HULK SMASHED
I think they should use clinton everywhere they can, some folks i have talked to wish he was still the prez, the only thing holding him back is hilary and ny but as a former new yorker can tell you she is more popular there than you think.
Hey Atrios,
Kos has added a line showing e-patriot sustainer donations projected out for one year. It makes it looks like he's really kicking your ass!
Judging from Kos' comments we are doomed to another 4 og Bushism. Is gonna suck.
What I'd like to see--and yes, I know this is entirely impossible--is a primary campaign that features no Democratic candidates sniping at each other and giving the neocons and media stooges extra ammunition.
Realistically: Funny ads. Get some of those ad agencies that put together the good, funny TV commercials, and have 'em put together some funny ads that people will actually remember.
Oh, and get Comedy Central's permission to use the Daily Show's "Bush vs. Bush" segment.
The left base and the DNC face a great problem: connecting the global vision issues of liberalism (anti-imperialism/peace, environmental sustainability, global social justice, etc.) with the day-to-day lives of people who are not saavy information consumers and grassroots political sophisticates.
"Environmentalism" is a bigger sell but the US population still engages in gluttonous mass consumption and subsequent pollution of all varieties. Anti-imperialism and the rest are not easy issues for people who are not informed deeply on political issues and history.
Tell the DNC that they need to start working on a longer term effort to inculcate into the awarenesses of people who are not the saavy information consumers of the blogosphere, who are not long-time readers of The Nation, Z Magazine, etc., that anti-imperialism and real environmentalism are very important issues which hit home on us all over generations. The right wing communicates to its less sophisticated adherents through religious networks and communities. Tell the DNC that those are great starting points as well.
Tell the DNC that liberalism will continue to be marginalized and the problems associated with imperialism, lack of social justice, environmental degration, etc., etc. will continue as well until the everyday joe has a general impression in his/her mind that those issues are real, even if there is not deep understanding or information to go with the awareness.
Why not have a commercial with clips of the Shrub's greatest moments with "Dare to Be Stupid" as the soundtrack? No doubt Weird Al would give permission; he might even be willing to do new lyrics...
The one thing that the Democratic candidates are not doing that the left wing blogosphere is doing is calling Bush names and coming up with witty slogans that rhyme. That's important! Until the Democratic Party can come up with a strategic name calling action plan, we are doomed to live under Rethuglican rule. This is how we are going to defeat aWol and his BFEE then banish them to the Duck Pit™ to reap a whirlwind!
Oh, and obviously, if the Dems don't start hammering--no, make that HAMMERING Bush and the neocons on the economy, the war, the lies, the bigot eruptions, the Patriot Act, etc., etc., etc., they can't win. The neocons have given us tons of material, and it would be a shame not to use it.
Oh, and turn Santorum, DeLay, Lott, Scalia, Thomas, Michael Weenie, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch, Lisa Myers, and the rest into Bush's co-candidates. They're embarrassments and traitors, and people need to start associating Bush with all of them.
Convince the public that fair trade, not free trade, should govern globalization. Tell them that the same free market treaties that allow for cheap labor and environmental degradation in developing nations are the same treaties that allow for permanent job losses, wage shrinkage and environmental degradation here. Tell the public that invading another country makes us less safe here and takes money away from other problems in times of crisis.
Hey Anonymous 5:21, I have a question. How come you conservatives believe that some Americans aren't entitled to decent health care? Why is that, exactly?
Remember - every Friday is "Ignore the Trolls Day!"
Plus free hot dogs and Cokes for the kids!
Generalissimo,
The United Methodist Church has a shockingly liberal social conscience ingrained into its best members.
But "charismaic christianity" (code for "Scriptural literalist" right wing nutcases with deep pockets) can take a church over by virtue of being on the finance committee, big donors, etc. I've watched this happen three times in less than 10 years in one small (Okay, population 180,000) Texas city. It's very heartbreaking: they can even force pastors out of the churches. If they can do that in the UMC, and have succeeded in the SBC into a fundi-led
"cure the gays by praying they'll renounce their sinful lifestyle" national cult (and they have), churches may be the last place true liberalism has a chance -- at least anywhere south of Massachusetts.
Other Sarah:
My point exactly. I indicated a longer term project, that is what I meant. Someone has got to get those who rely on religion to follow some better religious leaders.
