Dean is first and I'm here to tell about it.

John wrote "[All hat, not cattle is s]horthand for empty, headline-grabbing rhetoric with no chance in hell of ever being enacted, let alone implemented."

That doesn't seem to reflect your attitude about a Kucinich candidacy or the prospects for a new third party, for example.  You need a little more consistency in your pessimism.

If we're going to give our valuable time and money to elect people, then we have to hold them accountable. WE NEED A PROGRAM to evaluate how DFA-LIst candidate have voted and whether they have remained progressive once elected.

Until there is such a program in place, HQ, my enthusiasm will be muted. Too many DFA-Listers voted to condemn an ADVERTISEMENT and not to stand firm on ending the occupation.

I think what makes me so cross about this whole Florida thing is that they are using it to ridicule the DNC which is the one group following the rules.

And did you know that spouses can campaign here freely...like the "big dog" as they still call him here (getting tired of that name). He recently got big headlines for appearing with Crist and big name Republicans as a Clinton Global Initiative event. Why do we even bother with primaries??

Hillary's campaign discipline is praised, but DNC party discipline ridiculed.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1536

I remain angry. And grouchy.   It used to be Republicans who surround us here telling us not to speak out.  Now it is our own party telling us not to question Nelson and Thurman.

Angry and grouchy.

John is urging us to support Ross Perot's second run for the presidency.  Are you also a proponent of the Reform Party of Canada?

Tom, if you go to the link and read the article, you'll see that Ross Perot doesn't figure in the equation.

Also, a little update on Canadian politics. The Reform Party about a dozen years ago morphed into the Canadian Alliance, which, in turn, hijacked the Progressive Conservative Party to become the Conservative Party, which now forms the Canadian Government (much to the dismay of a lot of people including yt).

You can check out how members of Congress voted in regard to progressive positions on:

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

Some problems with how they come up with averages but it's a start to gain accountability. How about DFA use and publicize this on Federal DFA candidates? 

John wrote "Tom, if you go to the link and read the article, you'll see that Ross Perot doesn't figure in the equation.  Also, a little update on Canadian politics. The Reform Party about a dozen years ago morphed into the Canadian Alliance, which, in turn, hijacked the Progressive Conservative Party to become the Conservative Party, which now forms the Canadian Government . . . ."

No he doesn't, but the Perot rejoinder for your sweet elegy to the Reform Party was inevitable.  Your post convinces me all the more of that the futility of vanity parties is the best that can be hoped for.  The worst is something more like Stephen Harper.

Too many DFA-Listers voted to condemn an ADVERTISEMENT and not to stand firm on ending the occupation.

If they come back around here with their hands out I hope you at least will remind people of their records. 

Indy Steve
Tue, 10/02/07
1:07 pm

... it seems to me that 'winners' are on the menu, not 'patriots.'
It could just be me, tho...

2.I support kucinich because he's right on the issues, and doesn't engage in cheap theatrics.

I am in favor of a third party because the two present ones have proved to be tweedle dumb and Tweedle Dumber on most issues .

A third party with a strong message consistent with what the electorate wants  could displace  one of the present ones (just as the Republicans did the Whigs). If not, as the article  cited  maintains, it could force one or both of the current parties to make some changes consistent with the will of the people, rather than fat-cat donors

Tom Bearse
Tue, 10/02/07
1:13 pm

... and once again, thanks soooo much for being here to edify us in all things. Everyone is off-base but tommy.

John wrote "I support kucinich because he's right on the issues, and doesn't engage in cheap theatrics.  I am in favor of a third party because the two present ones have proved to be tweedle dumb and Tweedle Dumber on most issues."

This doesn't qualify as breaking news at this juncture.  What I'm asking is why don't you face facts and call both sputtering enterprises all hat and no cattle, if that's your sincere feeling about empty, headline-grabbing rhetoric with no chance in hell of ever being enacted, let alone implemented.

the futility of vanity parties is the best that can be hoped for.

The Republican party was once a "vanity" one comprised of disillusioned Whigs. 

Now, with conservatives threatening to bolt the GOP, is the perfect time for liberals to bolt the Democrats and support any candidate who will end the biparty occupation of Iraq.

As long as Democrats can count our votes in their hip pockets they will continue to ignore us. 

3, 6

We certainly don't want to help elect another McNerney.

Dave wrote "and once again, thanks soooo much for being here to edify us in all things. Everyone is off-base but tommy."

I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing.

12.  See 13

Sitka wrote "Now, with conservatives threatening to bolt the GOP, is the perfect time for liberals to bolt the Democrats and support any candidate who will end the biparty occupation of Iraq."

I'll be waiting to see it.

I'll be waiting to see it.

Right now liberals are a kettle on the burner. When the critical temperature is reached, you'll hear the whistle and see the steam. 

Huron John
Tue, 10/02/07
1:17 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Im in...............it feels great to be involved in an important first step to countering those two terrible parties.................

CONDEMN MOVEON, BUT TAKE ITS MONEY

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6086.html

Forty-four congressional Democrats who voted to condemn MoveOn.org for its ad branding Army Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us" have accepted more than $3.9 million in contributions from the influential anti-war group and its members.

Among those who opposed resolutions specifically repudiating the full-page ad in The New York Times, only 17 Democrats and one independent took cash from the group and its members — contributions totaling almost $1.4 million.

Many Democrats who supported the resolutions said their votes were unrelated to their desire to end the war in Iraq — one of MoveOn’s main missions — but the group does not appear to readily accept that bright-line distinction.

