• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Things that make my blood…
    darthtimon on Things that make my blood…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Things that make my blood…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Things that make my blood…
    William on Things that make my blood…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He can’t think ahead
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He can’t think ahead
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He can’t think ahead
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He can’t think ahead
    William on He can’t think ahead
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on He can’t think ahead
    William on He can’t think ahead
    Lethe on Worser and Worser
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Worser and Worser
    jmac on Worser and Worser
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2009
    S M T W T F S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Feel free to use the comments to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

Movement Inertia

Something's gotta give

There’s more noise in the lefty blogosphere about how disappointing Democrats are, as well as how Obama failed to measure up.   Natasha Chart is so sick of the pyrrhic victories that she is begging Democrats to just sit on their hands and do nothing for the rest of their terms.  Max Blumenthal’s piece, Obama, the Fallen Messiah, is intriguing.  At least he understands that the left brought this upon themselves:

The liberal left has become so disgruntled that a leading conservative talk radio host asked me recently if progressives were considering a primary challenge to Obama. I laughed and stated my belief that despite his troubles, Obama would win a second term. Whether or not that happens, those former Obama fanatics experiencing a crisis in faith should look in the mirror. They demanded a secular salvation fantasy and participated in the messianization of the candidate who delivered it to them. They now know that Obama is just a politician. What they have refused to acknowledge is that he would not have fallen so hard had they not lifted him so high.

Too funny, Max!  I got kicked off of DailyKos because in my last diary there, I compared the Obama Movement to a jihad on other Democrats.  For that, I was called a racist and other Kossacks still refer to that diary as proof of my insidious racism.  Oooo!  I am so BAAAADDD.  Of course, you can still read the diary on DailyKos and judge for yourself.  I stand by every word I typed.  It was all too true. If that’s the diary that got me banned, I proudly take credit for it.  And then there’s this diary from December 20, 2008, Telltale Signs of Buyer’s Remorse, which accurately predicted even before Obama took office  that he would be a triangulator par excellence to appease the ones who bought him in spite of the world financial crisis and the Democratic majorities in both houses.

We didn’t get change.  Well, no one on this blog actually expected it.  But we do have a lot of inertia, “the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion”.  Because the Democratic party, with an influx of young Republican-esque members, conducted a jihad on the party faithful, there is no force exerting any will on the object, our government.  The Obamaphiles invested all their hope in a messiah who is now clearly shown to be a false prophet.   The question is, what is the left going to do about it?

I’ve been reading a lot of “very serious bloggers” who think that the formation of a third party is laughable and unreasonable, the stuff of fantasy for the naive.

Really?

Because from where I’m perched, the very serious set is floundering.  Jane Hamsher is making deals with Grover “bipartisanship is just another word for date rape” Norquist.  Her strategy skills have gone totally off the rails and she looks desperate and grasping.  The “enemy of my enemy” strategy won’t work, Jane.  Appealing to the squishy  right is a losing game.  You won’t make any headway with them until you can convince them to give up their social conservatism for their own economic good.  Much better to define strong principles and invite others to join you.  Never cede a single millimeter of what you believe or you will look weak and people who are in the squishy right *hate* any sign of weakness.

But there are a lot of other people out there, Democrats, Democrats in Exile, Independents, who make up a large voting bloc and right now have no representation.  We’re talking about 30-40% of state voting populations in places like NJ and CT who want another option and are tired of both parties gaming the ballots.  They are ready for an new movement where they can coalesce their forces and push back.

We’ve talked about it and talked about it.  We need a third party and we need the very serious among us to get onboard.  The only problem is that so many of them have lost credibility that they need to take a back seat.  Is that where the resistance is coming from?  It’s not a serious proposal if they can’t lead it?

They need to get over it.  They need to accept their responsibility for the way things are.  Many of them knew what was happening in 2008 but didn’t want to be ostracized from the Movement.  Isn’t there a quote about propagation of evil requiring men of goodwill to do nothing?

Are they going to do nothing again?  New parties have been created before.  The Republican party was born in 1854.  There is enough critical mass.  All that is required is that a force get behind that mass and move it forward.

230 Responses

  1. Read the comments in the DailyKos diary. Not only are they a stinging indictment of the scorched earth policy that the Obama campaign used, they’re hillarious. You really have to stretch to see racism in that post but there is no shortage of contortionists for Obama who were willing to do it.
    I don’t know if I ever thanked all of the commenters who stuck up for me in that comment thread. So, here’s a belated Thanks. You guys were brave.

    • Reading that comment thread is like visiting Blogstalkers.

      The same virulent hatred, the same Obotian doublethink.

    • River Daughter, phew! Just reread your buyer’s remorse take on the Greenwald post from awhile ago. If you read Greenwald today, you have to admit he’s capable of real depth and…hallelujah…growth. I admire him even if he has been known to screw up. But you….you…you really are a 3-dimensional chess player! God, I wish I had your clarity.

    • RD, I recall during the primaries when Kevin Drum over at Political Animal made the statement that Paul Krugman was conducting a jihad against Obama. I was flabbergasted and asked him if he’d lost his marbles. However, I don’t recall anyone over there ever calling Kevin a racist.

  2. Well, yes and no.

    Recently I received an email thank you from a friend whom I have invited, together with his daughter, to a pre-Christmas December dinner for the past 7 or 8 years. This man had never emailed me before except to forward right wing talking points. In this email he mentioned what a good time he had solving the world’s problems with me, even though our solutions were simplistic. It had indeed been one of the most enjoyable evenings we had experienced in many a year, going on until the wee hours, since ordinarily we spend considerable time tip toeing around each others’ sensibilities.

    Although it is for completely different reasons, I and some of my lefty friends are as disgusted with government as many on the right. It won’t be easy, but since this state of affairs has opened a dialogue between us, something good may come from it.

    Some compromise has to happen to make a country work…compromise understood here to be the act of using power to meet power . That is far different from capitulation, which is what we have seen from DC Democrats for at least the past 16 years.

    • Joining forces with the right-wing for a specific purpose (i.e. “kill the bill”) is one thing, but without common ideological ground between us it will be impossible to form a lasting coalition.