(The Other Sarah: I don't claim have all the answers, either. I am just trying to say that the core issues of the left - which are global issues - have got to be made to resonate with people who are not necessarily educated, and not necessarily eager and saavy sophisticated information consumers. Labor and religion are great places to start, if any place can be said to be "great".)
Why not have a commercial with clips of the Shrub's greatest moments with "Dare to Be Stupid" as the soundtrack...
Sisi
Perhaps Dennis Leary's "I'm an Asshole" would be more appropriate.
I'm an asshole
(he's an asshole, what an asshole)
I'm an asshole
(he's the worlds biggest asshole)
Imagine that chorus playing in the background during...well, during pretty much any footage of Bush you've ever seen, anywhere.
Realistically: Funny ads. Get some of those ad agencies that put together the good, funny TV commercials, and have 'em put together some funny ads that people will actually remember.
What ever happened to Joe Slade White? Is he still around?
The most important thing is to start responding to attacks against liberals and Democrats. We've got to stop letting it slide because we think the atacks are silly or laughable.
I recently responded to a "letter to the editor" where a guy blamed hazing at a local high schools on liberals. I replied that given the the demograpic makeup and the 2000 election results in the area from which the school draws students, it might be more appropriate to blame conservatives, republicans and/or people of norwegian ancestry.
Hey Anonymous 5:21, I have a question. How come you conservatives believe that some Americans aren't entitled to decent health care? Why is that, exactly?
When did any conservatives say they didn't want decent health care for Americans? I am a conservative, I have a great health care plan and I didn't need the government to provide it. If someone you perceive as an idiot can obtain health care in this nation, why not everyone?
If you believe that socialized medicine is "decent health" care, you are sorely mistakened. Just ask the Canadian citizens that come to America for surgery because they have to wait in long queues for the same procedure in their home land. Or ask the British about their amazing socialized dental care systems or just have them smile to see the result. The minute you give the Government the ability to ration health care, they can start legislating your health and your personal habits.
Also, if Democrats are for a strong health care system, why are they supporting the folks that hurt doctors the most? Trial lawyers. If you look at what party doctors support the most, it might give insight on which party doctors think will help provide the best health care in America. I am curious how Dean is going to handle the trial lawyers. He knows the devistating effect they have on the health industry.
I don't know if this is on topic, but I'd also like to see a black person on the ticket. I'd like to hear what others think of this and who they'd suggest.
Here are a few ideas:
Harold Ford Jr (although he's a bit conservative for my taste)
Barbara Lee (Enron may be a problem)
Oprah Winfrey (I just thought of her. She could be a great candidate).
You know, Scooter may be onto something here. They made Dukakis run with Willie Horton as a running-mate. They made Clinton run with his penis. They made Gore run with two made-up personalities as both a serial liar and a robot. What Scooter proposes isn't even as unfair as any of that (even if it was, I wouldn't hesitate for a second if it meant getting the Smirking Foliage out of office). Just make him defend his friends. It's hard to sound like a 'compassionate conservative' with friends like Santorum, Coulter, Scalia, etc. If he tries to distance himself from them, his base goes nuts. If he stays close (and Dems can tie him to those people so tight he _can't_ get away, if they do it right) then the rest of the world will see what a lunatic assylum he's part of.
Anonymous- you didn't answer the question. What about people who don't have the economic means to afford free market healthcare?
So, Anonymous 5:57, since you claim to be so concerned about the fact that so many Americans do not enjoy access to decent health care, and since you also scoff at the idea that government can or should do anything to facilitate access to decent health care, what's your solution?
Will the mere elimination of Americans' ability to sue for malpractice enable the 45+ million Americans who currently do not have decent health care to obtain it? Will this lower premiums to such a degree that all their employers will suddently become able to offer them coverage? Or will every single one of those 45+ million Americans suddenly be able to simply walk up to an insurance agent and say, "Hi, I want health insurance. Give me some. Here's some money. Oh, and I want coverage for my pre-existing conditions too"? All because physicians won't have to make malpractice insurance payments anymore?
Well, will it?
How is nearly a quarter-billion in dollars in campaign cash going to be defeated?
