disgusted once again: Liberal Street Fighter
Once again, we’re faced with the prospect of the “opposition” party reaching its hands out in friendship toward a predatory regime beholden to big money and the religious right. Capitiulation masquerading as principle, betrayal masquerading as comity, a stance characterized by refusing to stand. Behavior that is celebrated by right-wing advocacy groups like Progress for America Voter Fund in a recent ad called Principle:
Announcer: “John Roberts. Overwhelmingly supported to be Chief Justice.
“Why did the process work?
“President Bush consulted with 70 Senators, from both parties, before choosing Roberts.
“After testifying for 22 hours, even Democratic Senators called Roberts “brilliant.”
“Many Democrats are putting principle above politics, voting for Roberts.
“Urge the Senate to continue putting partisan politics aside…
“…hold fair hearings and give the next nominee a fair up or down vote.”
Go HERE to see the ad. Watch the list of twenty-two Democrats scroll down the screen, celebrating their votes for Chief Justice Roberts.
Now another movement conservative, a deep-inside party functionary has been nominated for elevation to the Supreme Court, with laudatory words rising from the so-called leadership of the Democratic Party. This is bad, but only a symptom of a broader problem: the party of the “left” has left the principled left behind, bowing to the claim that this is a conservative country, that these outcomes are inevitable, that they are there for the rest of us to support as brakes on it getting completely out of control, rather than champions to fight against a corrosive poltical movement.
After all, the Vichy Dems in Washington cross the aisle to attack women’s freedoms. They sell-out working Americans by helping pass CAFTA. bankruptcy “reform”, Defense of Marriage Act, healthcare legislation, the environment, … the list goes on and on.
Time and again we’re told that what we get is the best we could do.
I think it’s time to face the fact that they don’t oppose because they are just fine with the creeping slide into feudalism. After all, like Daschle, they know that their friends on the other side will hook them up with lobbying jobs or a cozy chair on a corporate board or two. In a sense they AREN’T betraying us, because they aren’t ONE of us. Both parties are run by people of and for either the law enforcement complex, the military industrial complex or corporate governance/lobbying. Their kids go to the same schools. They use the same banks and stock brokers. They have dinner at the same places and worship at the same churches and temples.
Yes, there are principled members of both Houses, but I think it is time for them to face the fact that the Democratic Party is a rotten shell, and most-likely beyond recovery. The corruption runs deep, and corruption isn’t just about money and access. Corruption is also a loss of hope, a loss of connection, a sense of inevitablity to an established heirarchy, and those who’ve reached a certain level, even if it is only a place of token opposition, are loath to give up the perks. This is another form of corruption. They no longer look at politics as a tool for change, for community, for genuine experimentation and progress and growth. We are witnessing a wholesale abandonment of the Spirit of the Enlightenment on the part of the elites in this country. What is more corrupt than abandoning the entire principle upon which a society was founded?
Time to leave. As Shamanic blogging over on Shakespeare’s Sister put it:
Hasn’t politics in America devolved into a contest of which party can more slickly persuade the public that the other side is evil so that they can get back to handing out truckloads of taxpayer cash to corporate contributors? Didn’t the Senate just approve a movement conservative to the high court in the same week that the conservative movement was exposed as a gang of criminals who’ve taken over the country by breaking its laws?
So to this cross-blogosphere conversation, which I think is timely and important, I add these concepts: “anti-politics” and “to get away from power and let society transform itself”.
I think it’s time that we seriously considered the possibility that American politics are irrevocably broken. How will we, the progressives, the lefties, the liberals, the activists, the anti-war radicals, and all the other energized souls of America reshape this country in order to advance the progressive agenda from outside the body politic?
This is where we find ourselves.
Time to leave. Yes, still pull a D lever when you have the opportunity to support a real progressive. Vote in the primaries for progressives if they are available. But DON’T give any money to a party organ. Find groups, focused groups, that you identify with and work with and through them. Keep up the conversations online and at meetings and protests. Find ways to form bonds with other progressive groups. We all have basic values we can agree on: human rights and freedom for all, living wages, people before profits, a clean environment for our families. As FDR put it:
There came a growing feeling that government was conducted for the benefit of a few who thrived unduly at the expense of all. The people sought a balancing- a limiting force. There came gradually, through town councils, trade guilds, national parliaments, by constitution and by popular participation and control, limitations on arbitrary power.
