Should We Be Surprised?
A question in the aftermath of Chairman Lieberman's heroic return to the welcoming arms of the Senate Democratic club: Should we be surprised?
No, really, this is a serious question.
With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?
As gross as the Senate statement celebrating the demise of "the Left" is, there's a truth in the part where the aide says progressives "can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes." That truth is that the progressive movement - as independent from the Democratic Party - is still incredibly weak.
Because so much organizing under the banner of the "progressive movement" is - in reality - electoral organizing on behalf of the Democratic Party, there's very little independent leverage over that Democratic Party, especially in non-election periods. As just one example, when, for instance, Moveon.org gets swallowed whole by the Obama campaign and turned into just another Internet appendage of that campaign, a group like Moveon.org subsequently has no real independent leverage over the Democratic Party because Moveon has trained its own members to believe participation in Moveon - and in the "progressive movement" - is always synonymous with reflexively supporting Democratic leaders (by the way, I cite this not to pick on Moveon - this is the basic construct of many progressive organizations, but I use Moveon just to give an example we can all relate to).
So, in many ways, the now-daily public attacks on "the Left" from congressional Democrats - while motivated from their Reagan-era cultural hatred of Dirty Fucking Hippies - is to be completely expected from a party that has failed to deliver on every major progressive promise it has made, and has nonetheless faced no real retribution. It is par for the course from leaders who quite understandably feel little fear from a still-weak progressive movement.
They believe - with justifiable reason - that come election time we'll all forget their failings, whether failing to end the war or failing to disempower Lieberman. They believe that most "progressive movement" activists will actually do what they did during the last election - berate anyone who floats the idea that movement organizing and carrot-and-stick treatment of the Democratic Party during election time is actually a good thing. They believe, in short, that come 2010, we'll all fall in line and be an ATM machine of partisan campaign contributions and candidate volunteer time because we are still very much organized as a party, not a movement.
And here's the thing: Except for a few fleeting primaries, most of recent history suggests their calculation is right.
If we want to avoid this kind of thing in the future, we better understand why this happened. Because if we don't, and somehow still expect "change we can believe in," we're epitomizing Albert Einstein's "definition of insanity" - we're "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Crosspost via Open Salon
Disgusted? Yes.
Surprised? No.
Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesNovember 18, 2008 - 5:28pmGet Rid of Lieberman, Palosi, and Reed
The Democratic leadership is the source of the problems in congress....get rid of Palosi and Reed ASAP.....I'm sickened by Reed's and the Dems spine-less support of the Traitor and 'jerk' Lieberman....from the video on the home page of AirAmerica it's obvious that Lieberman lied about his agressive attacks against Obama.....I'm tired of these 2-faced politicians in Washington, and especially the Democratic leadership.
- Email this page
By mk.seattle@hotm...November 18, 2008 - 5:32pmBut...but...but...
...but just LOOK at the size of that welt on his wrist! That won't fade for HOURS!
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manNovember 18, 2008 - 6:05pmSurprised? No.
It's to be expected from The Club. That aside...
What is needed is an immediate response, or as immediate as possible, to this...
...as they need to see clearer evidence of our influence so as to no longer question it.
I suggest starting in Georgia, where Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on their way to their all-important, magically-fantastic "60 Seats!" (nevermind that blocking a filibuster requires 60 votes, not 60 seats).
Surely they are hoping for assistance from all factions of the Party.
And that assistance should be denied by The Left.
No money. No time. No knocks on doors. No calls. No votes. Nothing.
Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Let them win without the "influence" of The Left (an "influence", one might add, that helped to provide them access to our White House this election season). Let'em win without us.
My bet is they don't. So much for their 60 seats.
Target two?
A primary challenge to their Senate Majority Leader in 2010.
Now, some might point to this as but an example of "a fleeting primary", but I would argue the nature of such a high profile race makes it far more than that. Nobody can argue that a victory from The Left over the sitting Dem Senate Majority Leader would not have some sitting up and taking notice. A Majority Leader losing to opposition from within during a primary would be just as big as it is when losing in a general to opposition from without. "Senate Majority Leader Daschle Loses!" ring a bell?
