Get use to the fascist GOP for a loooong time. The dems refuse to fight. They only way the dems would win would be to move left and keep attacking the right. But instead the dems move right and attack the left. Why - because the dems are corporate whores who do not give a shit about the American people just like the GOP. Please people - give up on the dems - you are wasting your time on this scum.
Posted by jj at July 28, 2005 12:18 PMonly problem with giving up on the dems is that all you are left with is the gop...not an option..some truth to what you say..what hilary clinton is doing is moving to the right and not attacking the left...fact of life now is no matter how you cut it..you have to be somewhere in the middle to win..then move left or right....and don't forget the dems really won in 2000...small fact people forget..it was stolen
Posted by dennis at July 28, 2005 12:30 PM"The war against Dean and liberals is now official."
Serious questions:
1) Why do you think Dean is a liberal? He wasn't as governor, and other than hitching his wagon to the Trippi web machine he never really became a liberal in the true sense. Kerry was (and I think still is) more liberal than Dean.
2) Why do you get to write that the centrists have declared war on Dean and the liberals without noting that the liberals, and more specifically the progressives, have been waging an all-out war against the Democratic Party as a whole for years? Don't you realize that much of the DLC's rhetoric is a direct response to lefty/progressive rhetoric and threats?
3) Can you articulate just what it is that the 'base' as you define it wants from the Democratic Party? Because if it's Kucinich's platform you can forget ever seeing a Dem candidate walk that line. What's in play here? What does the 'base' need to hear? That Bush is evil? What?
Posted by Curious at July 28, 2005 12:40 PMCan you articulate just what it is that the 'base' as you define it wants from the Democratic Party?
Yes.
- Firm stance in favor of socialized medicine
- Progressive taxation
- No votes for unnecessary wars
- Affirmative action
- Full support of women's rights, including abortion
- Privacy rights in general
- Strong environmental protection
Aside from those issues, I'd say the base is a little fragmented. Guns, for example. Funding for the arts. Stuff like that. But I'd say the above is what the base wants, and most of the leading figures in the Democratic Party fail on one or more of those bullets.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 28, 2005 12:55 PMTREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff.
by Citizen Spook
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com
please repost
Posted by citizen spook at July 28, 2005 01:07 PMGowd, why am I answering this troll??
Oh, yeah. The liberals started it. *rolls eyes* Those mean, mean liberals.
There's an interpetation to the Christian tradition that holds prophecy as not 'future-telling' but to telling the truth to power. Liberals have been telling the truth to power about all sorts of societial injustices for decades, and Power doesn't like it's hippocracy, dirty deeds, and injustices waved in the people's faces. It's prophecy in that vein which tends to get the prophet martyred, with or without the religion mixed in.
If you think that's a war on the Democratic Party, complete with rhetoric and threats, you need to suck it up, Nancy.
That's all the time that Curious is worth.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 28, 2005 01:18 PMThe basic error is to constantly view politics as a linear sliding scale from a left to a right, from a liberal to a conservative. Under this prism whomever gets closest to the center wins.
But of course that isn't true for several reasons. First, people vote for a person, whom they like or dislike. Second, most voters aren't ideological - they don't view the world as left vs. right. Third, the whole linear model is flawed: are facists and communists really that different?
And that in the end is what I think sank the Dems the last few election cycles. The Republicans scored much better in saying and standing for what they believed in. With the Dems no-one is quite sure that anything made a difference.
Posted by Samuel Knight at July 28, 2005 01:40 PMThe Republicans take care of their base voters and donors on the major issues and cut deals on the small ones. Even when they are going to lose, like the gay marriage amendment and Schiavo, they go for it loudly and publicly.
The Democrats central message to its base is 'vote for us because you have no other choice.' When a large, defining issue arises, like the bankruptcy bill, like CAFTA, like federal judges, they tell us to shut up, claim we are ruining the party and cut a deal that is always bad for our side.
The triple debacles of the last three national elections have not convinced enough Democrats and Democratic leaning people to simply get rid of the party leadership. Too many still behave as if people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Lieberman, Biden, both Clintons and a few others I could name are 'leaders' in any real, results-driven sense of the term.
I have been very pleased by the way Reid has managed in the senate after being dealt a very weak hand. I have been very disappointed with the remainder of the Democrats of national prominence, Howard Dean excepted.
Not a day goes by without one or more of the Hopelessly Clueless Democrats getting down on all fours for the Republicans.
The only thing they care about is their phoney-baloney jobs. We have to take those jobs away from them. I am sure on this blog and elsewhere I will be regarded as a Green-leaning heretic. I assure that I am not. I am a Democrat, a liberal and a very pissed off voter/activist. There is no point in giving the present 'leadership' a chance to work. They have been in a position to do something long enough. Look at the scoreboard. It's time we get a new head coach and a new coaching staff.
Posted by James E. Powell at July 28, 2005 02:11 PMJames - Unless you like calling yourself a Green and want the abuse, I don't think anyone's going to consider you a heretic. Many blogs are calling for full-scale revolution within the Democratic Party, or a complete abandoment of the Party and those whom are bowing down for corporate power and money.