He spoke of the time leading to the American Revolution, but the arbitrary King George has been replaced by a strange ruling class made up of the legal undead, the corporations, and the courtiers who serve them. He is describing OUR time as assuredly as he described the 18th Century colonies.
Time for the people’s actions to take place outside the sphere of poltics, in unions and social organizations and activists movements. Even the coordinated communications of those writing letters to the editor and to those who regularly betray us. Shamanic carries forward an idea he found through Cernig, that the American left would be well served to study the Solidarity movement in Poland. Perhaps once those lines of communication are strengthened, as a movement becomes more instinctively cooperative, then a move can be made to either take back the Democratic Party or, better yet, build a Progressive Party, to rebuild this country from the damage greed and superstion are inflicting on it.
In the meantime, (and this will take a long time), those true progressives in the Democratic Party now holding office need to seriously consider following the example Bernie Sanders and become Independents. I think Conyers is probably the most likely to be able to get away with it, and I think if ONE brave office holder would take that step more might follow.
The party is rotten, corrupt, bereft of principle, lacking in direction, willing to bow to the slightest pressure exerted by corporations or conventional wisdom. The “leadership” of the Democratic Party at the end of the 21st Century, on into this new one, will be looked back upon with the same contempt we feel when we gaze back at Quisling, at Petain, at Chamberlain and Benedict Arnold.
They bend knee to a movement that is destroying this country … it is time to abandon them.
photo from NY Times
Because of this:
In other words, this isn’t petty nay saying. This is walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
The way I see it, the Dems will keep marching rightward, and they’ll look over their shoulders and see that they’re alone.
If I want a right-wing politician, I’ll vote Republican.
exactly. Guerilla politics, mostly local. It is increasingly plain that the elected Dems are going to continue to follow the same failed tactics. Let them walk away from us.
“When given the choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time.”
— Harry S Truman
Keep up the conversations online and at meetings and protests. Find ways to form bonds with other progressive groups.
I know nothing about them and this is not an endorsement. That being said, I went to the Sheehan event at the Univ MD. There were two other speakers, one of which was a candidate for US Senator from the Unity Party.
There were about 700 ppl in the room (a chapel). Perhaps 200 were other Unity Party members. They used this opportunity to pass around a sign-up sheet for meetups. I was amazed to see how many people signed up — all age groups — during the candidate’s speech. His speech really could be lifted from any one of these posts expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo.
I’ve got Harry Reid over my shoulder in the backround on my tv praising Meir in public before the first question is asked. Truly sickening. I felt like the next nomination would be confirmed no matter what anyway because the D’s hamstrung themselves with Roberts, but I didn’t believe they would capitulate even before we heard anything from the republicans, first thing in the morning.
I would love nothing more than to finally see third and fourth parties find a place within the system but the reality is that this will take a long time. Meanwhile Bush and those in his image who will follow him will have more time to bring this country to it’s knees and maybe that is what needs to happen for something new and completely different to be born from the ashes. Either that, or it’s finally time to realize that there’s not much left worth fighting for and sit my family down and start talking about the need to find another home.
I would love nothing more than to finally see third and fourth parties find a place within the system but the reality is that this will take a long time. Meanwhile Bush and those in his image who will follow him will have more time to bring this country to it’s knees
As a great progressive once said: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
I am at the point where I am no longer afraid of the challenge of building a multiple party system. Like Madman says, I will continue to support progressive Democrats (like Pennacchio in PA) who are worthy allies, despite their party affiliation.
He says he’ll be ready real soon
Props to RubDMC’s diary at
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/3/173713/553
This boy will be my boy’s enemy because of Bush…and because of weak democrats.
some of the things I learned 9/24
I’m not a Democrat. I’m a Liberal. I have a spine and I’m willing to face fear.
I saw many faces in the crowd that were just as angry at the Democrats who have stayed silent on so many causes and issues – it’s obscene.
I hear from many republicans that they would vote for a democrat by they never know what they stand for because they never fight…
Also I think democrats depend on our good nature – they don’t expect us to get upset with them. It’s rather dysfunctional relationship if you think about it. We stick with them hoping they won’t hurt us “too” much. … ACK!
I say – fire the bums. If they won’t do their job – sack em.
The only way to fire them is to finally get serious about building a third party base from the outside in, starting locally of course because there aren’t any dynamic figures out there who could inspire enough people to dump the D’s yet. That’s a daunting task needing a major long term commitment and personally I’m not so sure anymore that I want to stick around and wait to see how much worse it’s gonna get before it gets better.