The cash advantage alone will set a new historical precedent, as will the difference between the cash had by the DNC candidate and Bush. Conceivably, there could even be an order of magnitude difference, meaning that Bush's campaign can spend 10 dollars on mass propaganda to every 1 dollar spent trying to end the mass propaganda.
The cash advantage held by Bush, as cynical as it is - what it really means is that Bush has the support of the entire ruling class of America, who are spending what is for them chump change to be rewarded with further tax cuts and the like - is going to be the hegemonic determiner of the campaign, minus an unforseeable political crisis of some sort for the administration.
How do you beat the cash disadvantage?
Blogs, and those who read them, need to do the work for the press. It should be obvious to everyone, the press is filled with the lazy and the cowed. To make a story work, you need lots of facts and lots of sound. It is hard to deny a loud message that has the benefit of being factually based.
The thing to know is that the blogs have a wonderful ability to remain months ahead of any story you'll happen to see in the mainstream media. As blog writers and readers, we need to advance our agenda through good research and cogent ideas to help the process along.
We must always seek the higher plane. Gather your proof, present the better argument, and don't feed the trolls.
The Dems should just spent the entire warchest on getting out the eligible voters ...the votes are there...and then drive home the point to the "Guardians of Priviledge" party that "might does not make right".
The Dems should just spent the entire warchest on getting out the eligible voters ...the votes are there...and then drive home the point to the "Guardians of Priviledge" party that "might does not make right".
grapscarp, excellent point! The votes are there.
How do you beat the cash disadvantage?
Make them explain why American troops are dying in Iraq every day
Crossposted from The Daily Kos:
Thanks for this thread, Steve.
I think posters upthread have it: as long as elected officials are cowards, time-servers, and opportunists, it's like trying to sell a radio that doesn't pick up AM, FM or shortwave.
But those officials are pretty much like anyone else on the planet. They have just had more time near the honeypot to develop their grifting skills. They have to be told that their job, personally, is in immediate danger.
I tend to be pessimistic about this generation of Democratic leadership. I think that a new generation of leaders will have to be trained, probably by responding to the catastrophe that Bush is creating. McAuliffe could help by looking at the SNCC model to train deeply committed grassroots activists, people who are there rain and shine, not just at election time, people who are working in their communities to change things.
And activists themselves can do things to improve their effectiveness. Stop sneering at religion and find out why it's so central to so many people's lives. Learn to shoot a gun. Try line dancing-- it won't kill you. In other words, connect yourself to your own community. Do things others do, if only to understand what it's about.
There are books written about political organizing.
Meanwhile, back in the jungle:
WASHINGTON, June 27 — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cast doubt on Friday on the notion that attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq were rising to the level of a guerrilla war.
''I don't know that I would use the word,'' he said, when asked if the occupation was becoming a guerrilla conflict.
Rumsfeld then put his fingers in his air and sang loudly "La la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la la!"
Sorry, the jungle is here.
To anonymous - how can malpractice awards be remaining consistent and/or falling and insurance premiums be skyrocketing? If a cost of medicine "responsible" for skyrocketing insurance premiums is remaining static, it makes no sense for the premiums themselves to be skyrocketing...does it?
Jesse - are you talking about premiums for equivalent levels of service, or just premiums in general? If it's the latter, you're comparing apples and oranges. In a lot of states, laws have been passed adding new benefits to the minimum level of coverage. Wouldn't that necessarily raise the premiums?
Patriot Boy, when you wrote that response to the letter to the Editor, did you ask other people to write a response too?
One thing the internet is useful for is that kind of instant communication. When there is something egregious in a local newspaper or TV or radio station, how about being able to know that we could mobilize people to respond?
I think one reason for the success of MoveOn is that they let you know the results of their efforts. They tell us how many people make phone calls, write emails, contribute etc. It encourages me to participate in what they do.
I would really like to know how many of the communications to the FCC came from Atrios and Ruminatethis and the other blogs who clued us in and encouraged us to let them know how we felt.
As for the election, I have a feeling that we are all going to have to get in touch with local Democrat organizations and volunteer especially to get out the vote. Especially in places like Florida, they are probably going to need a lot of bodies to help with people excluded from voting roles. And it can really make a difference when you offer someone a ride to the polls or to babysit.
From the cross-post at the Daily Kos...