And, providing them evidence of our influence outside of helping them come election time has to start somewhere. What better place to start than using our influence to take out one of their own come election time?
Apparently, last time wasn't a strong enough message.
Which is why a third target should be permanently putting his political career to rest in 2012.
And why stop there?
____________________
Shifting Gears: From "More and Better Democrats" to "Better and Better Democrats".
- Email this page
By SJerseyIndyNovember 18, 2008 - 6:33pmSurprise!
Holy Cheney.
____________________
Yo, grandy jury members: Go fuck yourselves!
- Email this page
By SJerseyIndyNovember 18, 2008 - 7:03pm.
.
- Email this page
By aaazzz111November 18, 2008 - 7:10pmAn example of why the Dems are considered weak...
This is a weak decision, as are those keeping Pelosi and Hoyer.
Sickening. No wonder it is so easy for Paulson, et al to shift all their garbage into the waiting hands of the Democrats.
G0P Trinity: Failure, Fraud, Deceit.
- Email this page
By Abou Ben AdamNovember 18, 2008 - 11:40pmBy Abou Ben AdamNovember 18, 2008 - 11:40pm
It is weak. Basically the democratic politicians never ONCE stood up to the republicans. Not as a minority with a filibuster nor as the majority. Now they get even more majority and they are doing everything they can to avoid using their power.
Basically I believe the problem is this. The democratic politicians believe that confrontation and application of justice are seen as "left wing" and they believe they need to govern from the center. Well they need to learn that seeking justice is not left, right or center. It is that the job they are suppose to do. If they let the criminals off the hook like they did in 1992 then they are not governing from any side at all. They are just enabling the criminals that have plagued us for the last 8 years which makes them part of the problem.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 1:27amHey f u, can we start your 5- year plan a little early?
Or are we supposed to wait " just a little while longer" for corporate lap dogs like Pelosi and Reid to throw us some table scraps?
- Email this page
By thaelmann37November 19, 2008 - 8:29amBy thaelmann37November 19, 2008 - 8:29am
Well I think it's started already. This is the phase where we keep record of what changes we wanted to see happen and whether or not they came to pass. As time goes on we should weigh the failures and the accomplishments.
In a few years time should we decide the democrats have let us down, we will have a record of pointing out the problems and it won't be the same old call out of the blue for third party/ throw the democrats under the bus. We need to keep the criticism going and hope the politicians respond. That would be the best solution. If the democrats in office think that people might feel let down and not show up next election unless they deliver.
Unlike the right wingers, I think we can be honest in this debate and point out the good and the bad of the democrats in office. The world of the right winger is black and white and that is what hurt their party and our nation.
In any event we need to really send a statement about the corporate party. Joe has to go next election and Pelosi/Reid need to have their seats taken away. There is already at least one fight over a committee seat in which blue dog dem is bashing another dem who I believe has tried to stand up to the republicans.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 9:20amVery weak
Obama
we'll see what you do in 2012. Will you support Joe or the democratic nominee?
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 1:21amOk... Fine...
Man, that is depressing.
But change doesn't happen overnight.
Ok, we swept out the right-wing kooks. Hell, we even pushed them into nominating their most moderate candidate in the primaries... That's a good start.
If the current Democratic party is insufficiently progressive THEN LET THEM BE THE NEW RIGHT and work to replace them with more progressive leaders.
We may not be there yet, but we're a hell of a lot closer than we were a month ago.
But remember, this is a democracy. The farther you are from the center, the less likely you are to get what you want.
The trick is to make WHERE YOU ARE the "center". That means educating people.
- Email this page
By A GNovember 19, 2008 - 7:49amI understand that no Dem head in Gov. is expendable right now.
And I get that Clinton team members are good people, especially with Obama directioning.
I comprende that, Leibersnitzel is a vote we can't part with...right now (he's going headfirst down a stairwell later) But how about throwing the Libs and Greens a few bones? Reach a hand out for Ralph, if you're so inclined to be real about inclusion. Bring in Chuck and David too (No, not Norris and Duke!)
- Email this page
By aaazzz111November 19, 2008 - 10:52am"Bring in Chuck and David
"Bring in Chuck and David too (No, not Norris and Duke!)"