Like I said, it’s a dysfunctional family syndrome – only way is to wake up – change the locks on the doors.
Change comes at great risk. Problem is getting everyone to take that same risk.
But I’ve been writing letting the Dems know that they don’t speak for me because they haven’t spoken up. Except for a few California gals (excluding Feinstein) who have been taking the fight to the streets and the media.
Lee and Boxer and Woolsey 🙂
Some people confuse the actual base of the Democratic party with some groups who thought they might become its base forty years ago.
That, however, did not take place. The Democratic party made the choices it felt were in its own best interests, and today, the base of the Democratic party is not the low income single mom, or the immigrant family, or one of the few remaining working stiffs with a union job, frankly none of these people offer any benefit to either party that can compare with those offered by the sparkling corporations, so the Democratic party’s base today are affluent people with “professional” jobs who live in fine homes and gated communities, and come together to share agreeable California wines and moues of distaste at the crudeness of Republicans calling a massacre “Iron Fist,” while agreeing that of course the Iraqis, like so many of those poor unfortunate countries who have oil, need America, need Democrats, to explain to them much more nicely than Karen Hughes could ever do why their home must be destroyed and their little daughter’s feet blown off.
very good point.
the Dems base is the same as Bush’s – the have-mores.
Theres one small problem I see: third parties dont work in our system. To paraphrase a song lyric “this aint no parliament”
A liberal third party defeated Gore in 2000.
A conservative third party defeated Bush Sr in 1992.
My advice to you Mr. Marketplace: if you want to start a third party, start a conservative one.
Gore defeated himself in 2000 along the campaign trail — he listened to crappy consultants that told him not to be himself. He may have actually won, but then the shrub was installed by SCOTUS. 2000 is a crappy example. I love how all democrats blame the “thrid party” — what evidence do you have that these people would have voted for Gore?
The economy defeated Bush Sr. in 1992. Again, what evidence do you have that those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush?
See, there are a lot of different ways of looking at things….
see below for a quote from wikipedia regarding Nader’s effect on the 2000 election.
“crappy” example? Maybe crap but its true crap.
Beware the third party. They dont work in our system,except to siphon votes.
This isnt the English parliament.
And yes, it is a crappy example for the argument you are trying to make against third parties.
You can stop with the “this is parliment” I have seen you post repeatedly in the last 48 hours, it is getting a bit worn.
Have you ever stopped to consider that siphoning votes may be reason enough? Especially, if the third party is something that a person believes in? What is your fascination with democrats? Why does the party deserve your loyalty? Your vote?
Here’s a link to what, so far as I know, is the first serious political science analysis of the effect of Nader and Buchanan on the 2000 presidential election: “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” by Barry Burden.
Burden shows that the effects of candidacies like this are actually quite difficult to measure, especially because the entire dynamic of the race would have been different without their presence.
Nader’s message is not Peter Camejo’s message, and both Peter and the party were quite effectively discredited by duct-taping Nader in there.
From the standpoint of the warlords, it was a brilliant move, and rendered US domestic politics even more irrelevant than it already was, a feat which few believed possible after the transition to court appointed figurehead of 2000.
The Green Party isn’t perfect either, and has had a particularly difficult set of internal battles in the past decade or so.
But the big difference is that their platform is actually a list of ideas that align well with liberal thinking. If only liberals would actually vote for them!
How about if Al Gore were to run on a GP ticket? Would that work?
would “work.” If I am not mistaken, Gore’s position on the crusade is, like Nader, Kucinich, Kerry, et al, to outsource the wetwork.
I understand that there is a lot of very well intentioned sincerity behind the millions of Americans who earnestly believe that Iraqis, and Afghans will react more positively to having their children maimed and slaughtered by people wearing different colored uniforms, but I don’t think even the most skilled speech writers can make it generate a lot of enthusiasm outside US borders.
And it is outside US borders from whence comes America’s future now.
Like it or not, American politics is fairly celebrity driven. Nader’s a celebrity. His running under the Green banner in 2000 generated enormous publicity for the party. Though there certainly were downsides, the party experienced enormous growth both during and after that campaign.
To acknowledge those downsides: Not only was the ideological fit not perfect, but Nader is more or less explicitly opposed to political parties, refused to join the GP, and didn’t share his campaign lists with the party whose line he was running on. Throughout the 2000 campaign, Nader people treated Green Party people with contempt. Don’t even get me started on Nader’s behavior last year.