    • I’m with myiq on this one. There has to be a common ideology that is stronger than the social conservatism shtick that the GOP rolls out. If you look for common ground with the right, you will find yourself in quicksand the minute the GOP Wurlitzer starts playing the abortion and gay marriage theme.
      My theory, as if anyone cares, is that we put together our principles and tell people that if they want to turn this country around, that’s what they have to sign up for. If they want to dicker about abortion or gay marriage or some other conservative thing, they can take their vote to one of the other parties. You have to lay down the law. Get tough. Have discipline and not yield.
      Gotta go wii ski. The BFF wants to try out his new controller.

    • Agreed and something I touched on in my post today. I understand where Jane is coming from, but I also agree with RD that having principles and standing up for them is key.

      You won’t make any headway with them until you can convince them to give up their social conservatism for their own economic good. Much better to define strong principles and invite others to join you.

      I am ready for a third party. And we (the 30-40 percenters) all need to start talking to each other, and that includes the Grovers, the Janes, the Riverdaughters. What is going on right now isn’t working. I don’t claim to know how this is all going to shake out, and for all we know, we may be past the point of no return. It sure feels that way most days. But I’m not one to give up. I can’t.

      • “Principles before party” is a good starting point.

      • Nope. Never going to hookup with Grover norquist. He’s an authoritarian. I don’t trust him and want no part of him. If his followers want to play with us, they have to play by our rules or they can take their act to the GOP.
        Seriously, norquist is the proverbial snake you pick up and carry at your own risk.

        • He’s the guy who said “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

          I still think of Sesame Street every time I see his name.

          • he also made some very nasty remarks about Democrats after the midterms in 2002 – something to he effect of them being neutered and soon will not climb the furniture and being pacified..

        • I should hope not.

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

          Besides, I can’t think of a quicker way to drown out what a new third party might say by linking to conservative (read right wing) tax policies

          • If you let Norquist in you might as well invite Ralph Reed too.

          • Nooo! Ralph Reed makes my skin crawl. And yes, I know who Grover Norquist is. I don’t trust him either. I’m probably not making myself very clear.

          • You’re forgetting what the right does to maddening effect: they pre-empt the left’s talking points and make them their own. I see no problem in pre-empting that prick Norquist’s anti-big-government schtick and making it our own by revising it slightly to read anti-big-business-government. After all, you can flirt with a fool without actually giving him a blow job, can’t you?

    • Exactly, if you just follow the old rules of social discourse…don’t talk about (1) sex or (2) religion…you’d be amazed at how far communication can go among people of good will. That’s why we need to start trying to open a dialog with those who want more real choices than the few we currently have. All Tea Partiers are not right wing operatives taking orders from Karl Rove. As long as we keep letting people of ill will insert (1) sex and (2) religion into the mix, those of us craving more choice remain impotent and RNC/DNC hold the reins.

      • Sharon: Read this TPM article on where the money came from and went to for those ‘tea parties’

        http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/majority_of_tea_party_groups_spending_went_to_gop.php

        THEY.ARE.NOT.OUR. FRIENDS.

        Oddly enough, here’s Jane talking about how those tea partiers are linked to lobbyists too:

        http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/13/corporate-lobyists-raising-money-for-tea-parties/

        it’s not as grass roots or as populist as folks like to think

        • Thanks, dakinikat. I do realize the whole Tea Party phenomenon was bankrolled by the right. All I’m trying to suggest is that I’ve been able to engage with quite a few of their sympathizers (clueless members of my own Mormon family) and what they all have in common is the desire to dismantle big money control of government. It’s a genuinely unifying theme. It’s a place to start, IMHO.

          • I just hate to see sincere people wind up contributing to bamboozlers

          • I do think an issue like campaign finance reform can bring disillusioned members of the left and right together. We can find some common ground there.

          • Beata–campaign finance reform is a good one, but it looks so bleak. Obama winning was a major blow to the cause, imho.

          • Obama winning has been a major blow to many causes. Sometimes the list seems endless.

          • You do not have to get tangled up in “the Tea Party, Party” . To think that everyone in the Tea Party movement is locked into Norquist is = to thinking that everyone who is registered as a Dem is locked into Polosi, Reid and Obama. Political movements in this country are just not like that and never have been. There is always an insiders structure that is tight and the rest is pretty much general folk who are loosely affiliated and not true believers at all. Let’s stop stereotyping these people; it is not necessary and it does not fit the facts. I know plenty of people who have attended a Tea Party event and they have absolutely no idea who Norquist is. Norquist may be trying to take advantage of them but they are clueless about him.

          • Nothing like using big money to manipulate voters to dismantle big money manipulating government.

          • Dakinikat, you said: I just hate to see sincere people wind up contributing to bamboozlers.

            But that is not restricted to right wing operatives. What would you call sincere liberals who have been contributing to the New Dems? Suckers too.

        • I thought it was an interesting choice of name. While it ascribes to the revolutionary events, I wondered:

          Am I right in assuming that it was a good way for the repubs to usurp the “tea party” denigration of HRC during election?

          So recently in our memory, it felt like a pretty good spin.

          Like Steve Farrell using the web moniker “The Moral Liberal” to pump Phyllis Schlafly.

        • Dak,

          It’s off topic but your post about Glass Steagal is being discussed at TL by BTD. He disagrees with you.

          • Yeah, I saw that he thought I was advocating for the bill. Actually, if you read my other posts on bank regulation I support more of a slightly modified Glass Steagall and I’m more into firm systemic changes and breaking up too big to fail bank holding companies like Citigroup. My point in that was that it was McCain that was seemingly more successful at bi-partisanship and that supporting re-instatement of Glass Steagall was to the left of Obama’s position. Also, that it was just a short bill rather than the behemoths we’ve had recently that seem more designed to enrich special interests and pols.

      • I’m with you Sharon. Draw a line in the sand between politics and sex and religion. We have spent the last 25 years being hamstrung with mixing these things together. JFK would never be elected today if the Catholic Church had the political posture it has today. He was able to be elected because he drew a hard line between his Catholic background and beliefs and his political actions. Then somewhere along the political trail that hard line disappeared and we have been paying the price ever since.

        • Thanks, Jangles. The Achilles Heel AND the great strength of liberals is that we are able to see both sides of most issues. In my case, it leads to a lot of mental confusion, which is why I admire River Daughter’s and WMCB’s clarity so much. You are so right about JFK. I’ve thought that for years now.

        • Another difference is that the press in the 60’s drew a bright, hard line between a candidate’s public and private lives. The kind of jihad –ooh, lookee, a r@cist word!–the Republican party waged against the Clintons harmed all participants, though not equally. The Clintons have recovered, but the Republicans and the press are still insane. Character does indeed count.