Chuck Norris' tears have healing powers. Too bad Chuck never cries.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyNovember 19, 2008 - 2:55pm2010
Progressives will wait and see what CHANGE really means. Then if we dont see progressive CHANGE .It is time to sit out. No more support for Democratic party it is time for a new party.We might lose few elections but we will not lose our soul and principal. We are a silent majority in this country who have been chetaed and lied by our politicans for so many years. It is not Repubicans who elected Obama .It is not vengance agianst Liberamn Mr Obama :it is called PRINCIPAL.He voted for Bush foreign policy 100% of time more than John McCain.
And more than anyone else in lthe ast 10 years has advoctaed multiple wars on Middle Eastern countries.
It is more than ever time to start A Liberal Progressive Party. See then how many elections Dems will win without us.
- Email this page
By captureaaNovember 19, 2008 - 11:04amYou are not going to see progressive change.
Obama is a moderate and a DLCer. Did you miss everything he has been saying and doing the last 2 years?
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 11:17amBy hufflarry 2000November 19, 2008 - 11:17am
Your problem huff is that you see the world in black and white just like a right winger. This leads me to continue to believe you are nothing more than a right wing troll.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 11:39amNo, the problem is that you dont
like that most people are not selfish, self righteous libtards. You wont get what you want and it makes you angry.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 11:44amBy hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 11:44am
Yep. Talking to you is like talking to hatey.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 12:07pm" You won't get what you want..."
Yeah, how dare we ask for justice and a decent standard of living? We should just grovel at our master's feet and hope they notice us from time to time.
You should listen to f u, huff. The mind set of the centrist corporate democrat is not to different from the right wing corporate republican is not too different it seems.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37November 19, 2008 - 12:42pmThen why did almost everyone in this forum
vote for Obama? He was never a liberal. What did everyone think Obama was going to be like? I think he made it completely clear.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 12:46pmBy hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 12:46pm
We voted for something new. We wanted change in the party. We still hope Obama will be an improvement.
We are not republicans. We can see politicians for what they are. No politician will be exactly what we want. That is not the point. The point is that there are serious weaknesses in the democratic party when it comes to fighting for what's right and pursuing justice. This weakness of the party has to change.
We could have said "screw it! the democrats won't come through" and not voted in 2008. But we have hope that change is coming and Obama will come through for us. He won't be everything everyone wants him to be. And if I criticize him from time to time it doesn't mean I don't support him. But in a few more years we will have to ask whether the democratic party has grown a spine or not.
Now we can either declare right now that we will not come out to vote in 2012 if the democrats do not make an effort to change or we can say we are all part of the democratic party and Obama fan club and that we think they can do no wrong. Which do you think will be most effective?
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 1:03pmBy hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 12:46pm
As opposed to Hillary whose hardcore, grass-roots, lefty principles have been well established? Right?
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyNovember 19, 2008 - 2:57pmExactly
Hillary is much more liberal than Obama. That is why I supported her during the primaries.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000November 19, 2008 - 3:05pmHA!... Talk about naive!
Wake up and smell the credit default swaps, glue-huffer!
Make no mistake... The defining characteristics of the human species are selfishness and stupidity.
- Email this page
By A GNovember 20, 2008 - 7:13amPffft!... Yeah... Well...
Standing next to status quo uber-corporatist 'SHILL'ary Clinton, Obama looks like fucking Che Guevara.
- Email this page
By A GNovember 20, 2008 - 7:12amBy captureaa November 19, 2008 - 11:04am
The way to go about this is:
1. Make it clear to everyone you know that we should be watching from this point forward. That we are making notes and evaluating the good and the bad from the democratic party and specifically Obama. That way it isn't a spontaneous discussion 4 years from now that catches everyone off guard.
2. Make it clear that we are giving the democrats a chance. We are not hoping for failure on their part simply because we have this dream of a third party. We are also willing to acknowledge the good changes that come and consider those good points in the final analysis four years from now.