Politics is the art of compromise. Often the best choices are imperfect. At the end of the day, I think the Green Party did what was best for it both in 2000 (when we nominated Nader) and in 2004 (when we refused to endorse Nader’s independent run, and nominated David Cobb). Neither choice was perfect, but in both cases the available alternatives would have been worse.
As for Camejo, you’re right that he and Nader are far from perfectly in sync. But Camejo has his own complicated relationship to the Green Party. His roots are in old-fashioned sectarian leftism. He was the Trotskyite Socialist Worker’s Party presidential candidate in 1976. He spent most of last year lashing out at the Green Party. And, since November, under the banner of an organization he’s founded called Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI), he’s been trying to refight a lot of old battles, essentially trying to make the Green Party a little less green and a little more red. A lot of the people organizing GDI have their primary allegiances to groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO), and subscribe to a teleological class-based politics with a vanguardist tinge that is at odds with a number of Green tenets.
I honestly think there ought to be more of a place in our political discourse for Marxian socialism. But that place isn’t the Green Party. Camejo and his forces represent a minority in the Green Party, but always insist that they represent a majority, and then denounce the actual majority as phony Greens. To many of us, GDI feels awfully like an attempted hostile takeover.
I believe it is post number 50, and I believe any additional remarks I might be tempted to make would be impolite.
Thank you so much for keeping me up wading through this exercise in technical jargon. Seriously, it was very interesting, and throughout the author pretty consistently states that Gore most likely would have won without Nader in the race and Bush possible might have won without Buchanan in the race. In typical academic fashion, his conclusion never really answers the question he posits in his title.
If I may, let me offer a few quotes that seem to sum up this paper, at least as far as our discussion goes.
“It is clear that Gore and Nader were near substitutes and that Florida ALMOST CERTAINLY would have gone Democratic without Nader in the race. Yet, it is also POSSIBLE that Bush would have been elected easily without Buchanan in the race.”
Hmmm. “Almost certain” victory for Gore versus “possible” victory for Bush.
“Bush MIGHT have won another 30 electoral votes in four other close states (Iowa, New Mexico,Oregon and Wisconsin)and would have taken the presidency even after conceding Florida to Gore.”
From exit polling data: “Nearly all Bush and Gore supporters would remain loyal in a two way race as one might expect. In contrast, many minor party voters would have abstained. Nearly 30% of Nader voters {pete’s note: Nader himself claims 47%}and more than 40% of Buchanan voters would have abstained without their candidate in the race. About half of Nader’s voters would have gone to Gore. SURPRISINGLY, Buchanan’s brigade WOULD HAVE SWITCHED TO GORE AS LEAST AS MUCH AS IT LINED UP BEHIND BUSH.”
“One cannot know for certain whether Bush would have one those four states. IT APPEARS TO BE POSSIBLE BUT NOT LIKELY.”
In the conclusion “Gore PROBABLY would have won without Nader in the race and Bush MIGHT LIKELY have won without Buchanan in the race.”
The author softens his qualifier of Gore’s likelihood of victory and strengthens his qualifier of Bush’s likelihood of victory in his conclusion, perhaps trying to be prudent, since he admits that 2000 was an historical anomaly that fit no previous pattern of presidential elections using his various predictive models. In fact the Condorcet model which had accurately confirmed the winners in previous presidential races, CHOSE NADER THE WINNER IN 2000.
However, throughout the paper it is apparent that the author believes Nader kept Gore from a clear win in Florida, perhaps by as much as 25,000 votes and as little as 10,000, while Bush had, at best, an outside chance of winning each of the four states without Buchanan in the race. Possible, in other words, but not likely given the evidence presented.
I agree Gore got gored in Florida and by SCOTUS.
But if Nader isnt running on the GREEN party ticket, Gore wins enough electoral votes w/o FLA and Fla. results would have been academic.
I dont remember the specific states where Nader siphoned enough votes from Gore to give Bush the states electors, but you can look it up.
…that Nader voters would have voted for Gore … or that they would have voted at all, if Nader were not running.