          • Okasha, what the media did for me was to drive me hard left with their jihad against the Clintons. I’m sure that happened with lots of people. I had a pretty old world view about separating public from private. Seemed to me a return to The Scarlet Letter days. Oy! It was a wakeup for this political slacker.

    • I had to go off and do RL for a bit. I don’t see any inconsistencies with my position in the commenters’ replies. …my last two sentences were clear.

      Just because I did not spell out my principles, wherein reside my power, does not mean that I or anyone else will be rolled by the GOP Wurlitzer fer Gawd’s sake.

      I related a personal experience to illustrate what can happen when people with wildly divergent views listened and talked with each other. (Over food…don’t forget the food!) Maybe there will be a way we can work together in the future; maybe not. But at least there was a beginning. A single step. I was suggesting the case is not as black and white as RD seemed to imply, There is nothing in my point of view that precludes having core principles which cannot be compromised or negotiated.

      • salmon–I don’t see these statements of you and RD as mutually exclusive.

      • Salmon…

        does not mean that I or anyone else will be rolled by the GOP Wurlitzer fer Gawd’s sake

        One of the great lines of all time. You’re on a roll. Keep going. Love it!

      • For what it’s worth I’m closer to your position than RD’s myself. I live in Red America and know that many on the right are good people not caricatures and are worth working with on many issues.

      • I’m not trying to imply that we can’t drag a few of them our way. Only that we strenuously resist getting dragged their way. We have to be unmovable. You wanna know when you’ve hit paydirt? They’ll start to whine and complain that you’re not sensitive to their issues. That’s whe you have to say, “yeah, I don’t give a fuck about your antiabortion values. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. If you don’t like our equality platform, go stand over there with one of the other parties. We don’t want to be like them.”
        There will come a point with any person leaning right where they will insist on something already planted in their minds by some authoritarian. You will never get those people by compromising with them. They only appreciate strength.

        • The same is true with liberals RD who have their own “issues”. The difference is the liberal is pleased to dither and dialogue. To me the bottom line is that if you can not talk to a conservative without giving up your DNA then please get out of politics—you do not belong. It is not them who is the problem it is softheads who really don’t have any principles or beliefs—prime poster child being Barack Hussein Obama.

        • See your point. That’s why you should be chairman of this longed-for third party. However, Altemeyer holds out a glimmer of hope RWA’s can be equally forces for good as for devilment. I honestly believe that as I’ve known them intimately. It’s hard slogging, but they’re really organized, committed, energetic, and…get this…happy people. That’s a power to be harnessed. I believe that’s what the Clintons understood; thus, they were pilloried for triangulation with the Dark Side.

    • You have better luck than I’ve had. My brother and I both hate Obama, but we have to leave it at that. As soon as he starts saying…”because he’s a socialist, yata, yata, yata”, I can barely control my laughter

    • That article by Shelby Steele is thought provoking. I liked his insight of the symbiotic bargain between o and his obots—do not see what is not there on their part and do not reveal oneself and one’s emptiness on his part. That and his total leveling of o’s complete lack of any economic thinking.

    • I don’t think you can read anything from the Hoover institution with less than a critical eye. See, how sleekly it fits into our perception of Obama. Even if we agree with his perceptions, to focus on Obama as the cause of troubles will get us in hot water.

      [..Steele wrote a short book A Bound Man: Why We are Excited about Obama and Why He Can’t Win, published in December 2007. The book contained Steele’s analysis of Barack Obama’s character as a child born to a mixed couple who then has to grow as a black man.[4] Steele then concludes that Barack Obama is a “bound man” to his “black identity.” Steele gives this description of his conclusion:
      “ There is a price to be paid even for fellow-traveling with a racial identity as politicized and demanding as today’s black identity. This identity wants to take over a greater proportion of the self than other racial identities do. It wants to have its collective truth — its defining ideas of grievance and protest — become personal truth…. These are the identity pressures that Barack Obama lives within. He is vulnerable to them because he has hungered for a transparent black identity much of his life. He needs to ‘be black.’ And this hunger — no matter how understandable it may be — means that he is not in a position to reject the political liberalism inherent in his racial identity. For Obama liberalism is blackness…]

      To follow Shelby’s metaphor, Obama does not individuate, like Reagan did. Elsewhere I’ve heard similar ideas, pretty much all leading to the similar conclusion. He doesn’t LEAD in the patriarchal sense. Should Obama decide to individuate then, life would be better for all, because we would have a real human to work with. Malarkey.
      I heard Greta Van Sustren, during the election, on the Moyers show, say we were going to have to help Obama move in the right direction. I’m hearing that now from others. “We” just need to coax him in the correct direction and because he WANTS to be liberal he will go there.

      What we have are ISSUES! At this point Obama is irrelevant, except so far as he impacts them.

      • I read Shelby’s earlier piece during the election process. But I do not dismiss it out of hand. I do think that o has an internal torment about his racial identity that disables him as a leader. I thought so then and I doubly think so now. But the premise of the argument is like religious belief—if o were to change and become fundamentally different he would be a real human and capable of doing the job—well people just do not become “fundamentally different” than they are so it is an argument chasing its tail. It is malarkey only because the whole idea is malarkey.

      • Whew! I read the piece and thought it contained a lot of truth and insight. But I agree with you…what are we? Obama’s mother?

  3. There WAS a window of time right after Obama’s terrible joint address to Congress on health insurance, the writing was on the wall as far as mandate w/o competition–that was the time for the left to work with the right on pushing back on the oligarchy specifically by opposing the mandate, but that ship has sailed. I think Jane et al. are way too late with that awakening. Working with the right to kill the bill now is countereffective and waste of time, imho. Right now is the time to capitalize on discontent with this stupid bill and really spread the message about singlepayer. Again, just my two.

  4. I like the snark tag. I never read them. However, I can see you were going down fighting in the Kos piece and you bobbed up like a cork over here.

  5. So, River Daughter, fire it up. I’m ready to become a dues paying member.

  6. From FDL:

    Dennis Kucinich just released this statement:

    As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I’m announcing that the Subcommittee will launch an investigation into the Treasury Department’s recent decision to lift the current $400-billion cap on combined federal assistance to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, opening the way for additional, unlimited funds through the end of 2012. This investigation will include the role played by Fannie Mae chief executive Michael J. Williams and Freddie Mac chief executive Charles E. Haldeman in the decision, if any, and will seek to ensure that the additional assistance is used for homeowners and not Wall Street.