“They were not doing what they were supposed to,” MoveOn Communications Director Jennifer Lindenauer said of the Democrats boosted by her group who voted for the resolutions. “We elected them to end the war. They didn’t end the war. … They’re wasting their time debating an ad and not doing what the American people want.”

14. funny thing is if you go to the ratings at #6 you'll find these progressive ratings:

kucinich 87.41

mcnerney 87.63

my guy pete stark is 93+, barbara lee's 96+, etc.

I suspect that MoveOn will be denying funds to the clowns whocriticized them next time around.

Sitka wrote "When the critical temperature is reached, you'll hear the whistle and see the steam."

You never know. After all, some have said that Obama’s proposal to set a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, reducing U.S. stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, and pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts to achieve a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles is just empty, headline-grabbing rhetoric with no chance in hell of ever being enacted, let alone implemented.

60.Sitka

How about the person making the statement?
=============

How about we see what Burns says in the last episode tonight, before we waste our time. So far his series has been brutally honest and anything but an apologist for our military leaders.
---------------
59. Sitka

Obey is vowing to hold up funds for "maintaining the status quo" in Iraq...

The policy should be to get out of Iraq and then the ME entirely
================

I hope they try, but keeping my "criticism" powder dry. There is no historical precedent for stopping a war by withholding funds. If it happens it will be a first. If it doesn't there is probably a valid reason.

-----------------

The reason firebombs were used over Tokyo was because the B-29 was the first high-altitude bomber, the first plane to bomb from 40,000 feet. We knew little about the jetstream at that time. It threw conventional bombs way off their target. The firebombs were thought to have more destructive capacity with less precision. since the fires would spread easily. They turned out to be more destructive than previously thought because of the way the traditional wood structures in Japan were built.

They killed more Japanese than the Atom bombs killed.

running

Mike's in, so I doubt that it will be long now.

15.Tom Bearse

I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing
==============

If the computer spirit blows out my monitor, I'm blaming you.

RUNNING ON AMBIEN?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/the-clinton-campaign-run_b_66638.html

Just a year ago the hot question was: Is America ready for a black or female president? As the campaigns wear on, the question has shifted to: Can America survive the tedium of its black and female candidates?

Obama, for example, hasn't turned out to be any more challenging to white America than re-runs of the Cosby Show. He was slow to pick up on the Jena 6 case and never showed up at the rally - although, to be fair, neither did Clinton or Edwards. Like the others, he has refrained from noting that Giuliani, in addition to being a cell phone exhibitionist and a 9/11-abuser, presided over a New York City police department famed for its torture and killing of young black males.

But it's Hillary who's causing the citzenry's heads to pitch forward and collapse on their chests. Every time she opens her mouth, her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze, muffling any possibility of "discourse." Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right. Hers is known as the "flawless" campaign, but no one in it seems to be able to turn off the endlessly triangulating tape in her head.

Lately she's taken to emitting to sudden, inexplicable, bursts of deep laughter - known in the media as "the cackle." Whether this is a deliberate "humanizing" touch or a glitch in the computer program no one knows.

not to be either redundant or contrary, but there are already a number of parties to choose from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pol...

problem is, though, none but the d & r have elected anyone in meaningful numbers. its not a lack of party choice, but a lack of the type of leadership that you want. right? a party is simply an institution, a tool, to achieve an end goal. my questions would be:

1. who would lead a "new" party? you'll need at least some charisma.

2. how do you prevent the "new" party from being taken over by the same old same old?

3. what, exactly would be the "new" party's ideology, platform, etc?

4. would the "new" party sway in the wind of public opinion to ensure representing "the people?"

Huron John
Tue, 10/02/07
1:23 pm

I haven't concluded anything yet, but we ought to know the facts on their votes on a number of progressive issues. And DFA has a responsibility to follow up on those we helped elect.

Then people can act on knowledge, not hype and empty promises. Is that too much to ask? They could use progressive punch to put together a vote list. Put an intern on it!

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

mprov
Tue, 10/02/07
1:37 pm

yeah, it's not perfect but it's a start. Wonder what Kuci did to get that low of a rating? For one thing, it uses an average of all votes making all votes equally valuable. Some votes on amendments and resolutions are not equal to a final vote on a bill. And some issues are more important than others.

DFA could use this as a start to make up a lists of votes from the progressive punch site and then give us a report. We can draw our own conclusions.

THE LIE THAT KEEPS THE OCCUPATION GOING

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_071001_the_lie_that_keeps_t.htm

It is a lie that Congress must pass a bill to end the occupation of Iraq. The occupation can be ended with an announcement by Congressional leaders that there will be no more funding. Any proposal to fund it can be blocked by 41 senators. Bush has plenty of money for withdrawal and could be given more for that exclusive purpose. When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

.......you can hardly claim you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.

COURAGE AND DISCIPLINE ARE NEEDED

Mark wrote "a party is simply an institution, a tool, to achieve an end goal."

Thanks for opening the window in here.  People were succumbing to the fumes. 

28.

...

Obama, for example, hasn't turned out to be any more challenging to white America than re-runs of the Cosby Show. He was slow to pick up on the Jena 6 case and never showed up at the rally - although, to be fair, neither did Clinton or Edwards.

...

+++

neither did Kucinich or Gravel, Dodd, Biden or Richardson

Why weren't white progressives at the Jena 6 rally ?