Personally I'd love to flush large portions of the Iowa Democratic leadership, including Vilsack.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 28, 2005 02:32 PMThis is from Common Dreams - lets get rid of these 15 scum bags!
Targeting the 15 Democratic Sellouts Who Passed CAFTA
by David Sirota
We now know who the 15 Democrats are that each undermined their party and America's middle class by casting the deciding vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The bill passed by one vote, meaning each of the 15 Democrats cast the deciding vote. When 27 Republicans vote against their own party leadership as they did on CAFTA, Democrats have only these 15 sellouts within their ranks - and groups like the DLC that pushed CAFTA - to blame for the fact that the Democratic Party has been relegated to permanent minority status.
The 15 Democratic sellouts were:
Melissa Bean (IL)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Norm Dicks (WA)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
William Jefferson (LA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Greg Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Vic Snyder (AR)
John Tanner (TN)
Ed Towns (NY)
Let's be clear - all of these people should never get a red cent from labor unions or the progressive community again, and that goes even for the ones who represent marginal districts. The idea that this was a "tough vote" for a Democrat who represents a swing district doesn't hold water - no one is getting voted out of office over voting against CAFTA, and voting for American workers. Remember, polls show that Americans are sick and tired of Congress passing these corporate-written "free" trade deals that sell out ordinary workers.
But, let's further break this down. Which of these 15 Members has CONSISTENTLY been selling out the Democratic Party and America's middle class? The way we find that out is by looking at other recent votes on key economic issues, such as the Bankruptcy Bill, and the bill to limit citizens' legal rights and protect corporations that abuse Americans.
Starting with bankruptcy, we get the list whittled down to 12: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton and Tanner.
Moving to the bill that limits citizens' legal rights and protects corporations that abuse ordinary Americans, the list gets whittled down to 9: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner.
These are the 9 Democrats who are the difference between House Democrats being in the majority and the minority - they are the people who undermine the vast majority of honest/courageous Democrats who fight for ordinary people in Congress everyday. They are the ones who make it consistenly impossible for Democrats to deliver a message that they are the party that stands up for ordinary working people in this country. The fact is, if Democrats are going to be in the minority for the forseeable future, it would be better if these folks were defeated, because they do more harm than good to a party that desperately needs unity to let America knows what it stands for.
Again, while I have described why it is ridiculous to give a pass to any of these 9 because they represent marginal districts, even if you sort out for that the number barely changes. Winning with 55% or more of the vote is considered crushing an opponent - and only Melissa Bean falls under that threshold. The 8 others win by 55% or better, meaning they don't even have the pathetic/dishonest "I'm a marginal Member so I have to sell out American workers" excuse: Cooper (69%) , Cuellar (59%), Hinojosa (58%), Matheson (55%), Meeks (100% - unopposed), Moore (55%), Moran (60%), and Tanner (74%).
In an earlier post today, I mentioned that Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY) ought to be frightened of the Working Families Party and the progressive community in New York City. But he's not the only one on this list that better be nervous about their job as an insulated career politician. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), for instance, has been dogged by controversy throughout his career, including actually personally profiting from his previous sellouts to the credit card industry. Maybe this will be the vote that draws him the strong primary challenger needed to defeat him in his solidly progressive district.
To sum up - each of these 15 Democrats ought to pay a price at the polls for their brazen sell out tonight on CAFTA. They undermined their party and America's workers. And the 9 Democrats of these 15 that have been consistently stabbing the Democratic Party in the back - well, they have shown an unfathomable willingness to disregard anything other than corporate campaign cash. They are the reason why Americans are so cynical about the political process, why Democrats can't win key states like Ohio, and, in general, why Democrats are currently in permanent minority status.
if hillary were to be POTUS #44, and win two terms, it would mean 28 years of two family rule in america. those poor founding father bastards...
Posted by georg at July 28, 2005 03:12 PMDemocrats get caught in a bind because they are dependent on mega-money from big business to keep on the gravy train. That's why the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, etc. get done. Like most politicians, they'll talk the talk, but it's their actions that need to be followed and used to hold them accountable.
Posted by zhoward at July 28, 2005 03:27 PMSamuel Knight has the point. People vote for candidates that appeal to them and that they "like".
Dems ran Kerry, a big, tall, dworky "newenglander" (sorry John, the truth hurts) who could actually put a sentence together. The hardcore Bushites were certainly going to vote for their guy, "just a good old Texas guy" (nevermind he was from new england and also and attended Yale just like Kerry, the difference being the ability to speak coherently), and the fence sitters chose to overlook the first debate. That revealed Bush as the shiftless, spoiled brat he really is, but didn't switch the votes. Coupled with strategic vote fraud, Bush managed to win the one state he needed by a fraction, and just as in 2000, he was in. As I said then, I'll say again, my dog should have been able to beat Bush in 04. But my dog, to my amazement, is smarter than the Democrat party leadership and, in particular, the Kerry campaign leadership. And Kerry, maybe. And Bush, for sure.