    • Let’s see. The CEO of Freddie quits his job in March. In April the admin asks the CEO of Fannie to come be TARP head, replacing Neel Kashkari the former Goldman Sachs brat who drops out and builds himself a small wooden shed in the woods to live in. Later in April, the CFO of Freddie hangs himself in his Virginia home. Now no one really wants the C-level jobs at Freddie or Fannie, so they are offering 6 million dollar salary packages in cash. The question is whether the two GSEs have been directing the bailouts and guarantees to benefit Wall Street or Main Street.

      • The unfortunate thing is that everytime Kucinich speaks, all I hear is – I’m taking a principled stand but achieving nothing.

  7. Via Digby:

    Nothing’s certain except death and taxes — but a temporary lapse in the estate tax is causing a few wealthy Americans to try to bend those rules.

    Starting Jan. 1, the estate tax — which can erase nearly half of a wealthy person’s estate — goes away for a year. For families facing end-of-life decisions in the immediate future, the change is making one of life’s most trying episodes only more complex.

    On Jan. 1, the one-year halt to the estate tax begins. And never before has so much money hinged on the time of death, WSJ’s Laura Saunders reports in a News Hub extra.

    “I have two clients on life support, and the families are struggling with whether to continue heroic measures for a few more days,” says Joshua Rubenstein, a lawyer with Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in New York. “Do they want to live for the rest of their lives having made serious medical decisions based on estate-tax law?”

    Currently, the tax applies to about 5,500 taxpayers a year. So, on average, at least 15 people die every day whose estates would benefit from the the tax’s lapse.

    Wanna bet the lapse becomes an excuse to kill the “death tax?”

    • Question: I know next to nothing on this tax, why is it necessary? Are “estates” (which I think of as earnings – or am I wrong) or parts of “estates” exempt from taxes during the life of the decedent? (And therefore, that is why they are taxed after death?)

      • From Wiki:

        The estate tax in the United States is a tax imposed on the transfer of the “taxable estate” of a deceased person, whether such property is transferred via a will or according to the state laws of intestacy. The estate tax is one part of the Unified Gift and Estate Tax system in the United States. The other part of the system, the gift tax, imposes a tax on transfers of property during a person’s life; the gift tax prevents avoidance of the estate tax should a person want to give away his/her estate.

        • Currently the first $3.5 million is exempt from the tax.

          • Read Wiki’s entry, but I don’t quite understand why it is necessary. While no one is leaving me $3.5M or anything remotely close (or anything period), I’m still baffled as to why it is necessary.

          • MMW:

            to prevent aristocracy

          • If you have a good estate financial plan, you can escape most of the so-called estate tax. The estate tax goes deep into America’s history and the belief of many of the “founders” that this nation should never be a place of royalty or inherited wealth that was huge and dynastic. So you can leave a large estate without paying an estate/death tax but you can’t leave a humongous one.

          • I’m still baffled as to why it is necessary.

            The same reason any tax is necessary – to pay for government.

          • OOOOOHHHH. Thank you all. The few people I have known who have inherited, blew it real quick. Between that and the loopholes or creativity in avoiding the tax, it doesn’t seem to have the effect it is supposed to.

      • Don’t know how this one year furlough came about. If it does go away for good, aren’t we in some way formalizing an aristocracy.

    • LOL. So a bunch of over-privileged brats constitute the death panels of 2010. Lord, this just gets better and better.

  8. you are right RD, we need our principles and to stick to them. I am somewhat appalled at the emotional roller coaster I went through as a result of the O-bot Army takeover 2007-2008. While I did not become a dittohead by any stretch, I do recall my anger taking me down a road where Sarah Palin and Johnny Mac were not just palatable, but I gleefully “pulled the lever” to the far right here on my MA ballot…

    But funny thing about that, we have a democratic supermajority, and womens health rights are eroded under the dems, even further than ever imaginable before under rethugs ~ WTF… I just knew that things were so corrupt after 2008 general election, I could foresee any and all legislation as potentially harmful to all of us. And this turns out to be the case.

    I see all politicians as diabolical *unnecessary* evils now. What next Merka? wtf…

    • Right there: there’s the energy for forming a third party and getting it rolling.

    • I think we have a democratic majority in name only… many of these so called democrats are just republican lite including head honcho… I wish we could achieve a majority that embraces core democratic values. then we may actually achieve something other than kabuki.

  9. “Many of Obama’s harshest progressive critics embraced a secular salvation fantasy that Obama cleverly channeled and cultivated to excite them and distract from his lack of progressive accomplishments.”

    The Blumenthal piece was very good. Appears HuffPo is ground zero for the buyer’s remorse ground swell.

    • Happy to welcome HuffPost back to the reality-based world even though I was banned during the kerfluffle.

    • The Obama campaign did their research. They knew which psycological weak spots were present in the Left. We exposed our weaknesses at places like DailyKos and became one giant focus group.

      • what I was able to see, at that time, was that the Focus-Group juggernaut chose the most idealistic and soft-hearted voting block to manipulate. Progressives are very mushy inside, just the best people you could meet anywhere. They taught me I have a heart and that every creature has a soul, that the Earth has a spirit, and that we should love, and care for everyone, even the Talibani wife-beater and his kin that we are gleefully bombing back to the stone age….

        While I never really considered myself one, as I have an illustrious history as an iconoclastic rock thrower/bully basher, I have always stood as their back up. You mess with my bleeding heart liberal friends and I will knock your block off.

        That is why I despised Obama Inc from the gitgo, as the slimey shite-weasels that they are, carefully and methodically manipulating the masses with every trick in the book. They will be hated and despised for this, once the kool-aid wears off and the anger sets in.

        • Nicely said Deadgirl.

        • And the most heinous example of this was using r*ce against the Clintons and any and all critics for their own political advantage–all the while, using the compassion of Americans who were excited about breaking the color barrier. Despicable. That was when he lost me for all time–I will never support someone who is capable of that level of deception and manipulation.

      • I think spammy will probably eat me for saying this, but I think many on the left subconsciously voted for BO as the magical n****, which is really a form of deeply ingrained raycism. He was supposed to be the noble mystical shaman who would work miracles.
        They never held him to the same minimum standard of other candidates, simply because of his color. Amazing.