I think Nader got the voters who were too disgusted to vote otherwise.
sadly, Pete’s like so many of his brethern at the big orange place, not the least bit interested in learning a little history or nuance. Better to be a led by the nose with conventional wisdom and the lazy opinions of TV talking heads.
sadly, you are name calling me again and making assumptions of fact which are untrue and would be considered trollish behavior if you were not a respected pillar of the community.
see below for Wikipedias analysis of Naders impact on the 2000 election. Sadly, Nader made many of the same comments towrds Gore which you now level at our Democratic party leaders.
How different would the world be today if Gore had won?
Do you really intend to follow Naders worn out path to nowhere?
it takes to get on the ballot in these 50 states? Do you know how many states let nader on the ballot? You were, what 15 at the time? Did you follow this closely or are you basing your arguments on what you find in wiki?
BTW, how do you suppose someone becomes a “respected pillar of a community”? (and, no, no one here gets paid)
By repeating what the majority want to hear, whether it is self destructive or not?
I admire his passion, but not his path. I am unafraid to say so. His derogatory comments about me mean nothing. His call to abandon the party and go off in a green huff are potentially very dangerous for the country long term. I see nothing disrespectful or stupid about pointing this out with some very recent historical context, even though we all know how weak and lazy i am from watching so much TV, or whatever.
Wouldnt you rather have had eight years of Bore rather than eight of Gush?
Truly? or did you also vote for Nadir in 2000?
ONE: that is a false choice
TWO: Gore won
And how dare you, little punk kid barely off your mama’s tit (and no doubt still on her financial one) to tell me I’m “dangerous” to this country? People like me aren’t listened to, though I’ve had friends say to me recently that they wish they’d listened to my warnings about Reagan/Bush back in the ’80s.
You’ve betrayed no real understanding of the real political dynamic of 2000. You’d rather buy into the boogieman explanation of Nader than the rampant voter disenfrancisement and the utterly SHITTY campaign that Gore ran. Blame a guy who got single digits percentages of the vote rather than the sad fact that the institutional Dem party wouldn’t fight for their win, wouldn’t fight for their voters, and LAUGHED at CBC House members who stood up to protest.
I can well see why even your frinds dont listen to you.
Punk kid? mamas tit? Still supporting me?
Sorry Madman, Im not taking the bait. Have a nice day.
question — how about you respond to the ones before the “by the way”?
(sigh) no I dont know how difficult is to get on the ballot in all 50 states, but I heard rumors in 2004 that Nader had a lot of help from certain conservative contributors donating him lots of $. I wouldnt be surprised if they helped him a little bit in 2000 too.
I was 16. I have followed every presidential election very closely since I was 12.
No, I didnt reference wiki until after I made the statement from memory that Nader cost Gore the election. I looked it up especially for you since you seemed to doubt my knowledge of the event. And apparently still do along with others. Amazing leaps of illogic all around.
Its now 12:15 AM. I have class at 8 am tomorrow. Its an American history class. Thanks for passing me off to Mr. marketplace. Too bad he wanted to watch TV too.
Tomorrows another day.
I voted for in 2000 — do you not read the responses you get?
I have, in several thread talked with you with due respect and an interest in your viewpoints. You pick and choose what to respond to, and from this comment, I can see that you pick and choose what you read as well.
Jon Stewart is on so, have fun with Madman!
you kidding??
I’m signing off to watch Jon too.
no just forgot.
yeah, more democracy is dangerous… yeesh.
this from Wikipedia:
“Naders vote total exceeded Bush’s margin over Gore in Florida and in New Hampshire, which meant that, all else being the same, Gore would have won the lectoral college vote if even a small fraction (as little as 1%) of Nader’s 97,488 supporters in Florida had voted for Gore, or if a larger fraction of Nader’s 22,198 supporters in New Hampshire had done so.
NADER SUPPORTERS SAID THAT MANY NADER VOTERS WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED AT ALL IF NADER HAD NOT BEEN ON THE BALLOT.
Regardless, many analysts believed that a substantial number of Nader supporters would more likely have chosen Gore over Bush (pete’s note : Duh!).
EVEN NADER STATED IN HIS OWN BOOK, “CRASHING THE PARTY,” AND ALSO ON HIS WEBSITE:
“IN THE YEAR 2000, EXIT POLLS REPORTED THAT 25% OF MY VOTERS WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR BUSH, 38% FOR GORE, AND THE REST WOULD HAVE STAYED HOME.”
is that Gore won Florida. If the votes had been counted as mandated by Florida law, instead of circumvented by the Supreme Court, Gore would have won by a substantial margin. This was announced quietly in the press, because the conclusion was reached around about the time the World Trade Center fell down. If the game is rigged, it kind of doesn’t matter who’s playing.
why is that a problem with this argument? Besides I am not arguing the 2000 election. I am arguing the danger of third parties in a close election. They can help the wrong team win and did in 2000. No Nader no SCOTUS split decision necessary.
