather effectively. They invent new (and non-existant) kinds of elitism to foist on their political foes. And they rename everything to give it the greatest common appeal and connect it to how the majority of the working class deals with day to day life.

Democrats need to really rachet up the Bread and butter issues that most working class families are familier with. Real Universal Health care, Getting the troops home, Improving education, increasing the minimum wage, and getting out of Nafta. Political and corporate corruption has to be found and prosecuted in public.

Hmm maybe we all have to remind ourselves of what populist progressivism is...

I think I might have to write something abotu this.

[Kajsa]

30. You've nailed it, Ken.

After being maligned by the Repubs,
Democrats need to take back the reins and
define just who in the hell we are and what we
are about.

You'd be surprised to see how many in the general population
don't have a clue about us. They have been spoon fed that
anti-Dem. propaganda by the Rovian school of thought.

This is an excellent topic for an essay.

:thumbsup:

[rhett o rick]

21. If this post is aimed at me, among others, I want to say I totally agree with your bottom line.

I will not surrender. And I agree with most of your post.

I, however, in recent thread responses, have been going off on the power of the incumbent because I think it is a damaging element of our system and needs to change. The system is rigged so that incumbents have total security. I believe that it is statistically impossible to unseat an incumbent in a primary election. Please if anyone has examples otherwise let me know. Lieberman doesn't count because even though he lost the primary he ended up staying in office with Democratic help. I only belabor this point to try to get attention to doing more than letter writing, emailing and calling. I advocate all of these methods but try to point out that they have limited effect on a secure incumbent. We need to do more.

As you aptly stated above: "The only way we can affect change at this point is to start from the roots and build up. Do the same thing the Repugs did from the seventies on. I've said that before and no one seemed to be paying attention. If you want more progressive candidates in the Dem Party, we have to remake the party and replace the establishment people who are currently running it." So if you want to do your part you need to do more than emailing. Get involved locally, in PTA or school board or work with your county or state Democratic Party organizations.

The system needs to change because (and I am stealing this from another poster) "Voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil".

[mdmc]

22. It might need to get worse before the left can effect a shift

We might need another 4 or 8 years of neo-cons in the white house.
The sheeple will either accept corporate rule, or oppose it.
We might need another neo-con (HRC would be the best bet).
Time alone, time will tell.

[OneBlueSky]

24. the problem with the House is that they run every two years and . . .

their first priority from the day after the election is -- re-election! . . . everything else pales in comparison . . . their time, their energy, their resources are so highly concentrated on running for re-election that they have little left to devote to crucial issues facing the nation and the planet . . .

I'm not sure what the solution is . . . possibly instituting four-year terms for House members, with a limit of two terms? . . . something has to be done if we ever want our government to even approach the kind of efficiency and effectiveness we, as voters, have a right to expect . . .

[cascadiance]

26. We need them to commit to support instant runoff voting in exchange for our vote...

That way, if that issue is made public enough, and their stance on it is public enough, they will either have to put it in place (and hopefully FIX the system so that we don't have to pick between the lesser of two evils), or we tell them we can't support them any more for lying to us to get us to vote for them.

Even if I vote for a DINO on other issues, if they can follow through on this, and hopefully even public campaign financing as well, perhaps even if everything else is broken, ultimately we'll have a system in place where we can throw out the bums and put in newer people, even if they are from third parties to fix things.

[Individualist]

27. Rewarding enablers with votes only encourages more enabling

If the nominee is a DLCer, I'll write-in Kucinich.

[Cha]

29. Yeah, the dlc dinos have

us by the fuckin' throat..that's for sure.

[Yuugal]

32. don't think I can do it

To me, surrender is voting for a candidate that doesn't hold any of my views.

"Maybe we'll get lucky and get the right person into the White House."

If we start out with a pro war corporatist, what chance do we really have of getting lucky? As some others posters have noted, maybe it will take another 4 yrs of hell before enough people will see this country needs to track left. My family is suffering because of the corporatists and I'm just not going to vote for one. If your choices in the next election were:

Rep Candidate A: Murders 100 puppys and kittens every month just for fun and/or profit.

Dem Candidate B: Only kills puppies a few times a year and never for fun. Hasn't killed kittens for a long time. Takes huge amounts of cash from the company that makes the "so real you'll be waiting for it to bark" line of fur mittens.

Candidate C(anyone else): Just wants the killing stopped but has no chance at all of winning.(or so the MSM says)

Well, who is it gonna be? I'm going for C this time so I can sleep better the next 4 years. People like you who insist I vote candidate B for the sake of party loyalty really don't understand people like me. We made it loud and clear in 2006 what we wanted and got lied too and then laughed at by the same people we elected. Well this time the tables are turned. My vote, my money, and my support are "off the table" until our party leaders learn we mean business. Sorry it has to be this way because I really love my party, but ever since they got hooked on the corporate crack its like I don't know them anymore.

[rhett o rick]

34. I totally agree. The Democratic Party continually locks out the left of the Party

because they know we have no where else to go. And if you vote for candidate "C" then the Democrats will always blame their loss on you. Where if they were to move to the left they could get your vote. They insist you give up your principles for the good of the country but they won't give you a bone. Maybe they need to continue to lose before they figure it out. And when I say move to the left to pick up the left vote, I am only asking that they reestablish the Constitution and rule of law, dump the Patriot Act and the MCA, stop torture and spying. Now are these strictly left values? Please some one address this question. I have asked it over and over only to be ignored. Is it too much to expect the Democratic candidate to support the Constitution???? Or as many are saying, even if they don't support the Constitution we should vote for them as the lesser of evils.

[Q]

36. Notice that...

...the 'right' of the Democratic party supports the very things you're ranting against? They're for looking tough to get elected and allowing corporate America to run the country. Politicians have become nothing more than figureheads.

George Bush was actually the beginning of the end of American politics. He was put into office...not by the people...but with cold, hard lies and cash (or a Swiss bank account). Finally...corporations proved they could put anyone they wanted in the WH...and get away with it.

And now the 'new' Democrats want some of that cake. They're willing to overlook stolen elections, bankrupting the treasury, illegal wars and broken Constitutions in order to do it. They can't rock these boats and get into power. The 'new' Media won't allow that.

The answer is and always has been to vote for those politicians that will do the most good for the most people. They should be for the basics: jobs, education and health care. They should look at government as an instrument to help the people...not rule over and oppress them. The new Dems and Neocons will tell you that the people don't actually want these things. They'll warn you of the 'lefties' who want 'socialized medicine' and a government that uses tax bucks to help people over corporations. They'll tell you the best way is to give our treasury to 'private industry' so they can create jobs instead of providing services directly to the people.

Soon the two parties will become one. Please don't help that to happen by voting for the status quo.

[rhett o rick]

37. I am in a quandry. I have not voted status quo for decades until 2004. And I am totally torn by the

"lesser of evils" rational. I don't like it and think it is destructive. To me it's the right wing of the Democratic party that would rather the repuke candidate win than to adapt to progressive principles. To me the choice is either a sprint to fascism or a march. Some argue that it is better to keep the pace as slow as possible, but I am not sure. Like boiling the frog. Go slow enough and the next thing you know your boiled. The HOR was intended to represent the lower classes. But we elect representatives that are from the upper class and hope they will understand what we need. We limit their term length to two years which is a joke. My rep has been in office for 30 years. He knows he is guaranteed reelection. How representative does he have to be? I believe it is essential for progressives to get involved in local politics and build from there if it isn't already too late.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. I'll be voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

Even if I have to write one in.