My argument is that if the democrats do not investigate, prosecute or impeach when necessary then they are part of the problem and need to go. However this discussion usually comes up at election time and most voters are not as politically aware so this point gets lost. At election time the same old argument is trotted out that to vote for a third party is to vote for the republicans and pointing out that the democrats are part of the problem falls on deaf ears.
This needs to be discussed constantly over the next four years. How have the democrats failed in the past 8 years? What do we expect from them? Are they still falling back to old ways? Are they doing some things right?
Keeping this in the public debate will make it easier to discuss come election time.
And every step of the way we should hope that the democrats come around. Because that is the easiest solution to our problems. The alternative, voting third party until the party grows or the democrats change, will be painful in the short term but ultimately the right solution should the democrats fail in their duties. And no one should think this is simply a movement for a third party for the sake of a third party, but something that needs to be done to fix our nation.
Where does our power lie? With our vote. To drive the politicians in the right direction requires a threat to withhold a vote sometimes. A threat with conviction to follow through.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 19, 2008 - 11:26amA "progressive" party would be a republicans...
...wet dream.
If there was a viable progressive party to go along with the Dems/Repubs.....repubs win.
I think "progressives" have for the most part been betrayed by the democratic party. Basically used because quite frankly progressives have nowhere else to turn.
Same thing can be said for conservatives. The republicans certainly haven't been fiscally responsible and have grown government ginormously.
The only way a "progressive" party can be created without handing every election to the republicans is for a viable 4th party....something conservatives can turn to.....there nothing in the wind in that regard.
I here what your saying but you'd be handing power back to the repubs....really don't like saying that because I think we need more viable options other than the 2 party system.
- Email this page
By SgtDNovember 20, 2008 - 2:43pmBy SgtDNovember 20, 2008 - 2:43pm
It depends on how you define success. If the progressives feel like the democratic party is still part of the problem in 2012 then success will not be fielding a winning candidate. Success will be fielding a candidate that gets 5% of the vote and costs the dems the election and again in 2014 and again and again until democratic voters join the new party or new politicians make the democratic party a better party.
Having that candidate to vote for shows that the people are actively expressing their displeasure with the dems and not just staying home.
I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. But I'm just pointing out that under such a scenario, success does not mean winning the election. It means affecting the election.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 20, 2008 - 3:03pmBut the country really afford power...
....being handed back to an un-reformed republican party?
At the present time and for the next couple of cycles I'm thinking you'd get better results by trying to reform the dems from within....progress would only be incremental but we simply can't afford turning power back over to the repubs (as they are now)
My hope, as a conservative, is that a couple ass whoopings will force the repubs to change. ie get away from being the moral police/religious whacko party/grow government party....and champion fiscal responsibility...avoid foreign intervention unless absolutely necesary...and shrink government. They do that and I could back them again.
- Email this page
By SgtDNovember 20, 2008 - 3:22pmI agree
Unless we adopt instant runoff voting or a parliamentary government, it's going to be 2 parties. That means reform the one we have or let the other side run things. At least at the moment what we're getting is a centrist Dem party in charge. I actually liked what a centrist Bill Clinton president brought us in the 90s, I'd be more in favor if we hadn't gone so far right for the last 8 years that we need a full bore pendulum swing to get back the lost ground.
- Email this page
By gt6November 21, 2008 - 3:47pmgt6 and SgtD
Im not advocating right now at this moment to vote third party in 2012.
Let me just sum it up this way. If the democrats once again fail to investigate and prosecute when necessary, those who have committed serious crimes and fail to reverse the policies of the Bush administration then they are part of the problem. In which case we have 2 parties; neither worth voting for.
So if 2012 rolls around and no one ha been investigated for illegal wire tapping, outing CIA officers, starting wars for no good reason, torture etc. AND the policies have not been legally reversed so they will not happen again then I will be supporting a plan to vote out the democrats with a successful campaign to deprive the democrats of 5% of the vote they would have gotten otherwise.
And all this crap about "well the republicans..." won't mean a damn thing in that case.
The way to boycott is to target one store, not all. Make that one store change and the others will follow. Same idea here. If neither party is doing it's job, make it clear that a bunch of voters the dems would have are not voting for the dems specifically because they are unhappy with them. Dangle that promise of elections to be won out there if only...