I am reminded of the cliche about taking a scissors to your nose because you are angry at your face.
Makes no sense.
Besides I am not arguing the 2000 election. I am arguing the danger of third parties in a close election.
You are using the 2000 election as a proof in your argument, and it is an arguable point, so I am arguing it. Nader did not lose the election for Gore. The Supreme Court did. If you are going to quibble about 2000, why not include the fact that Gore’s campaign was crappy, his handlers watered down his populism, and, for whatever reason, he was loathe to really express the more winning elements of his personality until after the election.
Let me cut to the chase. The Democratic Party needs to stop blaming everybody else for their losing elections. Blaming voters for voting their conscience and blaming people with different views from running outside of the two parties, is damnably undemocratic. To the party I left, when they overwhelmingly supported handing a blank check to little Caligula for an illegal war, I say getting all non-Republican votes is not an entitlement — you have to earn it.
We are all overlooking the biggest third party of all.
Not the Greens.
Not the Reform Party.
It’s called the Non-Voters.
They make up 50% of the eligible voters in presidential elections and 60% to 70% in many congressional districts.
These Non-Voters actually DO vote. They look at their political choices and vote for “none of the above”.
Instead of fighting with the Republicans over who can pander more abjectly to “soccer moms” and gun-toting Southern bubbas, the Democrats might be better advised to discover two things:
Since most American elections are decided by slender margins–including the 2000 and 2004 elections–swaying only a mere additional 5% of the American electorate over to the Democratic side would ensure its rule for generations to come. Instead of 51-49 splits in the electorate, the Democrats could get a 56-44 split and pretty much do as they please.
Now let us ask a third question:
3. Why haven’t the Democrats asked questions 1 & 2? Is it because they are afraid of the answers?
(waving hand in air)
Because they don’t care.
Actually, many of the Democratic pooh-bahs DO care.
They just DON’T care about YOU and ME.
Ah, but if we had us some corporate cash, they’d be whispering sweet nothings in our ears and promising us the moon…
citing the Wikipedia, which is a wiki after all, and has no de-facto authority, especially when it comes to areas of specialization, or where academic or political differences lie.
“experts say” … ah yes, that’s convincing. Except for a poli sci paper in a lower division college class. I’m sorry, but “duh!” is not quite convincing. Neither is Mr. Nader’s self-aggrandizing analysis. And when you talk about those numbers, how many of them were in states that were slam dunks? My state went Bush big time, and all the Nader voters knew that, and would not have made one bit of difference, either.
All this energy directed at Nader is really beside the point, isn’t it?
For the record, I did not vote for Nader.
Yes it is wasted in a way, although this discussion is very educational. There is a link elsewhere on this thread to an academic paper which analyzed the effect of Nader and Buchanan on the 2000 election, particularly in the 5-6 states where the election was close. Very interetsing to me.
Read it if you like. Its tough going unless you are a political scientists, perhaps. Ihave read it twice and will make a reply to the poster.
Thanks for your chatting with me. Look forward to more.
In Florida and New Hampshire, had every Ralph Nader voter automatically voted for Gore, then Gore would have won those states.
You are assuming several things.
Furthermore, you are not even discussing the fact that between five and seven times more Democrats voted for Bush in the State of Florida in 2000 than voters who voted for Nader. Are Florida Democrats to blame for not keeping their own house in order, or was this another case of electoral fraud that has not been investigated?
I don’t know the answer to this, and I probably never will. What I do know is that Nader and his supporters did not give George W. Bush the presidency. I am however positive that a well-planned and perfectly orchestrated effort of electoral and polling place fraud, coupled with an unlawful decision by the highest court in the land placed the worst possible candidate in the highest administrative post in the United States. Nader did not do this. If a certain sector of the Democratic Party feels some relief in continuing to blame Greens and Ralph Nader for their own failings of the last five to ten years then so be it, but this is not going to solve their failings in the next ten.
Learn the facts and save the next two election cycles!
That is a huge part of what it means to be a progressive!
see comment directly above for my response to you, snoop dog.
So you believe Bush won Florida?
