"Pressure Washington"? Washington is an inanimate city. Politicans are individual people who need to be individually influenced. A phrase like "Pressure Washington" is the kind of rhetoric that underlies the nutless, spineless impotence of the left and center against the righty ideologues.
Pressure Washington? Get a spine first. Then stop bringing a sausage to a knife fight.
Posted by iron skunk at September 29, 2007 05:54 PMMary,
I agree with you that it takes a movement to raise a democracy. I have been a member of MoveOn for about 4 years and gave them a donation after the ad, like about 6,000 of my compatriots.
However, MoveOn is just one organization among many. ALL are important and none are sufficient in themselves. I believe the Internets is the enabling mechanism which give us a hope of fighting back against the Corporate "media" liars.
It's social networking and wide distribution of information that enables our "movement" to prosper. Don't put too much faith in any single organization. They are all, in the end, led by individuals who have their own perceptions and conceptions. United we stand requires a broad coalition of many elements of society. What's critically important is to preserve the open access of the internet. Regressive forces seek to "privatize" and therefore control yet another medium. Keeping the 'net free is our highest priority. It's our only hope.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 29, 2007 07:47 PMShould John Edwards win the nomination, given his pledge to accept public financing, this will be even more important than ever.
Republicans always know what to do and who to attack, because the media lets them know, and their goals are simple, selfish greed. Democrats don't because we want to solve actual problems, and there are lots of problems with lots of potential solutions.
But next year, Edwards or not, we better keep our eye on the ball. If it is Edwards, MoveOn better have huis back, and the Blogs better have his back, because we can't "coordinate" with the campaign. So we better know what needs to be done.
Posted by Duckman GR at September 29, 2007 10:44 PMMary - I also agree with you and Barry Kendall that it takes a movement to make real progress. And I also appreciate DeminNewJ about the value in having many organizations working toward a more progressive vision for and performance by America.
Keep up the good work, everyone!
Posted on The Hankster...
Posted by Nancy Hanks at September 30, 2007 04:26 AMOne of the first things you'd need is a collection of "progressive" talking heads/analysts who would be seen on the cable news and who actually spoke progressive visions. That almost doesn't happen, ever. I guess Olberman could perhaps start the ball rolling.
You can't have a movement without identified leaders. Who's our leader? Feingold? We'd need dozens of such people getting on the air, frequently, on all the networks. And (at least) a wing of a party that amplified and supported our views, not squelched them or denounced them.
How did the extremist Repubs deal with the old "moderate" Repubs? Via primary challenge? How did they destroy the party members that wouldn't go along with the stronger message? Did they somehow defeat their Liebermans, while we cannot? I don't understand how they conservatized their party so thoroughly.
I'm sure this is the intellectual answer, but the monopoly of state/corporate propaganda is pretty strong.....
Posted by euzoius at September 30, 2007 07:57 AM If you want to be part of an independent movement, go and register as a candidate for public office as an independent, especially for state and local offices. According to George Washington, independent voters and independent candidates are necessary in this kind of government, while party candidates, no matter how popular and appealing to the voters, have a bad effect and over time can destroy free elections.
Originally all voters in the United States were independent voters, which is why they still exist today. Political parties in the United States have made a mistake when they say that independents have no chance in the United States. They have no chance in England, where the two-party system is written into English law. Almost all states in the United States require free and open elections, which the parties intepret to mean that they have an exclusive right to be candidates.
The problem with most independents is that they believe that they have to be European style candidates and that if they lose an election, their lives are over. All independent candidates need to do to change America is exist. The two major parties haver built a house of cards. All it would take to knock it down would be some independent candidates.
A single independent candidate for office is a greater protection against tyranny than any number of troops in Iraq. If there are any independent voters who care about the United States, they will register as candidates for office, solicit no money, make no expenditures, expect no publicity, and go about their lives as they normally do. If independent voters would do this one thing, they would break the power of political parties within a few elections.
Free elections in the United States will not be secure until independent voters are opposing each other in elections. The thing that independents can do that parties cannot is to encourage all candidates for public office. We should even encourage political party candidates. I just don't think we should vote for them.
Robert B. Winn