In the mean time the spineless dems will be voted out of office.
That is if we don't see some real change in the party before then.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 21, 2008 - 4:46pmThe only reason the spineless Dems stayed in office
...was because the alternative was far, far worse.
We've again elected the lesser of two evils, although this one appears to be a lot closer to the "good" side of the ledger than anything we've seen in a couple of decades. If Obama proves to be at least as effective as Clinton was, and doesn't turn into the bounder Clinton showed himself to be, we might just have a chance at keeping this Republic going a few more years.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manNovember 21, 2008 - 5:01pmBy nonexistent manNovember 21, 2008 - 5:01pm
I agree with the effective governing argument.
But my point is that if the republicans institute torture and illegal surveillance (to give two examples) and the democrats do not reverse those policies or investigate the matter then it doesn't matter whether or not the democrats use those policies. They will be in place waiting for those that will use them and expand them and no message of punishment will be delivered for violating the constitution.
These are the issues that woke people up long before the economy hit. If the dems do nothing on these issues and others then they are just as responsible for destroying our constitution and I will not vote for them in 2012 regardless of how welll they govern. And people like me only need to convince 5% of the voters to wage a successful campaign.
I think it is important to:
1. Talk about this now so people are thinking about it
2. Make it clear that the desired outcome is for the democrats to come through and do the right thing. This isn't simp,y a cause to get a third party rolling.
3. Follow through if necessary in 2012.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 21, 2008 - 5:18pmTrue enough
...but in this venue, you're preaching to the choir. There needs to be a means of communicating directly to those who have a hand in the outcome, not just those who can make as much noise as we can.
I have my Senators' addresses and phone numbers. I also have my Representatives in the address book, although I tend not to use them as much...they have to spend too much time campaigning every two years. And I've actually received a personal response from one of my Senators in the last year, so I know I am at least being heard. This, then, is the heart of a representative republic.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manNovember 21, 2008 - 5:39pmBy nonexistent manNovember 21, 2008 - 5:39pm
I'm busy at the moment but I have a letter started that I plan to send to radio hosts and organizations like moveon. I'm hoping to find out how to organize a movement around this idea. I feel it is very important to get people thinking about this now and through the next four years. Because every election cycle those who pay attention, bring this up and most people don't get it. They only think about the lesser of two evils. And to be fair to the politicians, it's a little late at that point to expect more than a promise a few months before the election. The "threat" of withholding votes and why has to be delivered early so the politicians can respond.
Unfortunately for me this is a very busy time of my life and also I do not know how to start organizing this so other people are talking about it. So I plan to finish and revise my letter so it is short and to the point. Perhaps a radio host will take up the cause? Who knows.
And of course your point of writing to members of congress is a good one.
- Email this page
By f u bush2November 21, 2008 - 5:59pmBy f u bush2
These scenarios may be off mark. The Independent vote that is the Democrats strongest ally at this time, is measuring its own path of philosophy and to grooming a serious candidate for 2012...
The Democrats will try to cement their friends and foes in place, by keeping the Bushco atrocities and failures in the limelight for as long as the public's memory will allow.
Having these issues aired before Bush's amnesty and pardon pen is silenced, allows for Cheney and Rove the opportunity to slip from the net, along with their testamony implicating their boss.
Regardless, the backup threat against this pack of criminals, is the foreign interests vying to see restitution and example made in international court. Signs of these movements should appear in the first opening months of the coming year.
Long may Bushco's sorry a*ss burn on the fires of liable retribution.
- Email this page
By aaazzz111November 22, 2008 - 8:30amWars no longer control debt relief, so
Count the # of years between "End of Hoover" and "End of Johnson" presidencies (disregard Eisenhower, as he was a result of war), and you will get a close approx. of how long the Conservatives are going to be on the sidelines.....a generation. By that time they will be the new "Universal Party", with their headquarters in orbit above Earth, with new fortunes in extensive Lunar and asteroid mining operations.
Some Conservative once said, "Earth First, we'll log the other planets later"....well, that day is here. So. Get packing.
- Email this page
By aaazzz111November 21, 2008 - 8:30pm