He was cheated but he did not win. Just like that game yesterday. The Lions scored the most points but they didnt win the game, thanks to the officials.
However, there was not a third team to siphon points from the Lions, either.
You just stated you do not believe in Democracy.
You believe that the GOP and the Democrats should choose their candidates and the populace should be forced to choose between those two and those two alone.
Stating that Nader and/or the Green Party siphoned off votes from Gore or that they siphon off votes from any other candidates is doing three things:
My belief is that in our two party system minor parties splinter the vote and have the ironic effects, such as the close election in 2000, where progressive Green voters for Nader clearly handed the election to the conservative Mr. Bush.
Nowhere did I say I believed that there should only be two parties, nor that I do not believe in democracy.
Once again, you, like Mr. Marketplace, are reading a lot that is not in my statements or sentiments.
Nice chatting with you though.
You accuse others of name-calling and then you do this?
‘snoop dog’ — WTF? I am sorely tempted to rate this comment a “2” but I will give you a cahnce to explain that one to me first.
its a play on the name beagle. Get it . Snoop dog = snoopy = beagle.
Jeesh. Stop pestering me. Dont you have anything better to do?
Its’ still rude. Don’t you remember your own tirade against Alice for calling you “petey”?? Remember how you felt? I think you siad something about condescension, hmmm? I’m sure if beagleandtabby wanted to be called “snoop dog”, some indication would have been given…
I will stop “pestering” you when you stop bitching about all of the things that YOU are doing to others, and stop being disrepectful, rude and disruptive — it is my job.
Surely in all of your studies of online community social dynamics you have come accross the idea that long-time members of such groups work to enforce community standards and norms?
This ain’t dKos.
Behave yourself, Petey.
while I agree with you that it would certainly be near impossible to get a third party elected nationally, I think the important thing to understand is that the system is entirely broken as Shakespeare’s Sister says in the diary. we need to figure out how to proceed from this point of understanding.
If the political system is irrevocably broken as Shakespeare’s Sister suggests then we must indeed “figure out how to proceed.” Where better to begin the process than here, with a group of very concerned, informed progressive thinkers who have already built a community of trust at BooTrib.
We (I use that term very loosely as I just recently joined the site) have organized photo fairs and book clubs and even a cafe where people gather to chat. Why not a roundtable for developing ideas on how to proceed from this point of political bankruptcy?
This would require someone very knowledgeable and organized to become a moderator for the group. (I’d be the first to sign up for the group but could not serve as moderator). We could meet twice monthly perhaps. Or more or less. Details to be worked out. In the process, we might even find other groups that are way out ahead of the curve on this.
Thoughts, anyone?
Would you post this as a diary where we could discuss it outside of this long thread? I’d be very interested too!
I’ve been (horror of horrors!) away from my computer most of the night. Glad to see there is some interest in the possibility. I will try to put together a diary tomorrow, sometime in the a.m. (pacific time) where we can hash out ideas.
Happy Dreams!
Looking forward to it!! Thanks for doing this!
Consider me in 🙂
I’m not sure how much common ground I can find with crazy right-wingers, but this recent post by Billmon makes me think there is a growing realization on the left and the right that this corporate-controlled behemoth is totally out of touch with anyone that isn’t a millionaire (luckily for them, there are more than ever in the US) and that there just might be an opportunity to work with principled conservatives.
from the linked piece:
btw, I’m spending a lot of time offline working on alternate ideas to the current electoral system, so I’d gladly join such a round table as well.
I certainly like the idea in principle. But boy, trying to talk to conservatives who have been drinking the Kool-Aid lo’ these many years….I don’t know. I suppose your point is that they are coming down now from that bad trip and back to reality.
I’d love to try. Let’s make this one of the issues to discuss. I’ve never spent any time on the right wing blog sites, so we would need someone who has, to make suggestions about groups/blogs/people to contact for interest in the idea.
Look for more tomorrow.
Hordes of wing nuts are almost literally howling (in ALL CAPS) about the metric tons of shit they’ve put up with — the round-the-clock pork festivals, the federal entitlement for drug companies, the congressional leadership so corrupt it would make Boss Tweed blush, the bloody quagmire in Iraq, Mike Brown, the New Deal on the Mississippi, etc.
All of this just to get a judge that will overturn Roe vs. Wade?
Consider me in also! Great idea!!!!
Exactly.