"But those officials are pretty much like anyone else on the planet. They have just had more time near the honeypot to develop their grifting skills. They have to be told that their job, personally, is in immediate danger."
Yes, but how do we do that if every time someone attempts to run against a sell-out Dem from the left, s/he's called a dupe or whore for the Republican Party?
In other words, can you effectively challenge blue-dog Dems at the same time you're denying Greens the very right to exist?
How is (pro-war) Lieberman learning his job "is in immediate danger" when 45% of the MoveOn voters pledge to enthusiastically support him if he gets nominated? If I'm Lieberman, that makes me feel kinda comfy, and I'm gonna go ahead and stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Bush on the next war, too. Heck, why not?
P.S.: As long as we're having a convo with McAuliff, why aren't we asking him why the party is suing to overturn McCain/Feingold? That's an embarassment!
I just got done reading the Washington Monthy article posted today (ref'd by Krugman) about how the republicans are succeeding in taking over the "K street" lobbyists (links posted below because I always forget how to hotlink). So how can the dems even get within the same ballpark as the right, frankly I don't think they can. Even if they could, would we like the outcome of the dems being even more in the pockets of corporations?
One possible solution would be to change the rules completely. Awhile back on Now w/ Bill Moyers, he covered a topic called "Clean Elections" Which used public money to finance elections, and is currently being used in three states right now. I don't live in any of them, but after reading up on the plusses and minuses of it, it does look like a way to level the field on campaigns. The major drawback I can see is getting Washington (all sides) to actually do it, to actually give up their very real need for the money fix/influence. If the dems were to embrace this in some form the elections.
I dunno, maybe the dems can figure out a way to get the money they need to win. I'd really like to hear some sort of plan that will deal w/ an apathetic media, and an opposing party that can overwhelm any state w/ issue ads like they did in 2002.
And I know, "Clean Elections" can't be in effect before 2004, but it could be used to rally against the Republican machine... "Gee, wouldn't you rather he was at work instead of raising money?" or "Hey George, how do we get a seat at the table when even the hamburgers are $2000 apiece?"
http://
www.washingtonmonthly.com...confessore.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/
...nelections.html
I'd love to see public funding for campaigns, but I don't think you can prevent someone from spending millions on advertisements outside of a public funding scheme. It would violate that person's 1st Amendment rights. In the end, the people with the bucks will influence the election.
As for the election, I have a feeling that we are all going to have to get in touch with local Democrat organizations and volunteer especially to get out the vote. Especially in places like Florida, they are probably going to need a lot of bodies to help with people excluded from voting roles.
This is very true. One thing to remember is that each individual, whether senator, state rep, or peon, is one voter. We have to generate a system where the individual truly means something. Thirty million people giving one dollar equals thirty fatcats giving a million each. It's daunting to see those odds. It can be done, but only if we make common cause with mainstream Democrats including the oldsters from the Roosevelt era, the union members, and the greens.
Joshua:
In Massachusetts, Clean Elections passed overwhelmingly a few years ago, by referendum. The legislature (which, believe it or not, might actually not benefit by such a referendum) has consistently tried to defeat Clean Elections, by not funding candidates who might actually apply for such funds.
Conveniently enough, the state's economic woes are playing in their favor. There's no money for Clean Elections, the economy's in the tank, we need more firefighters and police officers, etc. So they've basically de-funded it, the governor doesn't support it, therefore it's probably dead. And we have many many other things to worry us in the meantime, don't we?
The Massachusetts Clean Elections Web site
Getting out the vote is the key. In 2000 the GOP did an incredible get out the vote drive. Still, they got less votes than Gore. Now nobody I knows who voted for Gore is going to suddenly vote for Bush, they will vote Dem again in 2004. I do know people who voted for Bush in 2000 who won't do it in 2004, they will vote Dem instead. I know people who voted Green in 2000 who are now going to vote Dem in 2004. In 2000 the Dems did lousy at getting the base excited and turning out the vote. If we get more out in 2004, and add that to what is listed above, we can win.
Getting out the vote is the key. To do that we need to excite the base.
gttim - that is the key. And exciting the base ought to be the beginning, since an excited base can spread the excitement. And we can do it.
GOTV matters, but without a candidate who can explain why they need to vote, it will be a short day that November.