30.mprov

not to be either redundant or contrary, but there are already a number of parties to choose from:

===============
The link doesn't even include the NATURAL LAW PARTY, my favorite.

Before we start talking about parties participating, we need to talk about election and campaign laws that are more hospitable to a multi-party system, as our country once was, before the two-party collaboration took over.

Most important is a runoff law. this would insure a vote for a third party is not "wasted"

REP WELCH SCORES A HAT-TRICK

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dan_dewa_071001_congressman_welch_sc.htm

The stars must have been aligned for George W. Bush last week because, in spite of the unchanging damning and dismal facts on the ground, both here and in Iraq, the Democratic Congress was gracious enough to pass three significant votes to bolster his failing presidency. While Vermonters usually can rely on their representatives not to be dragged into jingoistic, pseudo-patriotic congressional votes, representative Peter Welch managed to pull off a hat trick, voting with the Republicans all three times.

Maybe the euphoria of voting with the winning side was getting to his head, because Congressman Welch apparently forgot that he had recently signed and sent a letter to the President declaring that he would not vote another penny for the war unless it included a comprehensive and timely withdrawal plan. Instead he joined the Republicans and voted to fund the war for another thirty days without any restrictions whatsoever.

The Democrats have clearly surpassed even themselves with these actions. All that the Republicans have to do apparently, is to raise the flags of fear and pseudo-patriotism and the Democrats will shuffle quickly into line, reserving, of course, the right to have second thoughts later.

The American people can see through these machinations, it's unfortunate and and to our peril that the Democrats and Congressman Welch can not.

From the last thread.

48.

Annilow
Tue, 10/02/07
12:48 pm

Reply to this

19.

dog soldier
Tue, 10/02/07
11:37 am

Dog, from your post I take it you have a visible war injury? Care to elaborate? Not to get too personal.

------------------
Not too personal...
A RPG hit the front of a bunker as I was leaving the rear. The explosion blinded me in my right eye, tore off a good chunk of the right side of my face including my right ear; blew off three fingers on my right hand; shattered my right shoulder and hip, broke six ribs, broke my jaw, removed all the teeth on the my right side and punctured my right lung. I am the lucky one as the three guys in the bunker were killed. If the round went thru the opening, it would have hit me. The same scene as the movie "Platoon" except I got out.
I had a lot of plastic surgeries so I no longer look like I am always wearing a halloween mask. But I am still rather scary looking. I get my right hip and shoulder "scoped" about every other year to remove shrapnel that works itself away from the joint.
I have more metal in me then a new chevy.
I am a walking advertisement for "no more war." I should rent myself out.

Since HOWARDLY awards have been given out, is there room here for ROSSLY awards ?

steve, seems like the up/down arrow, or points, should be counted for actual behavior. vote for/against, authored/co-authored a bill, missed votes, caucus leadership, etc., weighed against a defined metric of progressiveism. not a simple count. as in stockastics, a daily, monthly, annual, overall average should be used to judge when, how, & how much power to exert on a given politician. literally track them in real time.

???

Why weren't white progressives at the Jena 6 rally ?  

Good question.

I guess they all take the African-American vote for granted.

32. Huron John

================
John, every such post needs to include a footnote*

*this action has the potential to stop all government functions on a number of vital and necessary issues, until such funding matters are settled.

It is convenient to ignore the footnote, but you are hiding part of the truth if you do.

When your television tells you the Democrats need 60 or 67 senators to end the occupation, your television is lying to you.

TV would.........LIE to me???

38.dog soldier
=============
May the Great Spirit be with you for still having your sense of humor.

44.
thanks Fred

MORE ON OBAMA AND JENA 6

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=33

The gravitational pull of the powerful away from activist concerns should also not be underestimated. While the rest of black America was united in demanding freedom for the Jena Six, Barack Obama was a Johnny come lately whose lack of interest was all too obvious.

Several weeks before the protests in Jena, Obama made it clear that he didn't really care to discuss a subject that had become a touchstone for the rest of black America. He could only muster a pathetically lame remark that the Jena Six "appear to have been railroaded into a very difficult situation." Obama has a gift for understatement.

When protests became front page news and Jesse Jackson had him on the defensive, Obama didn't do much better than President Bush, who delivered typically vapid nonsense. Foolishness from Bush is to be expected, but it is truly insulting coming from Obama: "Outrage over an injustice like the Jena 6 isn't a matter of black and white." What planet is Mr. Audacious describing? The faces of protestors at Jena were 99% black. White progressive pundits and bloggers said little if anything about Jena. It was black bloggers and radio hosts who made Jena a household word in their community and inspired thousands to act. It seems that Obama is out of touch with black and white America, both of whom had clearly chosen sides in the case.

After the media managed to cover black people for a few days, and the heat was off, Obama returned to the true business of his campaign, finding more checks to bundle.

MSNBC's congressional correspondent just laughed at Rep. Obey's call for a tax surcharge to fund the war -- not because of it's content, but because DCDems will never go along with it for fear of the GOP crying, "raise your taxes!" He said it's all just to make a point. He's right.

And once they've made their point they'll roll over again and take out another mortage for Bush. 

*this action has the potential to stop all government functions on a number of vital and necessary issues, until such funding matters are settled.

Good Republican talking point, but not true

48.Huron John

Good Republican talking point, but not true
=============

good cliche, but can you explain why, in your own words and maybe some factual links (no opinions please) to back up your insulting remark?

49.

To prove it is "not true" not (to prove that it is something republicans have also said.)