I'll be happy to promote Lily for Dem nominee in 08- she would have as good a chance as Hillary, and can woof as good as Jeb Bush.
Matt Davis,
Thanks for the reply. A few follow-up questions:
"Firm stance in favor of socialized medicine"
Is this the same as national health insurance? There's always going to be red state backlash against anything that implies socialism.
"Progressive taxation"
Is this the same as a progressive tax? Don't we already have that, albeit with poor progressivity on the high end? (What I'm asking here is whether you're talking about a complete overhaul of the tax code or simply a recalibration of the brackets.)
"No votes for unnecessary wars"
I can't think of anyone who would disagree with this, so who gets to decide which wars are unnecessary? I have friends who think all wars are unnecessary. But then they're also stoners who have an unrealistic view of the world.
I agree with the rest of your points, but I think most Dems do as well. (Kerry talked about all of them at length during '04, but somehow he was perceived by the radical left as a sellout. I guess some people just couldn't deal with his IWR vote.)
Again, thanks for answering.
Posted by Curious at July 28, 2005 04:38 PMCurious- first- "socialism" - come on...geez. Is England a socialist state? What in the heck would be wrong with a national health care plan other than the fact it would take billions out of the pocket of private health-care "providers" and return the money to American citizens in the form of health care they can count on.
And as far as "who gets to decide which wars are unnecessary"...that would fall to the elected Congress. Hold them accountable. The left needs to weed out the Biden's and the Lieberman's of the party..get rid of the appeasers. As much as I'd like to hang the Iraq War on Bush's lies, it was Congress, both sides of the isle, that gave the green light. I think Matt Davis would agree that there is no control over poor representation except a Fair Election. That is the one (and in light of recent times) main point Matt left out.
I think the people of this Country would be more than willing to vote for a candidate that supports a National Health Care Insurance. The time is right where it was not twelve years ago. Things have changed, and for the worst.
Posted by Judith at July 28, 2005 10:06 PMjust who is the base in both parties....
i see the republican base as being the very wealty..and the idiots that believe what the wealthy are telling them..tax cuts...!!!! do the republicans ever run on anything else....
This country has not swung to the right as the conservative media would have you believe..it is a fallacy..like everything they do it is all smoke and mirrors....al gore was elected in 2000..0n 9/10 2001..the fraud was head for failure..like everything in his life...thenthey allowd 9/11 to happen and the world changed..and them being the scum that they are used fear and 9/11..for political purpose...that is the only reason he was reelected (if in fact he was)...they've totally raped the country and it's resources and taken the country to war on lies...they are running out of time as 9/11 wears off and their lies become more apparent..the people are beginning to see the light..thier day is coming..all dogs have their day...there is a reckoning in the future
Posted by dennis at July 29, 2005 04:45 AMPeople have taken to calling it "single-payer" in this country, because apparently words that start with "social" freak people out. I don't suffer from that problem.
I see no problem in socializing key industries, and I think health and education are about as key as they get. It took progressives in this country a lot of struggle to get socialized schools (and we keep having to fight back voucher measures intended to reverse that victory), and it will take a lot of struggle to get socialized health care. But it's worth doing.
As for progressive taxation, yes, I just meant a progressive scale. Yes, we have that, but the progressivity of the scale has been slashed over the past few decades. It needs to be restored.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 29, 2005 07:12 AMI've been reading this blog for a few days and I don't quite understand something. I came here because I consider myself on the left side of most every political issue, so the name naturally intrigued me when I ran across it. Yet what I'm finding is mostly bashing of the left for not being left enough, and chants to run people like TEXAS democrats out of office, like we can easily replace them with progressive Texas candidates when we throw them out. Then you have the people who call for Democrats to be thrown out of office being welcomed with open arms, and people like Curious being called a "troll" for asking perfectly reasonable questions. I seriously don't get it.
And by the way, why in the hell would the Democratic Party put Dean in charge of the power machinery, only to declare war on him???
Some great comments in this thread.
I should clarify that I use the political left-right continuum only as shorthand and not because I think it all that descriptive of how the population as a whole views the world. If I had to guess I would say that all politicians today are out of the mainstream on a number of issues, and only appear to satisfy a majority or significant minority because only voters are in the equation. I really doubt that a majority in this country agree with our drug policies - both legal and illegal. The costs of both are irrational.
Samuel Knight - you are correct. But those at the economic top of every society always find ways to manipulate large portions of a population to keep them in power.
I agree with Matt - before the right made liberal a dirty word, they made socialism a dirty word. "The right" in that case were the corporatist. Most of us accept all forms of socialism in this country because it works better than any alternative in certain areas of a society.
Posted by Marie at July 29, 2005 10:35 AMRambo, this site is NOT called "Democratic Coaster" but "Left Coaster" - know what I mean?
Posted by jj at July 29, 2005 04:35 PM