Carter and Clinton won because they had a positive message which pointed a new direction. I'm betting that the country will be tired of fear and insecurity to a massive degree. Unlike 2000, there is no free vote this time.
Moveon.com on google news and the Washington Post HERE
Howard Dean comes up the winner because he fights and goes where driftwood Sentators fear to tread.
Congratulations Dean: Howard deserve this moment as over on Daily Kos, McAuliffe tells Kos's that the Dem's are trying. Trying to do what? NOTHING. The Dems are doing a good a job of doing nothing aren't they.
Hmm...voting machines with no paper trail. Perhaps the ACLU would be game enough to pursue an injunction against the use of voting machines without paper trails. What logical use is there in having a right to "...petition the Government for a redress of grievances" [Article I] if the Government acted to insure that Exhibit A never even existed? In other words, say I have a "grievance" concerning a vote count. I have a right to "petition the Government" yet I have been denied the single key piece of evidence (by a prior withholding of the paper trail) that could determine the legitimacy of the case. Seems unconstitutional, doncha think, and worthy of significant legal examination.
Secondly: Find democrats who can frame their arguments like they own the shop. Protest in the street is liberty enjoyed, but how about just helping a candidate with some flyers, or answering phones, or giving $20.00 to save this experiment in democracy from being shitcanned. And tell everyone you know to vote (even if you do not endorse a candidate, a large turnout does not aid the Billionaire Party).
Vote, work to get out the vote, volunteer to aid a candidate, and see the Constitution of the United States as a living document, one that requires vigilant defenders. Keep track of these activities in your Blogs, or a Blog you visit!
And give the ACLU a call while you're at it.
Cheryl, I appreciate your enthusiasm but not your negativity.
Chill, will ya?
Howard Dean should ask if Sen Carl Levin would like to be VP.
Sen. Carl Levin is rock. Cheney wouldn't stand a chance.
Cheryl -"Cheney wouldn't stand a chance." Especially if Levin has a stake with him that he can pound through the vampire's heart.
Just thought the group would get a kick out of a couple of photos the SF Chronicle's online outlet is running from Tipsy's picking-up-the-drop luncheon out by SFO today...
Full story here. (No more cool photos, though...)
i like to rub butter on my nipples and have sex with baby seals, while I ingest mass amounts of pure lard.
The Dems should hire whoever is running blah3.com NOW! There is some absolutely great, spot-on stuff there.
Joshua:
You are exactly right, unfortunately, in both your observations. Public financing is ultimately the only viable alternative, as long as Buckley v. Valeo stands, and politically all but impossible to enact. Plus the type possible subterfuge that edub points out.
Selah.
"..If you believe that socialized medicine is "decent health" care, you are sorely mistakened. Just ask the Canadian citizens that come to America for surgery because they have to wait in long queues for the same procedure in their home land..."
Or how about asking the americans who would be willing to sit in a line for a few hours if it meant saving them $500 for the cost of a few aspirin rippoffs that cost the pharmaceutical companies pennies to make?
How about the same people who wait months for transplants?
How about the same people who, despite having their health insurance policy say a simple procedure is covered 100%, still takes a year or more to get them to pay for it, leaving you to get harassed by credit collectors from the hospitals that charged you $2,000 dollars a night?
Or how about the fact you wait hours in a waiting room, only to spend 30 minutes being seen, where 25 of those minutes are spent with the nurses answering questions the lousy fucking doctors could have asked you in person?
How about wanting to see a specialist only to be told they see new patients on referral only? Or how about the fact you need a private physician to get that referral, and none of them are taking new patients, and those that do require you spend $100 for a visitation when all you needed was for the golf playing SOB to sign the referral so you can go see the heartless quack specialist?
"..The minute you give the Government the ability to ration health care, they can start legislating your health and your personal habits.
And that is more harmful than their attempting to legislate morality based upon their own religious viewpoints?
It's not like we know that smoking doesn't kill people after the billions that have been spent investigating it, and the tobacco companies lying about it when they've known for decades?
....
Last night when Kos put this up I told everyone to quit bitching and come up with ideas. The time to complain is over and it is time to come up with the way to save our country and our party. There are a lot of good ideas over there. One I sudested is to create a hub similar to Buzflash that connects to blogs. Every party leader should write 1 post a day about what is going on in their respective places.