        • Yep. If B0 had instead been female and white, or male and white, or female and black, s/he would not have gotten a waiver.

  10. Damn, I’ve created a monster with the BFF and the wii. I wonder what would happen if I hid the controllers?

  11. and reading MoDo again a couple times this past week while I am on Holiday… at first I thought she is writing satire within satire… but it looks like she is indeed waking up to the taste of clay feet…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hpw

  12. I am ready for a third party and I am not a joiner. If Obama care passes I think it could happen. There are a lot of young women who followed Obama thinking their reproductive rights were secure. When they find out they have been sold out in the new health care plan are now defacto conservative Christians they will wise up fast.

    I just get the feeling from media and Democrats that women need to just shut up about our health care needs or we will ruin it for everyone. Well no other group is being told they just need to shut up so I find that situation very offensive.

    • I don’t think voters in my age cohort (under 30) are paying much attention to this bill in general right now. I doubt many realize what’s going on with Stupakistan.

      They will pay more attention when the mandate goes into effect.

    • Women are over half of “everyone.” We are the majority. We are everyone. Disallowing our health care needs ruins it for everyone.

    • Good points all, CW. But I would demur a bit. Those of use between 55 and 65…you know, those of us too old to get permanent jobs with bennies…are also being told to shut up and sit down.

    • I’m not a joiner either, and have decided never to vote again, but if a viable third part comes into existence, I’m in, but, for the sake of my daughter and grands and greats, only if this so far non-existent party is wholly committed to equal rights for all.

  13. From here:

    Democratic commission recommends elimination of superdelegates

    Eighteen months removed from a protracted presidential primary fight, a Democratic group convened to examine the nominating process has recommended that so-called superdelegates be eliminated.

    The Democratic Change Commission, which was formed last August by President Barack Obama, plans to recommend that superdelegates — also known as unpledged delegates — will be required to vote in accordance with the electoral performance of the state from which they represent.

    “We need to show deference to what the party members in our state have done,” said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the co-chairs of the commission.

    The elimination of free-agent superdelegates comes in response to the outcry from many within the party during the 2008 primary fight when then Sen. Hillary Clinton made the argument to unpledged delegates that it was their responsibility to not vote as their state had voted but rather cast their votes for the candidate they thought would be the best person to represent the party.

    How did Massachusetts voters vote in the Demcoratic primary in ’08? And how did their superdelegates vote?

    • How about West Virginia?

      Hillary won that state by 41 points, but at least 2 WV SD’s endorsed Obama.

      • Are they rewriting history? If I remember this right, O was all for super Ds voting how the state voted until the big states started coming in for Hillary—then it was a very different tune. I would have loved to see Pelosi have to cast her ballot butt for HRC. LOL

    • I’m not holding my breath. They’d have to do away with caucuses first.

      And it’s just a tad odd that they mention Hillary in a way that seems to blame HER for the superdelegate’s votes?

      While at the same time never mentioning that if the SD had voted the same way as their states, Hillary should have gotten the nomination?

      Weird.

  14. Can someone please explain to me how Obama’s “movement” was alla bout sweetness and naivete and didn’t appeal to anyone’s dark side? Because I saw a lot of dark-side sucking up, personally. Cunt this, cunt that, bitch, whore, slut, dyke … Looks pretty dark side to me.

    Awwww, that isn’t dark side, little girl. That’s just good, clean fun!

    Not appealing to anyone’s dark side my bald dago ass. That whole movement was and is a cesspool of hate.

    • I saw that too and immediately decided the writer was an a$$hat. Obamaganda relied on hate to stir up their zombie army from hell. And the misogyny was just as vicious, if not more so, than anything I’ve seen from what he calls the “malignant” Christian right. Talk about a pot/kettle situation.

    • that was part of the whole master plan from the start… the bot army of nasties were PAID and did their jobs well, and kept the good liberals paralyzed with fear. No I am not saying liberals are spineless, just easily shocked and cowed, into silence. Like most people, in fact. All that psych research has been put to use to further the agenda of the Oligarch rulers.

      This is a “movement” masterminded by some of the most callous and jaded characters in history. There will be a major backlash though…

    • Janis, you are my kind of woman.

  15. I believe that photo above is of the great Hawaiian world champion Konishiki. The thing with the real giant wrestlers is they never go down by being pushed on their back or to the side. They go down (rarely) when the smaller quicker wrestler feints a frontal attack and/or slaps his opponent relentlessly in the face and the giant lunges forward and falls on his belly. At least that’s what I remember from watching sumo tournaments days on end. Don’t know what that all means, just thought I’d share.

  16. What do folks here think of Marcy Kaptur?

    I don’t know anything about her voting record, or her potential as POTUS candidate, but, her vocal anti-wall street stance has impressed me.

    • Then she cosponsored the Stupak amendment and pfftt! All that goodwill gone in a flash.
      No pol is perfect but Marcy had to pick the one issue that was nonnegotiable.

  17. there is a much simpler solution- eliminate super delegates al together – the repugs don’t have them at all – we don’t need them – they are undemocratic and they don’t do any good tied to some formula or not GET RID OF THE SUPERDELEGATES.

    BTW I am with you I need a third party

    • Um, that’s Claire McCaskill’s present stance. And when it comes to Claire, it’s Oppposite Day. If Claire likes it, every one else in the party should run like crazy from it.
      Let’s think this through: obama’s in trouble. He will be far less popular in 2012 than 2008. You can only play the race card once. He ran against a far better opponent in the primaries in 2008. I suspect that a lot of superdelegates are coming to regret taking the money for Obama. It means they may lose their own jobs when his popularity tanks. So, let’s fast forward to 2012. A primary challenger for Obama may have a fighting chance. If the challenger can get the supers on his/her side, Obama might have to ride a primary out or step aside. Claire and her buddies at the DNC in Chicago don’t like that scenario. So NOW they want to do away with superdelegates.
      If Claire were as enthusiastic about getting rid of caucuses she might have some credibility. But she isn’t and she doesn’t.

      • Good advice, RD.

      • McCaskill challenged a sitting democratic governor in the primaries prior to her squeaker victory in the senate The result was we ended up w/ Roy Blunt’s son as governor.Cagey,opportunistic but worthless.The Clinton’s and Congressman Cleaver really went to the mat for her against Talent.She barely won, because of a stem cell proposition. Totally unloyal and most probably a one term senator.I worked the primaries in KC and the KS caucuses. McCaskill dn give a s…t about anything but herself- never has , never will.