International backgammon update...........USA 2 Russian(expert) 1

I guess this puts me in the "expert" division now...........Im scared.............

Why weren't white progressives at the Jena 6 rally ?  

Good question.

I guess they all take the African-American vote for granted.

+++

Kucinich too, understood

If an individual funding bill is filibustered succesfully,  funding is denied for the specific purpose of the bill. It does not "stop all government functions on a number of vital and necessary issues."

isn't the $190bil an outside the normal budget appropriation?

So why do we allow bills to come to the floors of either house if we don't want them. We should present what we want or nothing at all.

Dems sucked in the minority because they stopped nothing and suck in the majority because anything stops them.

here's a new party for you guys, but i guess you'd have to move to california to join:

http://www.nihilists.net/gov.html#flyer

56.

That comment deserves a ROSSLY (but mprov, if you prefer, no need for you to get up to accept, it can simply be left up on the award stand).

53.Huron John

It does not "stop all government functions on a number of vital and necessary issues."

==================
THIS IS NOT DISCUSSING REPUBS, THIS IS DISCUSSING FACTS AND ASKING LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS.

I said it has the "potential" to."stop all government functions on a number of vital and necessary issues." OR at least some vital functions.

Does it not?

is it also not true that stopping a military operation/occupation with funding cuts has never been done or attempted before?

Is there a precedent?

Plain questions John. I am sure you'll do your best to avoid clear answers and simply call me a shill or something like that.

Interesting the conversation we've been having the past thread or two.

I'm interested in discussing the structural failures of our system and how we might go about changing them (including Constitutional changes, new parties, changes to the system of elections as well as things like changes to education, the relationship between management and labor and so on.)

I'm not really ready to launch yet, but I'm in the process of putting together a blog to discuss these things at http://upwego.org.

I've come to the conclusion major change is necessary. The questions are what form(s) it should take and how to go about implementing it.

55.dog soldier

Dems sucked in the minority because they stopped nothing and suck in the majority because anything stops them.
===========

We had quit a few years to do this with Viet Nam. Did we? If not, why not?

57. does that mean my ears are gonna grow???

61.

don't worry, there's 101 useful ways to use scotch tape

Assumptions is the mother of all mistakes and there is an underlying assumption that Democrats in the Congresses are play-acting to end the war, when they really don't care (at least) or really want the war to continue (at most)

when asking fundamental questions on the basis of this assumption I am compared to warmongers and Republicans.

What does that tell you?

rich wrote "I've come to the conclusion major change is necessary. The questions are what form(s) it should take and how to go about implementing it."

If Gore, Dean or Feingold bolted the party and signed onto the new third party, you could be well on your way. However, this is first degree daydreaming. When Dean even contemplated it in 2004, Gore talked him out of it.

If Kucinich did it, you’d just have another vanity campaign a la Ralph Nader or Harry Browne.

60.
Don't understand the question.
Are Dems the same as Repubs when it comes to chasing money and power?
I was a Repub from 1980-2000 so I am probably the wrong person to ask about the demise of the Dem party.
Repubs have been consistent. They are the party of the rich that screws the non-rich and makes them love it.
The Dems are the party of the non-rich and are despised because the non-rich want to be rich.
Simple finacial politics.

Repubs throw out a few crumbs for everyone else and are called compassionate conservatives. Dems make an attempt to level the playing field and they are accused of tax-and-spend class warfare mongers.
Simple advertizing politics.

So instead of worrying about media influence, Repubs buy the media outlets.
Repubs are horrible at 4GW (Warfare) but are masters at 4GP (politics).

59.

1. no more corporate person-hood

2. clean money

3. IRV

4. media reform

5. _____________

63,
Dems are afraid to use their power because Repubs will accuse them of being soft on defense. Dems do not know how to articulate theit vision of how they want Iraq - or for the matter anything - to end.
We have Hillary who was schooled by the master triangleator and doesn't even know who she is.
We have Edwards and Biden who are the opposites of each other and summed together do not make a whole.
The others are just noise makers except for Dennis who is not making any noise at all.

The Repub message is be afraid and the Dem response is yes, we are...thanks for screwing me .

65. dog soldier

=================
The question(s)was

"We had quit a few years to do this with Viet Nam. Did we? If not, why not?"

Your response seems to imply that it was never tried because Democrats were NEVER really against war.

However, the opposition to Viet Nam was bipartisan, if my memory serves me well. Nixon campaigned to "end the Viet Nam war" in 1968, though it was not vigorous. As Nixon continued with the air war, Democrats became more of the peace party.

When Dean even contemplated it in 2004, Gore talked him out of it.

I wasn't aware Dean even contemplated an independent run.  Where did your information come from?

mprov,

What do you mean by media reform?  I have my own ideas, but I'm curious about yours. 

rich, i haven't really thought it out, but would have to go for: breaking up media consolidation, content disclaimers, some means to hold them accountable for disseminating bad/wrong/harmful information with/without intent, reform FCC to be more accountable and less party hack driven...i guess that's what i've got for now.

67.dog soldier

Dems are afraid to use their power because Repubs will accuse them of being soft on defense...
=============

This is one possible reason, but I doubt it. A similar thing might be that they are afraid of the Republican charge of "abandoning the troops in the field" charge, which is real.

It would not only be a charge against Dems in campaign, but also a way of deflecting the responsibility of casualties off of Republicans, and to Democrats, whenever the charge is made by Democrats.

rich, if you haven't see this already:

Radiohead Asks: What Would You Pay For An Album?