So every one here quit screwing around and do something.
"Also, if Democrats are for a strong health care system, why are they supporting the folks that hurt doctors the most? Trial lawyers."
Or how about the fact it's the insurance companies charging an arm and a leg for the coverage?
Or how about the fact it's the JURIES THAT DECIDED WHO WAS TO BE AWARDED FOR DAMAGES?
Why do you hate the jury system Anon?
If the defendents couldn't prove they deserved not to pay for cutting off some kid's healthy leg so be it.
For every doctor who is out there complaining about trial lawyers there are even more out there complaining about the insurance companies that screw them on paying for their patients coverage along with charging them an arm and a leg for basic malpractice coverage?
Show me 1 person who has had a good experience with an HMO or other insurance shsyter org, and I will show you ten thousand who would love to kill every last one of those HMO bastards in ways even Satan would be proud of!
"If you look at what party doctors support the most, it might give insight on which party doctors think will help provide the best health care in America."
Prove it.
I would like to see you show what party the insurance companies support the most. My brother-in-law is a pediatrician and he says it's the inusrance companies that are screwing him and everyone in his group practice! They charge him more for premiums than he can make in a year.
Even though he has never been accused on anything in court.
You prove to me that any legislation passed will force the insurance companies to lower their costs once the bill is passed and I will believe you.
But then again you have a better chance of getting hit on by Bill clinton wearing a teddy than of proving it.
"..I am curious how Dean is going to handle the trial lawyers. He knows the devistating effect they have on the health industry."
Ask Savage Weiner about his own trial lawyers.
How about the corporate lawyers who try blaming victims when their client corporations are dumping filth into the water supplies?
How about the laywers for the Insurance companies who try to get them off for scamming innocent people who depend on them to pay for needed health care?
I can guarantee you this anon, the number of people who have good health care plans are the wealthy, singles, and those with family members on the inside.
just to rub it in a bit more 'anon' last time I checked, Bush got less than half the votes in an election that had only half the country's voters vote. That means less than 1 in 4 people voted for him.
So take that and shove it in your 'country is leaning right' bushhole.
MYOB'
Sorry
I just went back up thread and realised that most of what is up there is not screwing around. The rush thing caught my eye comming down.
to pie,
Stick your face in it pal!
I certainly am not the only one that feels this way about the Dem's.
So keep your shit to yourselve.
I'd just like to echo people who say Democrats should be unrelenting in responding to administration lies and fraud and call a spade a spade. The right-wing press will call them names, but they do that anyway so it's no loss.
Daschle really does have to go as leader. It's not that he's a bad man or anything, but he has to placate voters in a conservative state and that's what he's doing, and it's pretty much ALL he's doing. We need people who can safely speak like liberals who believe in the things Americans really believe in - preserving our public schools and Social Security, etc. - and can articulate the fact that we are trying to save them while the Republicans are trying to destroy them.
BTW, while I am no fan of Edwards, I thought that speech he gave about rewarding people who work for working and not just leaving America's privileges to the wealthy was spot on and perhaps the best articulation of genuine American values I'd heard in a stump speech in quite a while. He brilliantly highlighted the way that Bush is punishing people for hard work and betraying our values. It was very accessible and straight to the heart. We need a lot more of that.
Oh, and please, no more pretending that Lieberman is going to fire up the voters. We don't want to see another competition between a Republican and a Republican. When you do that, the Republican always wins.
Posted by Avedon at June 27, 2003 03:10 PM (from the sideshow weblog)
Amen sister, I like the Dem's to stand up and do something. I'm pissed and so are a lot of people over on Kos's commentary.
One alternative is PayDemocracy...
Cheryl, darlin', I'm not your "pal," and all your righteous indignation and negativity are not going to accomplish what needs to be done. Stop attacking me, which does NOTHING. We are on the same side.
Aren't we?
If you want to get rid of Daschle, don't tell me. I didn't select him as leader; start writing letters to him and the people who have the power to remove him. You'll get farther if you use reason and intelligence.
Good luck, Cheryl.
write letters TO the people
Pie
Cheryl is one to be ignored. Not very pleasant or rational.
