The Democratic Party is relevant.

[LoZoccolo]

If you take an objective look at the differences between voting records of Democratic and Republican legislators, you will find differences which are relevant to the people who need the bills passed.

Also, there is an opportunity every two years to nominate another Democrat for election if you do not like the one that is there. If that action is not electorally feasible we have the opportunity and responsibility to gain consensus amongst the electorate to change that as well.

And that is to say nothing of the fact that we are members of the Democratic Party and it is as relevant as we put forth the effort to make it relevant.

[Taverner]

1. There's no doubt that WE work to make it relevant

But all the work we did in 2008, useless. We could have elected a potted plant and had better results.

I feel that its time to either rebuild the party from the ground up, or seriously think of a switch.

[LoZoccolo]

2. I think the use of hyperbole and insult starts consigning arguments to irrelevance.

Take three...

[Taverner]

3. OK, I'll rephrase it then

Nearly all of us are disillusioned

If you think that's untrue, take a look around the board. Take a look around the country, and talk to other lefties, other Democrats.

We all know we've been played. Obama promised one thing, and did another.

Even on one that's seemingly a no-brainier: Repeal of DADT.

The courts nullified it, and Obama could have left it be, but no, he brought it BACK. Holder kept the case GOING after we won.

With friends like that, honestly, who needs enemies?

With that in mind, what are we going to do to keep from getting fooled again.

Yeah, Obama gives great pillow talk. But that's about all he's done.

[LoZoccolo]

4. The issue is now before the Senate, is it not?

What do you think would need to be done to do to repeal it at this point?

[Taverner]

6. We won, then we lost.

Tell me that was not the case
Because he wanted to try it once more, just to make it super-real? Please

[LoZoccolo]

9. If you asked him why he did what he did, what would he say? n/t

[Taverner]

11. Who the hell cares?

Do you really care what the guy who shot you said after they did it?

[LoZoccolo]

19. Because then it becomes what is known as a class two disagreement.

A class one disagreement is a genuine disagreement.
A class two disagreement is one in which at least one party cannot explain the other's position to the other's satisfaction. Get to the stage where you understand why what's being done is what's being done such that we can image Obama saying "yes, that is correct" and I'll believe that you have a genuine disagreement with him.

[Taverner]

29. That's what I call a 'cop out'

And I'm fucking sick of it!

[Greyhound]

5. And it would have easily won.

Rebuilding the Party would be great but the 'rules' make that next to impossible. I hope it is different elsewhere, but my experience has been that proposing even the slightest deviation from the existing bosses agenda or proposals just gets you kicked out. Local party leadership is not democratic, they are appointed by the higher levels.

[Taverner]

8. Rules can suddenly find themselves in an open pyre

[Greyhound]

26. One can hope...

:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

17. Let me get this straight. The 'rules' make rebuilding the party less to impossible. But a third

party gaining traction is eminently possible under our nation's current election rules?

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

25. Misquoting and trying to assert positions not taken. How very unoriginal of you.

And the band played on...
:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

18. Agree -- plus, both parties have cooperated in setting up corporate control over debates....

for one huge issue --

a private corporation now controls our Presidential debates!!

They also cooperate in barring any challenge to the two-party monopoly --

[defendandprotect]

14. Can we move on and take the party with us .... leaving the corporates behind?

Which reminds me --

Was just watching Scott Brown challenging the Generals on DADT -- and

very well done I have to say -- but it reminded me that GOP not only targeted

liberal and moderate Democrats over decades, they also targeted their own

liberals and moderates.

However, the reverse has happened in the Democratic Party -- now only was GOP

targeting our liberals and moderates -- the DLC/Democrats were also targeting

our liberals and moderates -- while Rahm recruited new conservative Democrats!

Lack of support for liberals -- and plenty of money for corporate Dems!!

Quite contrary to the wishful thinking in this thread -- !!

[defendandprotect]

7. How relevant were Democrats and Pres given their huge mandate in '08 ....

they made themselves meaningless while resurrecting the GOP!!

You're ignoring a great deal to create a happy ending which doesn't exist --

Democratic Party and its agenda continue to be weakened by corporate influence over

the party -- weaker every session. The differences are fading.

And as you can see from Obama's record, his main advisors and those he trusts are too

often pro-corporates -- the very people who created the mess we're in -- Geithner,

Summers, Paulson, Bernanke. And, his new pals -- Alan Simpson, Bowles!


If you have been watching anything that DLC and Rahm have been doing ....

Also, there is an opportunity every two years to nominate another Democrat for election if you do not like the one that is there. If that action is not electorally feasible we have the opportunity and responsibility to gain consensus amongst the electorate to change that as well.

You know they have been working counter to the interests of the non-corporte wing of the party.

Rahm has been supporting conservate/pro-corporate Democrats, even when a more liberal Democrat

is the incumbent. Rahm also returned again to not opposing many sitting Repugs -- unlike what

Howard Dean was doing. Many of us can also tell you that decades ago the Democratic Party

became the party of the richer -- very difficult for any ordinary American to run for office

any longer -- even as a Democrat.