The British band announced this week that it will sell its new album from its Web site as a digital download without copy protection and allow fans to decide how much to pay.

By K.C. Jones
InformationWeek
October 2, 2007 10:46 AM

Radiohead, by offering its forthcoming album as a digital download with no fixed price or copy protection, is testing a concept promoted by digital rights management opponents for years.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/show...

this is important because "all" media has to be considered. i remember my mother telling me that she noticed that as each new war would approach, the media would adjust its content to promote the cause. innovative media dissemination, out of the hands of the suits, should become a future-now norm.

rich wrote "I wasn't aware Dean even contemplated an independent run. Where did your information come from?"

Dean described his brief flirtation with a third party run right after the Wisconsin primary loss in "You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America." He discussed his admiration of Al Gore, with whom he had a lengthy telephone discussion that night, and who convinced him he would have a greater influence for change if he stayed in the party and worked within the structure.

tom, sounds like al should hear his own words???

72. FRED from OR

=================

Who can forget Kerry's "I voted for the $80 billion before I voted against it"

What happened to Huron John? I never got an answer.

74. page 24-27 to be exact...

Oler used to do the same thing, whenever I made an intelligent point a matter of inquiry.

He would simply disappear.

Mark wrote "page 24-27 to be exact..."

Thanks a lot.  I'm away from my bookshelf at the moment.

So why do we allow bills to come to the floors of either house if we don't want them. We should present what we want or nothing at all.

The most believable answer is that many DCDems want to go along with Bush but must put on a show of opposition to keep some believing in them. 

68,
Fred,
My statement is a not a VN area statement. I was in VN at the time of the 68 convention and it seemed there was more combat in Chicago then VN (we were in a rare lull).
Before enlisting, I marched in many civil rights and anti war rallies. The rallies were massive and the people were active. It started with those most likely affected and spread to everyone.
Congress listened. The 68 convention was chaotic, but the 68 Presidential election was extremely close (Nixon: 43.4%, Humphrey: 42.7%, Wallace: 13.5%). So, despite Dem chaos, Humphrey finally ran a populist campaign away from Johnson's VN campaign and may have won the election except Kissinger convinced Van Thieu (SVN president) to stay away from the peace talks.
So fast-forward to pre-2006. Repubs won because they are organized and built the party at the local level. Repubs never stop campaigning whether it is for prayer in school or the right to have a Santa display or flag burning, abortion banning or gay bashing.
These are not isolated incidents. The campaign is planned and executed perpetually. Remember, I was one for 20 years and the Repub party was built for the long haul. The Dem parties built for the moment. A few months before elections, Dem politicos would show up; pass out a few signs; and were amazed when they were ignored. A new community goes into a corn field and the first buildings built are a post office, fire house and Repub party headquarters.
Do your own test. Go down to the local Dem office and see what is going on. Do the same with the Repub office. See what the difference in energy is.

I think the watershed event was selecting Dean as head of the DNC. The only way to win elections is to first take control of the local political landscape. That means build the state and local staff and have candidates for every position. Repubs have a candidate for every slot while Dems have many candidate positions empty. Howard understands this and is focusing his efforts at the local level. The DLC wants to run the party the way it was always run with the money doled out to a select few candidates. Anyone who knows anything at all about strategy can see this is a losing game because the DLC only plays defense. Their structure almost guarantees they are going to maintain and not go after new seats; unless the Repub incumbent is guilty of a felony. They do not believe in building an infrastructure; even a light, flexible one.

The DLC motto is vote for us because we are not as bad as the other folks. Everytime Dems had a chance to change the Iraq direction they caved. They went along with a disastrous bankruptcy bill; caving in on Iraq and son-of-Iraq; Iran. The list is too long and depressing. I predict a Repub victories in the WH and Senate in November with Dems keeping the House. The latter is not a big deal because they are doing everything the WH wants anyway.

If Kucinich did it, you’d just have another vanity campaign a la Ralph Nader

Nader's campaign not only gave a voice to disaffected liberals and launched the reform movement in the Democratic Party, it provided the basis and rhetoric of Howard Dean's 2000 campaign and the beginning of DFA.

That's hardly "vanity." 

Fred,
About the Iraq funding.
The way to crack that nut is to give Bush more then what he wants. Do what Biden did and double the amount for certain systems. Add extra money. But tie it to a date. Or tie it to getting outsiders and the neighbors involved. Put some kind of conditions on it because without them, Bush will get folks killed for many more years. If Bush vetoes the bill, he is the one killing the troops because they gave him everything and more.

53.Huron John

It does not "stop all government functions on a number of vital and necessary issues."

This is correct. Democrats control what is brought to the floors in both houses. Refusing to bring Bush's demands up for votes wouldn't stop Democrats from bringing their own bills on any subjects to the floor.

Hillarys best speech yet............somewhat convincing

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KzVYP0wfEvg&mode=related&search=

In fact, does anyone know why Repubs are first into an area?
Besides the obvious infrastructure capabilities, most real estate barons are Repubs. They find out which land parcels are available and have a plan to build the local party apparatus before the first video store is built.
If we want to win, we need more and better candidates that are honest about what they want to do and how they are going to get there. We need to support Dean in his efforts to rebuild the party because that is the only way we get long-standing progress.

Sitka wrote "Nader's campaign not only gave a voice to disaffected liberals and launched the reform movement in the Democratic Party, it provided the basis and rhetoric of Howard Dean's 2000 campaign and the beginning of DFA. That's hardly ‘vanity.’"