    • even democratic insiders want to get rid of the superdelegates or it least force them to vote in step with their constituents:

      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/democratic-commission-recommen.html

      Eighteen months removed from a protracted presidential primary fight, a Democratic group convened to examine the nominating process has recommended that so-called superdelegates be eliminated.

      The Democratic Change Commission, which was formed last August by President Barack Obama, plans to recommend that superdelegates — also known as unpledged delegates — will be required to vote in accordance with the electoral performance of the state from which they represent.

      “We need to show deference to what the party members in our state have done,” said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the co-chairs of the commission.

      • *#$*^! NOW they want to eliminate SD’s?! Of course, when the original discussion of changing the primary system arose, they dismissed the idea of caucus reform—the most egregious violation of the primary system. I don’t trust anything they say/do at this point.

      • What the heck folks? Who gives a flip what the DNC does? Aren’t we forming a new party here?

  18. Wow – what amazes me is how very, very mild your criticism of the Obama movement was…and how extreme and irrational a response it got. I’ve stayed away from DK, since I always thought it was more about Kos’s ego than anything else. Now I’m glad I did.

    • It was like that after we left too. Except it was worse. The obot trolls were all over our blogs or calling us stupid old uneducated women. And racists. And Republicans. All that because we preferred Hillary Clinton. As myiq said recently, if the Obot claim that policy wise they were indistinguishable was true, what was all the insanity about?
      I guess they weren’t all that similar after all. We backed the right horse and wouldn’t shut up about it. That was unforgiveable.

      • I keep seeing them claim that we “don’t understand politics.”

        Setting aside the fact that many of us have been involved in politics for decades, we were right and they were wrong – so who doesn’t understand politics?

        • If McCain had been elected, we would’ve ended up with pretty much the same health plan, only we would’ve had a refundable tax credit to help pay the inflated premiums.

          Sometimes the irony of it all is more than I can stand.

        • Maybe they mean that politics = being as sleazy as is necessary to get your desired result. Funny, I always thought that was Rove’s M.O.

          • What they mean is when Obama lies and breaks promises it’s “politics.”

            Expecting politicians to keep their promises = “not understanding politics”

          • And once again–if that’s true, why the scorched earth primary? Obama’s supposed positive was that what he lacked in experience and knowledge, he made up for in honesty and integrity and hope and change. If that was a bunch of bs, then why did anyone even care, again? The point of the Messianic movement with simultaneous political ji had was what?

        • “PUMA’s need to take a civics class ” also seems to be popping up. Which basically means shut your mouths and let Obama, the DNC and the government to do whatever the fuck they want.

          • There’s a huge difference between accepting that politics is often corrupt and arguing that it ought to be that way.

          • Which basically means shut your mouths and let Obama, the DNC and the government to do whatever the fuck they want.

            Yup, they thought we wouldn’t notice not counting the VOTES for Hillary R. Clinton in a couple of states….NOT SHUTTING UP…and growing, as more VOTERS join us.

      • I still have my Hillary t-shirts. Come 2012, I’m going to stencil a big red “WE FUCKING TOLD YOU SO!” on the backs and wear themt o every Dem event in the state.

    • Oh sooo right on. Never could abide his shit-eating grin. So transparent how it was always and ever all about him.

    • Everybody take a chill pill and go over to YouTube and watch some Toby Jones. He’s a flipping genius. I guarantee you’ll wet your pants.

  19. OT: but, wow …

    GMAC Financial Services will get a new $3.8 billion bailout, giving the government a controlling stake in the company.

    from CNN Breaking news

  20. I’ve gotten to the point that I can’t even read through these angry posts by “progressives.” I’ve grown to actually hate the designation “progressive” to the point that when I see it, I want to stop reading whatever it is I’m reading.

    I’ll support a third party because there is no other choice, but I’m convinced there will be no real change by working through this corrupt system. We need something truly revolutionary, and I don’t know what it would be.

    Until Americans as a whole really rise up in righteous anger and take back the government, we will only make incremental progress. And meanwhile those in power are making progress toward tyranny in leaps and bounds.

    Our big chance was beating Obama in 2008, and we weren’t able to do it. If he loses in 2012, he’ll be replaced by a Republican. A third party would be great, but who would be the candidate? It would have to be someone who was really “transformational” in the way that Obama pretended to be. Is there someone like that that I’m not seeing? All I see is corrupt pols.

    • BB: Maybe you have answered your own question. Our mental model of political power and change is “electing”—especially POTUS and the congress. Maybe that mental model is bankrupt. Maybe a third party needs to focus on other levers of power. Why do we rail against k street and wall street—they are not a party but we see them totally in charge. Maybe we need to think about how regular people become powerful lobbyists. What street runs perpendicular to k street—that should be our street.

      3rd parties have had success in changing politics—LaFollette in WI, the Bull Moose Party out of NY, and even the cross of gold orator—-they never captured political office but they did change politics. You could probably attribute Bill Clinton to the 3rd party efforts of Ross Perot.

      We need to quit talking about this and do it. We need to form a political pac.

      • Agreed. Issues and a clearly defined path will generate candidates when the time comes. Defining a platform is first, the pac becomes part of the formalization.

      • Agreed

      • They only way regular people could be powerful lobbyists if we had a very large group–like a people’s union and managed to get enough money to support candidates.

        • I’m totally on board with the issues part. Otherwise why would I be here at this blog? No ideology or core values was one of my original beefs against Obama. And boy was I right to be wary of that!

        • I’m going to be off line for a few days. I’ve got to spend some time starting up a little personal project. You have got my email if you need me.

      • Jangles, like WMCB suggested a couple days ago. Let’s take ALL our money out of banks. That’ll wake them up.

  21. Guest post at Naked Capitalism says the health care bill is just another bailout of the financial system.

    No sh*t, Sherlock….

    • something tells me the hubris-ridden fat cat oligarch’s are over-reaching… and as one of the commenters put it out there, changing things will require blood running in the streets…

      • I really think that is what it will take at this point.

      • How Jeffersonian!

      • I’m a new commenter who recently uttered the phrase “blood in the streets.” I didn’t mean it in a literal way, and I hope it doesn’t come to that. To me it’s an expression that implies a great effort. Blood, sweat and tears. I want to see people protesting like actual lives are at stake. And they are.