Patrick Meighan asks "In other words, can you effectively challenge blue-dog Dems at the same time you're denying Greens the very right to exist?"
I, personally, have never denied the Greens the right to exist. Some Democrats have foolishly tried to silence Green opposition rather than compete with them fairly. They're losers.
However, people do need to be realistic about choices. Contrary to Ralph Nader's claim, there were substantial, meaningful differences between Gore and Bush. Nader's tearing down of Gore set back his own cause (and indeed provoked many Democrats to cancel contributing to Public Citizen and other Nader organizations).
When people vote, they have to keep in mind the historical fact that divisions on the left permitted Hitler to advance to the position that he could sieze power. There is an article in Le Monde, written by leading French leftists, on this danger today (the French left has collapsed into rudderless factions). Such situations, where there has to be overwhelming unity in the face of a determined extremist right movement are rare... but they do occur.
As for disciplining elected officials... the senior guys, like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, are hopeless. They are a lost generation. What one can say is that they are not as bad as the far right of the Republican party. But Zell, in particular, long ago ceased to be a Democrat.
At the state and local level, there is plenty of room for responsible party leaders to have an impact. For example, there should be a zero-tolerance policy for corruption. And when they don't...the failure of the Massachusetts legislature to fund campaign finance is a disgrace and should represent a wonderful opening for third party opponents.
As for overturning McCain-Feingold, while I agree that it looks bad for the Democratic party to attack "campaign finance reform", the bill that was passed was so bad that there's no value in defending it. It's generally conceded that the only effect of McCain Feingold will be to increase the clout of major donors. McAuliffe is doing what he needs to do to prevent the GOP fundraising advantage from becoming overwhelming, but it isn't pretty.
Tell Terry Mac he needs to keep his promise and keep Ohio in play during 2004. He has to stop listening to the idiots in Columbus and stop supporting the likes of Jerry Springer. Should Springer win the primary against Fingerhut, that puts the Dem Presidential candidate in the position of having to either campaign in Ohio with Jerry Springer alongside or not campaign here at all. Either choice is guaranteed to keep Ohio a red state when it should be blue. I mean think of it, can you imagine Howard Dean or Wesley Clark or John Kerry having to share the podium with Jerry Springer? Koresh forbid.
humor in ads got feingold into the senate.
Patriotboy-That was one of the points that I initially worried about, but it appears that there is a matching fund mechanism in use that would help curb abuses like Bush is doing. Checkout the Now pointer above for more info.
Edub- I agree, incumbants won't like this, and it would be hard to pass this in a working and fundable way. But why can't we learn from how the states are using it and figure out how to take care of the downsides for the federal version? I respectfully disagree w/ you, I money does have a major skewing effect on both parties, and as the Wa.Mo. article above points out, Biz PAC's support dems because they have to(used to), unlike the the cons who they want to. Thank you for the Mass info, I'm interested in finding out more info from all sides of this topic to see if it is viable.
CAGary-Thank you, I forgot about the impact of that case, gotta read up on it.
I'm alittle surprised that no one has brought up possible corp/media response to this idea. It's not just the parties this would be unpopular with, and possibly more deadly in getting it killed off. A workable plan would have to effect the Campaign commercial buys, and networks won't give up the bi-annual feeding frenzies easily.
There's tons of reasons why this won't get passed, or get carved up to make it useless, and I'm sure there are more downsides I haven't seen yet. But unless the dems decide to be even more pro biz then they are now, I don't see a way for them to get any message out as effectively as the cons can.
Yes, I think this has near insurmountable problems on getting passed, except I keep coming back to a single thought. What could happen if our elected representives are told by their party/sponsors that they won't get the funds to run depending on how they vote on a bill, and they can say "Yeah, whatever".
If anyone has an easier idea, please bring it up. If you have ?'s on Clean Elections, Checkout the Now pointer above, strangely, can't find any other pro/con page on the topic.
Money is the lifeblood/crack of politics, and this is an issue that won't go away.
[Done blathering]
I posted this to Kos and I'll post it here:
I had to tear down my own blog (Pax Liberalis) because I could no longer spare the time to put it together and because being unemployed for eleven months has taken it's toll on me financially and emotionally.