Ralph Nader is as big a hero to me as Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. All liberals owe him a debt of gratitude. Dean has suggested as much.

Irrespective of that, his was without question a vanity campaign in 2000, a completely quixotic odyssey founded on the untenable proposition that you could not fit a sheet of paper between the positions of the prospective administrations of Al Gore and George Bush.

88,
My take is slightly different and yet the same.
There is absolutely no difference in party funding. Both party candidates are bought by the same people. If the Dem strategy is to have for sale signs on each candidate, then buy the Repub as they do it better.
Dem candidates are finally starting to move away from nukes.
The difference in parties is the historical agenda like abortion and minority rights.
Repubs can safely come out against abortion because the civil rights issue of the mother are ignored. They frame it as millions of dead children. They win on framing.
As far as minority rights, Repubs concede that point because minorities don't vote according to their numbers. Repubs will make that up with the right-to-lifers.

"Real" - VoteVets.org TV Ad Responding to Rush Limbaugh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKM_NsTsw...

dog wrote "The way to crack that nut is to give Bush more then what he wants. Do what Biden did and double the amount for certain systems. Add extra money. But tie it to a date."

I love it. Get Republicans to call Democrats tax and spend liberals for funding their shit war.

91.
Good point...hmmm

89.dog soldier

Repubs can safely come out against abortion because the civil rights issue of the mother are ignored. They frame it as millions of dead children. They win on framing.

===========
the DEmocrats were bound to lose ground on the right to invasive fetal termination from the beginning.

The key to this was changing the "right of privacy" of Roe v Wade to an absolute "right to abortion" at any trimester under any conditions, which it was not. To do this they had to dehumanize the fetus, until birth. This was to appease the feminist groups who are very strong Democrat supporters.

Roe v. Wade said it was a right to privacy so long as the fetus was not viable, and that it did not have to be born to be viable.

It took a while but the Republicans finally seized on this with the so-called Parial Birth Abortion bill. Basically, they started at childbirth, and worked the other way. The Republican were not defying Roe. They were agreeing with Roe.

The feminist groups tried to bring out the question of medical emergencies etc, which were really contradicting their original stand, about an UNCONDITIONAL right, so they were in essence, admitting a flaw in their dogma. It was easy for the independent voter to see the cracks in the foundation.

59.

rich^kolker
Tue, 10/02/07
2:34 pm

...
I'm interested in discussing the structural failures of our system and how we might go about changing them (including Constitutional changes, new parties, changes to the system of elections as well as things like changes to education, the relationship between management and labor and so on.)

I'm not really ready to launch yet, but I'm in the process of putting together a blog to discuss these things at http://upwego.org.

I've come to the conclusion major change is necessary. The questions are what form(s) it should take and how to go about implementing it.
--------

!!!
Congratulations Rich!
I'd like only to remind you that there is "nothing new under the sky" or in other words again, "new IS a well forgotten old".

"Structural failure" and "major changes", imo, IS NOT about "Constitutional changes" or about "new parties" or new "system of elections", etc.

It is MUCH deeper than even that, in the most general sense, imo, it is about major CONFLICT between possibilities presented by modern production forces and relationships people ARE IN while involved in those production processes.

Good luck with your new blog/site..., I'll see you there some day.

bbl.

84. 91.

Well, politically it seems like the best route, but it does little to rally the base like stalling it in Congress for a month or two would do.

The question is a "sophie's choice" of betting whether the war moderates will abandon Dems over "putting the sqeeze on the troops" or the base will stay home on election day because there were no theatrics on war funding for the evening news.

Fred,
The main point is Dems need to take it from simply a civil rights issue to preventing unwanted pregnancies. This ties the "family values" tag to Dems. Who can argue against this? The way to avoid abortions is to avoid getting pregnant. Simple biology right? This is not as easy as it sounds.
To do anything in that direction, Dems have to look at reasons women choose to have children and abort later.
Having worked building inner-city businesses, the society and cultural influences can be crushing. However, if Dems want to win the abortion battle, this is where the fight must take place.
How do you build up the self-esteem of people who have no hope of ever improving their surroundings? How do you encourage people to take control of their lives when their lives are out of control? The issues are cultural, environmental, economic, everything together. For instance, to start a business in an inner city, assuming a market plan indicates success and the prospective businessperson has sufficient skills, how is the business team built? There are not too many lawyers, accountants, bankers or finance folks in run-down inner cities. Where does capital come from? There are not too many banks willing to loan money at any rate to an inner-city start-up. What about insurance? Property and casualty insurance on any possible inner-city building is ridiculously expensive. Health care? It is rarely available. How about tying microloans to federally guaranteed seed money? That could work but everytime I tried it, the banks wanted more interest then a mafia Don. Repubs don’t want it and Dems don’t want it (same donors) and don’t understand it.

91,95.
The money is not important; it is getting the troops out. We need to set a date and get others in first. Worry about the type of Iraq later; it isn't important now.
So we dangle all the money in the world with the caveat that they are coming out and others taking over.
It sounds sucky but so is dieing for nothing which will happen if exit conditions aren't set.
Dems need to take control of the issue and so far, Pelosi and Reid have taken control of nothing.
Standing there and ignoring WH demands for funds puts Dems behind the power curve. They get hammered for denying troops funding. Regardless of how phony it sounds, Dems will be branded with it. So make the money irrelevent.

So. if Bush wants 100 billion dollars, he must have meetings with Iran and Syria about taking over for the US. They must be real; no pissing folks off just so they don't have to be dealt with.