The only thing that will work now is a massive “people power” movement that stands outside party politics. The Democrats are an obstacle to change, not a vehicle for change.
What must follow then is a restructing of the system of government so that it is more responsive to the people. One may begin with the thoroughly undemocratic Senate, which gives the same power in the legislature to Idaho and California. The Electoral College system, with its “winner take all” system, should also go. Proportional voting should be instituted so that if no party gains 50% of the vote, the two top vote-getters will have a runoff election. This would strengthen third parties.
In short, it’s time for a second American Revolution that overthrows the existing order and starts anew, keeping the old institutions which work and scrapping those which don’t.
Or, as another fellow once wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
for a “…movement that stands outside party politics.”
Check out the info at the link in my sig line.
I’ve suspected the same thing for ages. The Democratic leadership doesn’t oppose the Republicans because they agree with Republican politics. Reid, at the very least, appears to side with them (or order exactly half his caucus to do so) on every major vote. So why haven’t they switched parties? Because, as the underdog, they have a sweet deal. They get to parade around looking like the brave opposition to the evil government and receive praise and money to fight the good fight, while the evil government is doing exactly what they’d do.
The two-party system in America is now officially a sham.
It’s worth noting what one has to swallow to think the Democrats did well today. Here’s the official party line, netroots edition, courtesy of Markos Moulitsas.
Executive Summary: This nomination was apparently engineered by Harry Reid, so we won!
The Fine Print: The reason this can be considered a victory is that it is, according to kos, exactly what Orrin Hatch engineered with the Ginsburg and Bryer nominations. With the GOP in a minority, Hatch told Clinton that he could get these two through the Senate with little fuss. Clinton nominated them; they went through smoothly.
What’s wrong with this “analysis”:
First, the Bush and Clinton administrations have taken fundamentally different attitudes toward court nominations. Clinton nominated centrists, up and down the federal court system. Bush is trying to push the court system to the right. A minority party should treat such different agendas differently.
Secondly, Bryer and Ginsburg were more or less known quantities. Miers is not. If Reid was given the opportunity to pick a justice, this was, on the face of it, a dumb choice. The only good thing we actually know about her is she’s not in her 30s or 40s.
Finally, the logic of kos argument is entirely circular. “We” won, because this is what Reid wanted. And it’s simply assumed that what Harry Reid wants is good for “us.” Harry Reid is anti-choice. Harry Reid voted for bankruptcy “reform.” We know that what Harry Reid wants is not good for “us” or the country. The only question is, how bad is it. My read on Reid after today is that it’s pretty darn bad.
But there’s one silver lining here. The Democratic Party has revealed its true colors today. And diaries like Madman’s and Meteor Blades’ comfort the heart of this recovering Democrat. The only way to solve the problems of an abusive relationship is to leave. Here’s to those with the courage to do so!
One has to build a time machine go back about ten months and recall the shit sandwich real progressives were forced to swallow when Harry Reid, D from Purple state (the same guy refusing to find a challenger for Ensign and swooning over Mier) was named Minority Leader instead of Durbin, D from Blue State.
The Uber Bloggers cheered that moved too, if I recall.
I’m a liberal because I act like one. Not because I write bullshit pieces on a blog about liberal framing in the 21st Century.
As of today I can no longer call myself a lifelong Democrat. I am now offically an Independent and it would take many election cycles to bring me back into the fold, if ever. No more bucks either and i’ve been very generous in the past. It’s now a candidate by candidate situation for me and my efforts will now be going to establishing viable 3rd and 4th Parties in America, as she needs them desperately. We are allowing ourselves to be held hostage by a Horrible Party and a Pathetic Party. Neither is acceptable.
Have you ever posted under a different name or variation of said name on Dkos, My Left Wing, Booman or LSF?
Your voice sounds quite familiar but only under a different name. Please answer honestly.
Doesn’t matter, Wilfred. What matters now are the arguments he presents, which are internally contradictory and as flimsy as a paper kite.
shadowthief, you are one of my favorite posters. look forward to all your comments (maybe even some day at LSF too!).
need changing for there to ever be a chance of progressives being in a majority. Just the way senators are elected means there will always be more so called conservatives or moderates. There will always be enough conservative dems from conservative states with tiny populations who will side with the Repubs for self preservation even when the Dems are in the majority. This handicaps any progressive agenda.
Yup.
See Who Rules America? Power and Politics by G. William Domhoff. ISBN: 0767416376.