If McAuliff or anyone else wants my help, they need to get me a job. I'm sick and tired of being asked to give my time and to hand over money to an organization that refuses to look after it's constituents.
I'm not looking to get rich, I don't want to make a quick buck for nothing, I want to be able to fight for the cause and still support my family. I'm willing, I'm desperate to fight, but I can't do it if I'm homeless, which I could very well be in a few weeks.
Any group that won't support a willing soldier doesn't deserve to survive, period.
-Joe Vecchio
On NPR a few weeks ago I heard Dem Rep Barny Frank tell a reporter somthing on the order that it is beneath Democrats dignity to use ridicule, satire, and demagoguery against the GOPers. I almost vomited. This is one of the reasons that Dems are so lame and that we get our asses kicked from sea to shining sea. It is great to have principle. But we are in a street brawel with a fanatics and there is no excuse to stooping to the tactics of Linbaugh and crew. It means servival.
It occurs to me that a good way to combat Bush is to call him what he is, a coward.
His inability to deal with unscripted events is a major weakness. Calls for him to hold real press conferences are sorely lacking. We've come to accept a puppet pResident.
Do you remember the wrangling over debate formats in the last presidential election? Look for a lot more of the same and note your sense of dissatisfaction.
I call for a national boycott for the express purpose of repealing the so called Medicare prescription drug plan.
People living in the Northeast please boycott the CVS Pharmacy chain and demand that CVS talk to the Republican Party to demand repeal of that bad law.
I will consult with the Alliance for Retired Americans for Pharmacy chains to boycott in the Southeast, SOuthwest and Northwest United States. Stay tuned.
Do you want congress to enact a liberal agenda this year?
Demand that congress does so at
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
The George W Bush 2000 Stolen Election Commemorative Coin
http://www.stolenelectioncoin.com
All profits go to charity.
Ad idea. Based on the concept that if you can't match the enemy's strength (in this case, $), try to use it against him:
"George Bush plans to raise a record amount -- a quarter of a billion dollars -- in campaign funds for the upcoming elections Where is all that money coming from? Not from the people who have lost their jobs during his presidency. Not from the people whose pensions were stolen by Enron and other corporate criminals. Not from the military veterans whose benefits have been cut by the Bush Adminstration.
George Bush hasn't earned your vote, but he thinks he can buy it. Show him he's wrong."
P.S. Hey coinmonger, buy a BlogAd already.
Joshua:
Blather on, brother, it's good for the soul. I think you have a pretty good grip on the reality of the situation. The only way the people/corps who control the process with money now will give it up is kicking and screaming. It is probably impossible to eliminate the influence of money completely, but the ideal outcome would be for candidates/elected officials to have the option of turning away from contributions. The solution is some combination of public financing and an FCC license requirement for free time or reduced rates, to lower the demand for money to be a candidate. This type of proposal would be laughed off or gutted in the current climate.
The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan and the 1996 Telecommunications Act are the foul progenitors of the slavering right-wingnut media we now confront. I don't think any progress can be made on your proposal until this beast is slain. The only way to do that is to take back the Congress and White House. We MUST start the process by beating the smirking fuckstick next year. If we can't find a way to do that, I fear that how campaigns are financed may be the least of our worries.
I don't want to sound too pessimistic. I think there are some signs that the tide may finally be turning.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"-HST
Selah.
This thread is probably too dead to bother to post this, but I did want to point out the up side to Clean Election for the next election.
Dean does back it, so it could be raised to a populist status. McCain has also talked about it also.
Enron to Westar and beyond can be used to promote the idea.
It would be a good way of minimizing the tit-for-tat cycle, and strengthen the chances for the fairness doctrine and other non-pro biz bills to be passed.
The dems aren't happy about McCain-Fiengold, some folks (on both sides) might be talked into supporting it, esp. because if it passes it minimizes it's own backlash.
I think the dems best shot is a populist campaign for 2004, and this could be used as part of a mirror image to the "contract on america" that rallied the cons in 94.
Thanks for the feedback CAGary.
software to cheat at online poker software to cheat at online poker software to cheat at online poker // robert de niro movie casino robert de niro movie casino robert de niro movie casino
hanover citizens insurance hanover citizens insurance hanover citizens insurance // prime mortgage loan prime mortgage loan prime mortgage loan
63 Visitors Online
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