• Home
• Article Archives
• Listen to Alex Jones
• Contact TruthNews

David Bloom
September 29, 2007

The Burmese junta currently shooting unarmed protestors received a cynical plea for restraint from the Israel government on Sept. 29. According to the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, the Israeli foreign ministry announced “Israel is concerned by the situation in Myanmar, and urges the government to demonstrate restraint and refrain from harming demonstrators.” The article ended by pointing out that “Israel denies selling weapons to Burma or Myanmar.” (Ha’aretz, Sept. 29)

Not true, according to a March 1, 2000 report in the authoritative British publication Jane’s Intelligence Review by William Ashton. The article, titled “Myanmar and Israel develop military pact,” details how Israeli companies and the Israeli government have been supplying and developing weapons for the Burmese regime, and sharing intelligence:

• Home
• Article Archives
• Listen to Alex Jones
• Contact TruthNews

Black Listed News
October 01, 2007

H.R.2640 has passed the House with an unrecorded voice vote, and is slated to enter the Senate under a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate. This will, in effect, steamroll the passage of a bill that will serve to strip 2nd Amendment liberties away from citizens diagnosed with mental illnesses.

The bill aims to ease the transfer of mental health records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database. It will effectively criminalize “a person [who] has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution” and permanently revoke their ability to own or purchase a firearm. This overly-broad term will criminalize a wide range of mental illnesses, including ADHD, Alzheimer’s Syndrome, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Another source of data will be the records of students identified with behavioral disabilities under the IDEA Program.

This bill is being referred to as the “McCarthy Bill” and is on its way to the Senate floor. Please let your Senator know your feelings about this unjust bill that aims to deprive citizens of their liberties without due process and further stigmatize our veterans and other people with mental health disorders.

Technorati Tags: Second Amendment

James Ostrowski
Lew Rockwell
October 1, 2007

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer about why the Democratic Congress refuses to end the war they were elected to end. She said she needs two-thirds of the votes in each house to override a veto.

Nancy, you can audit my class in the Constitution anytime.

“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…”

That means that to end the war, the House must simply fail to pass a bill to continue funding it. That would take a tie vote!

They could also pass a bill to fund the withdrawal. The President could veto that but then would look like an ass and a liar if he later complained that he lacked the funds to withdraw the troops.

On CSPAN, Joe Biden mumbled out some scenario like “I won’t leave troops in the field without equipment.” Huh? Joe, when the Congress cuts off funding, the program must cease. If the President continues a federal program without authorization, he should be impeached. If his intentional disregard for the Constitution causes a single unnecessary death, he should be prosecuted.

Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Constitution, Iraq

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=64

101,
My problem is how do you fund a withdrawl?
Does that mean we cease patrols? Doing whatever the military folks want to do? Do we limit bullets?, bombs? Withdrawing usually means increased use of airpower. Do we curtail their use?
It is virtually impossible to tell if some activities are for withdrawl and some are for attacking. Sometimes you have to attack to give yourself some breathing room.

There is no way to say this operaiton is ok in one sense and not ok in another.

Bush simply couches it that the Dem congress is telling the military how to fight a war.

The way out is to remove money as an issue.

96.dog soldier

...The way to avoid abortions is to avoid getting pregnant. Simple biology right? This is not as easy as it sounds.
To do anything in that direction, Dems have to look at reasons women choose to have children and abort later.
Having worked building inner-city businesses, the society and cultural influences can be crushing. However, if Dems want to win the abortion battle, this is where the fight must take place...

=================
I am not against the so called right-to-choose, just against the right to wait until it resembles, in form and action, a human being before deciding to kill it.

Democrat would be wise to say, "if you want to choose to abort, decide as early as possible." It is the only responsible position from both the humanitarian view or from the woman's health perspecive, barring exceptional medical circumstances.

Anything can be true if you make relevant facts "irrespective." 

104,
That sounds nice but it is already too late. We need to make it easier for women who are pressured to have kids to refuse to get pregnant.
I mentioned the economy because where the economy is better, abortion rates go down.
So, my own experience indicates unwanted pregnacies are more prevalent in inner-cities then the burbs because the economy is better in the burbs.
If we want to encourage people to take control of their own lives then we have to help them take that control.
That means improving jobs, schools, all the Dem buzz words that conservatives hate because we have poured billions into these programs and the inner-city economy still sucks and the schools are bad.
The only way government can help is by being the banker and insurer of choice; not the implementor.

Sitka wrote "Anything can be true if you make relevant facts 'irrespective.'"

How true.  Irrespective of that, that Ralph Nader is admirable is not relevant to whether his was a vanity campaign for president or not. 

Think of it as reducing the demand for abortions by reducing the number of those that may be aborted.
Work on the supply side first. It is not voodoo social planning but taking control of the "family values" issue from Repubs.

My hubby made a chilling statement after watching Hillary last week, he said "Hillary seems gitty with the thought of power".

• Home
• Article Archives
• Listen to Alex Jones
• Contact TruthNews

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
October 2, 2007

Peaceful onlookers were arrested by police for reading the Constitution while a pro-war group was allowed full freedom of speech in Washington DC recently in another flagrant example of how American cops are now the enforcers of a tyrannical police state.

Police are required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution but this didn’t stop them from kidnapping members of the Code Pink group, who gathered on a nearby sidewalk to calmly express their disagreement with a Neo-Con pro-war event taking place nearby by reading the bill of rights.