Try it yourself and see what happens --


And that is to say nothing of the fact that we are members of the Democratic Party and it is as relevant as we put forth the effort to make it relevant.

Many of us have already put forth the effort -- long ago!

And it has been met with betrayal by the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party.

It is up to the Democratic Party now to consider where their future lies --

Will they survive a system where Repugs are getting $7 for every $1 they are getting without

moving further to the right and total destruction?

Or will they rid themselves of the corporate influence over the party and regain the support

of Democratic voters?

It's up to them -- not us.

[Taverner]

10. Exactly

Every day is a day I am that much closer to joining some Socialist party. Not the Greens, they're TRULY irrelevant.

[defendandprotect]

16. Well, think most of us think of Sen. Bernie Sanders as a "Democrat" ....

but if we're looking for a liberal to run in 2012, we need to begin soon --

[MineralMan]

24. Which Socialist party did you have in mind?

How successful have they been in recent elections? More successful than the Greens? Really?

If that's your decision, you'll be irrelevant in any election. Good luck.

[Taverner]

28. Good question, and how worse is it being irrelevant if you already are?

[defendandprotect]

31. Let's be honest that it is the two parties which cooperate together to block

third party activity -- and to keep IRV voting from happening in America -

every other nation is using some form of alternate choice voting system.

At the end of '08, the GOP was irrelevant and pretty much had collapsed.

Obama resurrected them -- gave them relevance -- sad to say!

[leftstreet]

12. +1

[asdjrocky]

13. HUGE yawn.

You really need to step up your game bro.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I'd say the ad hominems are an indication that my game is pretty good. n/t

[asdjrocky]

21. I'm shocked.

Shocked I tell you. There is no ad hominem here, I'm giving you encouragement.

[LaurenG]

15. Really? You really think so?

I don't think either party is relevant. Perhaps the idea of a political party is but not the everyday people in them.

[slay]

22. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain

The game is rigged. There are too many repubs who run as Dems and hold the entire party hostage - that is, when the repubs themselves aren't doing it with their 60 vote shit. The system is broken - and Obama does not seem like the guy to try to fix it. We tried to run Dean in 2004 and the media assassinated him with the "Dean Scream". Kucinich runs ever 4 years it seems but all the media focuses on is tabloid shit like how weird he looks or that he says he saw a UFO one time.

The system is broken, and the powerful Dems and Repubs like it that way - they stay in power while doing very little to help the average person while the rich just keep getting richer every minute.

Yes, there are some differences between the parties but many are purely social differences like gay marriage, abortion, etc. But as far as policy goes, Gore Vidal was right - We have two right wing parties in this country - the Republicans and the Democrats. Liberals need to understand this.

[LoZoccolo]

23. If that were so, which I don't think so, what is to prevent people from acting like Republicans

in your new third party? I'm assuming that if you want it to engulf the Democrats, you will have to get every Democrat on board with it, or else it becomes irrelevant by never taking power. Why wouldn't they vote for the same kind of people in the primary? If they are falling for tricks now, why wouldn't they in the future? If you are going to teach them not to fall for tricks, why would you need a third party in order to do that?

It is this lack of follow-through that convinces me that the third-party thread is more of a tantrum than a serious plan. That and the fact that it has been discussed ad nauseum and never materialized.

[slay]

27. I never even mentioned a "new 3rd party"... but since you bring it up...

I'm not sure what the answer is - but there is definitely a problem - i'm not sure a third party would work - and even if it would it would take years to take hold and like you said would be open to the same bullshit we're going through now. i never mentioned starting a new 3rd party in my post though. if we could actually get a GOOD Dems in office that would be my first choice. but if the Dems continue to betray us, people will have to decide when they have had enough and what they want to do about it. it will be interesting to see how the next year or so unfolds in the liberal community.

as far as the "third party" stuff - again i never brought it up - but i'm sure as hell not going to be held hostage so much by a corrupt 2-party system that i would rule out the possibility! :P

[defendandprotect]

32. Thom Hartmann today asked: "Should Obama announce he's stepping down in 2012?"

At the very least we need a new candidate for 2012 -- a truly liberal Democrat

for president -- and someone with human compassion ---

As I mentioned above, we all think of Sen. Bernie Sanders as a "Democrat" --

then there's Grayson and a few others --

You have any thoughts on candidates?

[slay]

36. I think you hit on the top two

Bernie Sanders and Grayson. I'd settle for Dean though. At this point it looks like we desperately need somebody!

[JackRiddler]

30. You should wonder why you'd feel a need to frame it this way.

As in, who said it was irrelevant?

The real question is: What is it?

Or, what should it be?

Or, can it be what it should be, and if not, what then?

[LoZoccolo]

35. Someone else posted a thread that asked if it was relevant, but it got locked. n/t

[asdjrocky]

33. To millionaires and billionaires maybe.

Everyone else, not so much.

[dbt]

34. Is a shit statement.

Another shit statement.