        Back to lurking.

  22. Holy cow. Cigna finished the year up 117%! I’m speechless.

  23. ” The question is, what is the left going to do about it?” You’re soooo right. THAT is the question.

  24. Another stat to validate our choice:

    Hillary Clinton was declared the most admired woman in the United States today by Gallup Poll. The second runner up was Sarah Palin, third Oprah and forth, Michelle Obama.

    We know how to pick them. I think the American people are realizing now what a real winner they could have elected. I’m happy they are giving her, her due. She is my most admired woman in the whole wide world.

    • LOL! I can’t believe Michelle Obama is behind Sarah Palin. The first lady is almost always first in those polls, no matter who she is. Fourth is a very bad showing!

    • It’s also good that the American people can see through the onslaught of hateful media and party propaganda against both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

  25. Just received a survey and request for a generous donation from the DNC via snail mail. It’s been some time since I received any. I thought I was finally off their list. I think I’ll just send the material back annotated appropriately. Love those Business Reply Mail envelopes – helps to keep the USPS solvent.

  26. OT

    listen to this if even if you have no love for Opera. It will lift you up.

    then try this:

    that people can write like this and sing like this is why I believe in God.

    Life is too short to hate people for disagreeing. Blame them for being disagreeable, but not for seeing things differently. fight for what you believe and win, but spare your heart for more important things… like great music by Joe Green.

  27. Off topic, but was posting an article from here on another blog.

    One commenter said this:

    “”Riverdaughter gives women, feminism and powerful women a bad name, GR.

    She’s a wannabe’s wannabe.””

    Them’s fightin’ words.

  28. looks like a came in on the tail end of this post.
    any way as far a 3rd party that would be something more than a spoiler during an elect. i dont see it happening at last not yet.

  29. What a great thread! I’ll sign up for whatever you all decide.
    My week of cookies, cakes, chocolates. eggnog, bourbon and brandy has caught up with me. Sigh. It was fun while it lasted.
    On the couch slugging Airborne.

  30. fo this to work we dont even have be the ones that shft to balance of power . all they need to know is that we might have been the ones if they are unsure & fear that we can & will do it again they will think twice about pulling stunts like what happend on 5-31-08

    • just think if we went after Jon Corzine. he lost then we go after reed . and take out a few other along the way. we need to go after a rep thats vulnerable aslo . if the DEM leader ship see that a group is targeting them & the same group if targeting REPS . then it the fear that we might be doing it to them . we need to use fear . lets put some puma claw marks on them

  31. Jane makes the point that Norquist signed her letter – that it wasn’t jointly written.

    I do tend to think it was a strategic mistake. Not so much because I intrinsically oppose letting Norquist-types sign on to Left initiatives – there is something to be said for tactical alliances. But because it provided a perfect means to discredit the kill bill progressives within the Left. It was clear that there was going to be a struggle on the Left regarding this bill – and that the struggle would be stacked in Obama’s favor. And that DailyKos would be one site where that struggle would play out. But there seemed to be at least a chance that much of the Left would say “No” in a unified voice. It now seems increasingly clear which side won that struggle – and the Norquist involvement unfortunately was one factor.

    Jane does make the valid point, though, that many ordinary people on both the Right and Left oppose the creeping corporatism that they see. And many on both the Right and Left see the individual mandates as an unacceptable infringement. There is some common ground.

    • Jane isn’t playing to the intertubz, finally. If you’re doing that, you’re losing. There are a lot more people off the net than on it even now.

      DailyKos would have virtually zero (0) electoral effect if it were not occasionally mentioned on the cable news and in a newspaper article now and then.

    • Know what? I think we should concern ourselves with what *we* find reasonable and good for the country and forget about common ground for awhile. When we write it all down and agree on it between ourselves, we can present it to the rest of the country and they can decide whether or not to sign on. But it’s a waste of time to think we can achieve common ground. I am no tree hugging, alfie Kohn loving, noam chomsky worshipping vegan. Susan Sarandon and I will never be BFFs. I am an FDR -Hillary Clinton style Democrat. That’s moderately liberal, left of center and probably where a lot of people would like to be. I don’t have to compromise a damn thing to get people to sign on.

    • And another thing: We have to abandon the term corporatism. It applies to some industries and not others. At the heart of what is called “corporatism” is an out of control financial system that has us all by the balls, corporations included. If we attack the symptoms without getting to the cause, we achieve nothing.
      When you look carefully at the problems in corporations you will find that it is stockholder value that is preeminent and those stockholders are *us*. WE are driving corporatism because our retirements are inextricably linked to those corporations through our 401Ks.

      • Agree. The people to target are the execs and board members. Most in corporations are people trying to hold down jobs, save if possible, and get through another week.

  32. In particular, I think it was a mistake because winning the struggle internally on the Left required maintaining the moral high ground – and involving Norquist ceded that.

  33. RD just read your post on Kos you need to put that one if your hall of fame or something . well done well done

  34. New Thread up ….

  35. RUSH Limbaugh taken ill with chest pain in serious condition, in Hawaii.

  36. If we can’t overcome some of the inertia, we’re gonna be left behind wondering what happened.

    National Conservative Symposium

    http://www.teapartysupport.com./

    These folks aren’t waiting around.

    • Ralph you are so correct there. The disaffected left (which is us among others) is ceding time and ground to the conservatives. We have not called a symposium or convened a meeting. We keep talking; we are not doing.

      I think it is very informative that today’s Gallup poll showed the top two most admired women as HRC and Palin—I think that has something to do with how they are seen in a broad undefined way as “leaders” of a populist spirit—one that comes from center left—the FDR field and one that comes from center right.

      The next big battle is going to be who captures, leads and directs the populist revolt. I am betting that it will be who forms a true FDR revised coalition. And I do not buy that AAs are hopelessly addicted to Obama. I think they may be a group most disaffected by his failures because he has failed them in ways far more hurtful than even Republican governance. They are not blind and stupid.

  37. Wow! I found the Kos post and subsequent responses truly amazing. You racist troll!

    How quickly the kossacks forget, now with all the hang wringing and disillusioned souls that make a regular appearance in Cheetoland. DU is even worse. Yes, there are still hard-core Obamatrons out there, but their numbers are dwindling with record speed.