The pro-occupation group “Vets for Freedom” held a rally at Upper Senate Park, Washington DC, on Saturday September 22nd. Their guest speakers included Neo-Con criminals John McCain, Johny Isakson and Joe Lieberman.

Watch the video.

My problem with Nader is not the fact he said there was no difference between Repubs and Dems but he never said how he is different. What was he going to do? What was his vision? Anybody know?

Pelosi needs to read the Constitution

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer about why the Democratic Congress refuses to end the war they were elected to end. She said she needs two-thirds of the votes in each house to override a veto.

she's lying

If Hillary gets to the WH, we will need some comic relief.
How about Bubba wondering around the interns?
We should send Hillary tons of blue dresses.
The tabloids will never quit.

      103 dog            { The way out is to remove money as an issue.] dog you want this war to end or not? its all about the money wake up smell the coffee, cut the fund stops the killin  just like they did in vietnam.

If Hillary gets to the WH, we will need some comic relief.
How about Bubba wondering around the interns?
We should send Hillary tons of blue dresses.
The tabloids will never quit.

dog wrote "What was [Nader] going to do? What was his vision? Anybody know?"

Read "Crashing the Party" for a definitive answer, but I perceived that Nader's real disillusionment with the Democratic Party came with the triangulation policies of the Clinton administration.  He vehemently opposed the free speech rationalization for corporation backed campaign contributing, regarding both parties as strumpets who put out for the biggest givers.  As a consequence, he believed that Democrats watered down labor laws, environmental laws, work safety laws, consumer protection laws, and other citizen lobby laws that he worked hard to promote.

114,
Cutting the funding came in 1975; we were out by then.

my referance for the above
http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html

The 1975 funding cut made it impossible for the South VN to continue, but we were out by then.
The 1975 funding cut did not affect our troops at all.

The funding thing is a trap the Repubs want us to fall into.
There is no way we are going to say...starting Oct 1, 2008 (the next funding year), all funding for troops in Iraq stops.
There will be exceptions (embassy, training, al Queda, reconstruction assistance). Self-defense will be exempted.
To get the troops out, get somebody else in charge; even if it is someone likse Sadr who hates us. We prefer it be someone who hates us as that makes it legitimate.

The only way the funding thing works is if we set a date and force milestones.
Say..October 1, all troops are out.
We expect 25% by February 1.
We expect 50% by May 1.
We expect 75% by August 1.

Force dates and force Bush to state over and over again why is he dragging his heels? In business, you demand when are the goals be met and I dunno is not accepted. It is the same thing we do to Maliki so give Bush some of his own medicine.

This is the only way Dems take control of the issue. It is not the money; it is the conditions that are important.

another thread

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22429...

dog soldier
Tue, 10/02/07
5:49 pm

You are possibly leaving out a major factor in the equation, the boyking can't effectively pull off anything but graft and disaster. He either knows this is the case OR this is the case intentionally.

There is enough of everything to fund, protect, and even do the PR for a withdrawl - if there was the will. The will on the part of the DCDems is now questionable, very questionable. The will for the ReThugs will have to come in much the same form as mace or a taser gives incentive to comply.

Woohoo!!!

Obey's plan to paygo the war by rescinding the tax cuts is on the table!!!

Charlie Rangel is on the Clinton team so Hillary is the one that gets to decide whether or not Republicans are going to forced to vote to pay for their war.

I'm betting they line it up so Bush vetoes the supplemental after Democrats find a way to pay for it. Stick his childrens health care rehtoric right back in his face.

Steal childrens health care and then make them pay off the debt for his war. What a guy!

My problem with withdrawl is how do you define it?
I have wrestled with this a lot and everything that has to be allowed for the troops to defend themselves can also be called invasion.
The difference is subtle but important.
So, to me, funding for withdrawl is impossible because there is no way to explicitly define withdrawl that deosn't get folks killed.
The only way is to set a date and tie funding to a date and make it binding.
There is no modifiers. There is no embassy, oil, reconstruction support. There are no troops left behind. We only pay

115.DANIEL ROONEY

If Hillary gets to the WH, we will need some comic relief
=============

One good thing about Hillary getting elected is that Saturday Night Live ane Jay Leno will be a lot funnier.

Make sure America knows that the money will be there for the troops to leave, and if they stay the course, it gets paid for by taxing the Bush base.

yyyyyyeeeeahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

grab 'em where it hurts

and damm!t people we have Howard at the head of the party and can make those reforms right now if we seize the moment

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22429...

sorry Donna, a baby bob calf

# 35   Good point. I also wonder why the MSM showed "50,000 protesters"in awe in Jena, and they have not shown the hundreds of thousands in the streets against the war. They can show peaceful protesters being beaten in the former Burma, but not peaceful protesters in the U.S being beaten. The teapot is ready.

Irrespective of that, that Ralph Nader is admirable is not relevant to whether his was a vanity campaign for president or not.

As I pointed out, it's not a "vanity" campaign when you actually accomplish something like start a movement that lives beyond the campaign -- and is still growing.

By your definition any campaign that doesn't win is vanity. But what you really mean is, any campaign you don't approve of is such. 

I'm betting they line it up so Bush vetoes the supplemental after Democrats find a way to pay for it. Stick his childrens health care rehtoric right back in his face.

Put your money on Lucky 13 before you put it on DCDems. 

Woohoo!!!

Obey's plan to paygo the war by rescinding the tax cuts is on the table!!!

Lincoln was right -- some people can be fooled all of the time.