    I mean, please. You have to be addicted to the point of brain death not see the fraud that was exacted on the electorate in 2008. The halo was plastic; the Messiah was a fake.

    We can always say: we told you so. Only the ragged, bankrupt condition of the country right now dilutes any real pleasure because we’re all stuck on the Titanic.

    A third party is very seductive. I’m one of those Dems wandering in the wilderness. I’m just not sure anyone has the time left to put a viable third party together–to form it, fund it or that it would have a chance against the political machines in place. Both are corporate entities, posing as representative parties. We really should stop kidding ourselves–the whole system has been corrupted.

    The feeling in my gut? It’s going to take a cataclysm [which in my Cassandra mode is coming, an economic tidal wave] to turn things away from the traditional 2-party system. It will also spur the instant production of torches and pitchforks. And, of course, you need a candidate, an actual leader, not these spineless, vacuous posuers who recycle again and again.

    Will it be better? For all our sakes, I hope so. But you’re so right–the rage and dissatisfaction is growing. When I went home [NJ and PA] for the holiday], people were actively talking politics, about how disgusted they are. It’s no longer simply the subject of hopeless dweebs.

    2010 should prove very interesting.

    PS: HRC was my candidate and she still looks good to me. Not perfect but an actual leader.

    • Peggy Sue, the horrible irony of all this is that it’s going to erupt on the Dems watch.

      • I agree, Sharon. Despite all the games, the extend and pretend machinations of this Administration and the Bush crowd, the tidal wave is a-coming.

        And it will land squarely in the Dems lap. Can’t say I have any sympathy for them. But I have no faith or sympathy for the Republicans either. These parties are Siamese twins in crime.

        And the ultimate pain? It will be immeasurable for Blue and Red states alike.

        I feel sorry for my kids and any grandkids I might have in the future. I feel sorry for the whole damn country.

      • true. but the democratic party did this to itself.

  38. Two points:

    First, the GOP was built on the splitting of the Whigs over slavery. A successful liberal third party would have to be formed by splitting the remaining liberal Democrats from the party. I’m not against the idea, but I don’t see how we do it (see point two for why).

    Second, what made Obama a unique disaster is that his skin color gives him, understandably but unfortunately, the loyalty of most black Dem voters. And that means a great many (most?) white liberals feel obliged to support him as well (however unhappily). Thus identity politics (at least as applied to race, though apparently not sex) has proven a trap for liberal Democrats; two generations of identifying “black” with “liberal” has come back to bite liberalism on the ass with the election of a black politician who is not at all liberal. But that makes splitting liberals from the Democratic party even harder.

    Frankly, I don’t think real progress can be made until Obama leaves office-whether in 2013 or 2017. But I agree we have to lay the groundwork in the meantime; any opportunity is likely to be fleeting, so we better be prepared to grab it.

  39. Wow–I’d almost forgotten what a wacked out bed of lunacy dkos was. So many long forgotten names, so much irrational frothing at the mouth. By far the best comment, though, was about how Obama was going to unite Democrats and Republicans so we can “disagree without being disagreeable.” For the life of me I can’t understand why this movement didn’t quite work out as anticipated.

    • their first clue should have been how disagreeable they AND their candidate was. When did they expect the nice to kick in?

  40. another third party and win seats is not going to happen. A their party voting block might. If women took their votes and used them to their advantage both main parties would soon move left and be much more supportive of our rights etc….
    Why bother with another collaboration with leftist males who can not and will not stop trying to make it all about their leftist ideas? Women will be marginalized as always and many will be convinced that they should be in favor of whatever issue seems sexier.

  41. If the term 3rd and party are so scary to most, we can skip them. The idea is form a group of people who are totally lost faith in the current system. They can operate in free form one way or the other. In age of the interent miracles of communications and all that, nothing is that hard. We can skip all the rules and the nitty gritty of forming parties and organizations to go straight to the good parts of affecting the politaical land scape. RD please don’t give up you are on the right track.

    • A voting bloc is one part of the strategy but unless there is a viable third party, no one will take us seriously. We can’t just make them appeal to us if after they have our votes they decide to do whatever the fuck they want. We have to be willing to walk away.

      • a third party will not get their attention because it will never get enough votes to be a threat.
        We don’t have to form a third party to walk away. Women USED to get what they wanted because if the democrats didn’t cater to them they voted republican.
        Many people have no desire to vote for another version of the Green party where all ills of the nation are answered by them getting their favorite socialistic agenda passed. The vast majority of Americans are not going to vote for that. That party will have no power. If you want to offer candidates they have to be candidates who appeal across party lines. Otherwise forget it.

      • I am all for a 3rd party, but for alot of people it seems to be a turn off. So for right now let just skip the part about names and shapes of the movement. We all agree it is a movement. Then we proceed to get the agenda, objectives and goals out. Not a detailed account of course. But it has to be clearly stated that the 2-party system had failed us. We shouldn’t pay much attention to who joined but rather to make the principals of the movement clearer.
        While all this going it is not exactly mutually exclusive to have other option on the table also. After all they all working to the same end.

      • Absolutely walking away is the only answer.

        I just read an interesting article by Mark Rudd, “What it takes to Build a Movement.” on counterpunch, the only site I find worth reading these days just about.
        http://www.counterpunch.org/rudd12252009.html

        I will never get over the fact that the anti-war movement does not exist in the US … and that people could care less about the innocent dead and dying in foreign lands. What did the Iraqis even did to us? Or the people in Afghanistan?

        Right and left even admired Obama’s war loving Nobel speech.
        For heavens sake, walk away. What was wrong under Bush is wrong under Obama.

        Third party … the only answer.

        • goldberry,
          I remember when you wrote this and how the Obama fans on kos went absolutely bananas. I did read the article again and so true, how mild it is. I did not read the comments again – saved myself the misery. Haven’t read anything on that site since spring 08.

          Nice to hear from you again. You wrote so many great articles over there. We had lots of fun … before everything went dark and it was time to “walk away.”

          Felis

  42. Gandhi didn’t wait for a committee to analyze the salt tax, he said make your own salt. Why don’t we do the same? Jumping on someone else’s wagon means they are ultimately driving the team, stopping where they want, setting the pace and making the decisions about other riders.

    Worrying about winning is a full proof way to shave the edges off principles. Let’s start with who we are and what we believe. If someone wants to ride along fine, but we need to define ourselves, not join a prefab movement.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: