I'm advocating launching a full-scale "Don't Vote Democrat" campaign if the Democrats authorize this "blank check" war spending bill, something they swore they would never do but guess what? They are doing it. All that anti-war talk was nothing but BS. When Bush signs this bill into law, Democrats will have signed their own political death warrant, and we must be viligant to make sure they are held accountable for betraying us. If they do this as it looks like they will, then that is when we should abandon the Democratic party en-masse. I will certainly do everything in my power to encourage that. I hope they realize what a mistake they are making but I don't think they do, until later when the reality of their action sinks in. And by then it will be too late for them. There will be no forgiveness for this, and they had better know it.
We cannot control what Democrats do but we can damn well control how we vote and how we encourage others to vote. I predict a negative chain reaction against the Democratic Party like nothing we have seen before. I will help organize it.
Full Version: "Don't Vote Democrat" campaign
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
Wait a minute there -- the Democratic Party is not a unified voice. You can't blame them all for the actions of a few.
Who made the promise?
Who broke the promise?
Who are you going to vote against?
Think about it, that's all I'm saying.
Who made the promise?
Who broke the promise?
Who are you going to vote against?
Think about it, that's all I'm saying.
Ok, let me be more fair. All those Democrats who vote for this bill. And we need to get all of their names and publicize them and circulate them around and let every one be very well aware of which Democrats betrayed us, from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on down.
Is that fair enough for you Spud? I agree there is a minority of good anti-war Democrats out there and they should not be held accountable for what the rest do. But they are a minority. Maybe they should consider leaving the Democratic Party, if it comes to that. All Democrats will pay for what the majority do.
Is that fair enough for you Spud? I agree there is a minority of good anti-war Democrats out there and they should not be held accountable for what the rest do. But they are a minority. Maybe they should consider leaving the Democratic Party, if it comes to that. All Democrats will pay for what the majority do.
QUOTE(AntiFlagWaver @ Tuesday, 22 May 2007, 5:19 pm) [snapback]93882[/snapback]
Ok, let me be more fair. All those Democrats who vote for this bill. And we need to get all of their names and publicize them and circulate them around and let every one be very well aware of which Democrats betrayed us, from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on down.
Is that fair enough for you Spud? I agree there is a minority of good anti-war Democrats out there and they should not be held accountable for what the rest do. But they are a minority. Maybe they should consider leaving the Democratic Party, if it comes to that. All Democrats will pay for what the majority do.
Is that fair enough for you Spud? I agree there is a minority of good anti-war Democrats out there and they should not be held accountable for what the rest do. But they are a minority. Maybe they should consider leaving the Democratic Party, if it comes to that. All Democrats will pay for what the majority do.
OK, so who you wanna vote for instead?
Haven't we already had this discussion?
Look AFW. Be smarter than that. I know your unhappy, but come November 08, take your revenge in the primaries,
not in the general election.
An anti-democrat campaign would be playing right into the Neo-con Republicans hands.
If you liked how things have worked out since 00, then by all means, vote anybody but democrat.
QUOTE
[code]http://www.dailykos.com/
The supplemental bill that will apparently be sent to the President funds the occupation through September 30. The Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2008 (starting October 1) has already been passed by the House and includes $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anybody REALLY believe that more than a score or two Senators and Congresspeople will vote against the overall Defense bill with an election year just around the corner, risking the accusation that they are "weak on defense"?
. To watch a few elected Democrats - far from a majority but enough to keep the party from behaving like a majority - is beyond frustrating. It's infuriating. It makes you want to hit the tequila. Some of these infuriators are House Blue Dogs, some are conservative Dems in the Senate, and they, to say it frankly, are holding the party hostage to a strategy of folding instead of raising.
Both they and everyone who doesn't call them to task deserves every bit of the criticism and disgust that has been laid at their feet at length today by Kossacks screaming @#$@%$ %&%$#*#@ #@#$#@%^!! $%#&(*+.
However, it is also beyond frustrating, deeply troubling, indeed, to see rank-and-file Kossacks folding or threatening to fold, abandoning ALL the Democrats because of what SOME have done.
Yes, the Democratic Party is deeply flawed. We all know that, whether we voted in one election or the past 20. But progressive politics is about the long haul. It wasn't merely about 2004 or 2006. It's not only about 2008. It's about 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020. It took the Abolitionists 40 years (and a civil war) to win their crusade. It took the suffragists 80 years. It took the civil rights movement, depending on how you count, 60 to 80 years. Amazing how people who talk about standing tough and fighting back surrender so easily.
Right now, we still have an opportunity to spur Democrats to tear up the blank check the conference committee wants to give Mister Bush. Many of them are already on our side. They, including Speaker Pelosi, have said they will vote against this legislation because of a lack of timetables and toothless benchmarks and lame reporting requirements.
Many Republicans oppose the bill for other reasons. Some of them don't like the benchmarks even though they apparently won't be binding. Or they don't like the minimum wage raise attached to the bill. Whatever. A strange-bedfellows alliance could keep this legislation off the President's desk. Whatever happens afterward, its defeat would be a good thing.
If you're lucky enough to be represented by elected Dems who voted for Feingold-Reid or McGovern, call them and praise them. And urge them to vote "nay" on this terrible legislation. If you're not so lucky, call up one of the 29 Senate Democrats or 169 House Democrats who did vote for those pieces of legislation and add your voice to those of us who will be doing what we can to send this bill to the trash bin.Channel your fury
The supplemental bill that will apparently be sent to the President funds the occupation through September 30. The Defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2008 (starting October 1) has already been passed by the House and includes $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anybody REALLY believe that more than a score or two Senators and Congresspeople will vote against the overall Defense bill with an election year just around the corner, risking the accusation that they are "weak on defense"?
. To watch a few elected Democrats - far from a majority but enough to keep the party from behaving like a majority - is beyond frustrating. It's infuriating. It makes you want to hit the tequila. Some of these infuriators are House Blue Dogs, some are conservative Dems in the Senate, and they, to say it frankly, are holding the party hostage to a strategy of folding instead of raising.
Both they and everyone who doesn't call them to task deserves every bit of the criticism and disgust that has been laid at their feet at length today by Kossacks screaming @#$@%$ %&%$#*#@ #@#$#@%^!! $%#&(*+.
However, it is also beyond frustrating, deeply troubling, indeed, to see rank-and-file Kossacks folding or threatening to fold, abandoning ALL the Democrats because of what SOME have done.
Yes, the Democratic Party is deeply flawed. We all know that, whether we voted in one election or the past 20. But progressive politics is about the long haul. It wasn't merely about 2004 or 2006. It's not only about 2008. It's about 2010, 2012, 2016, 2020. It took the Abolitionists 40 years (and a civil war) to win their crusade. It took the suffragists 80 years. It took the civil rights movement, depending on how you count, 60 to 80 years. Amazing how people who talk about standing tough and fighting back surrender so easily.
Right now, we still have an opportunity to spur Democrats to tear up the blank check the conference committee wants to give Mister Bush. Many of them are already on our side. They, including Speaker Pelosi, have said they will vote against this legislation because of a lack of timetables and toothless benchmarks and lame reporting requirements.
Many Republicans oppose the bill for other reasons. Some of them don't like the benchmarks even though they apparently won't be binding. Or they don't like the minimum wage raise attached to the bill. Whatever. A strange-bedfellows alliance could keep this legislation off the President's desk. Whatever happens afterward, its defeat would be a good thing.
If you're lucky enough to be represented by elected Dems who voted for Feingold-Reid or McGovern, call them and praise them. And urge them to vote "nay" on this terrible legislation. If you're not so lucky, call up one of the 29 Senate Democrats or 169 House Democrats who did vote for those pieces of legislation and add your voice to those of us who will be doing what we can to send this bill to the trash bin.Channel your fury
Now is not the time to get all pissy and quit!
On the contrary!
I won't give up on the Democrats until the Democrats give up on me. Giving the President a 'blank check' on the Iraq War is giving up. It has not happened yet. I hope it does not happen. But we must be ready in case it does happen. These Democrats have to know loud and clear what will happen if they do this. This is a line in the sand that cannot be crossed, and if we allow it to be crossed without strong consequences to those who crossed it, then we have no principals worth defending. Anyone else can do what they want to do. If this comes to pass it will be the "poison pill" for the Democratic Party.
QUOTE(AntiFlagWaver @ Tuesday, 22 May 2007, 8:22 pm) [snapback]93901[/snapback]
I won't give up on the Democrats until the Democrats give up on me. Giving the President a 'blank check' on the Iraq War is giving up. It has not happened yet. I hope it does not happen. But we must be ready in case it does happen. These Democrats have to know loud and clear what will happen if they do this. This is a line in the sand that cannot be crossed, and if we allow it to be crossed without strong consequences to those who crossed it, then we have no principals worth defending. Anyone else can do what they want to do. If this comes to pass it will be the "poison pill" for the Democratic Party.
Don't give up, period!
The Democrats have not folded up their tent and left town, and unless you or anybody can suggest a viable alternative.....
AFW, you are smarter than that.
I'd suggest you spend some time reading Gore's newest book!
Very soon I'll be reading it myself.
The majority of the people in this country have already given up on politics and don't vote. The younger generation especially has said thanks but no thanks. As I see it there are only two viable alternatives. Either take back the Democratic Party or abandon them in favor of a mult-party system. I think the later is better. Instead of trying to fix something that is so entrenched and broken, it seems better to say to hell with them and start over. I vote with AFW on this one.
I chose the Green Party, but I would suggest all just take a look at all the 3rd parties and see what fits them best. But I will post a quote from the Green Party...
...and work towards that end personally.
If you (the universal collective you that is, not individually) want to remain a Democrat then stop apologizing for them and make them change. I realize it's not gonna happen over night, but if this is the era of "new Democrats," then why are they still using the same old tactics and rhetoric?
I chose the Green Party, but I would suggest all just take a look at all the 3rd parties and see what fits them best. But I will post a quote from the Green Party...
QUOTE
"The Green Party is providing the sole progressive antiwar political alternative to the bipartisan war machine. The narrow debate between the two old parties shows how essential it is for Greens to win seats in Congress in 2008 and to compete in the presidential race. Until Democrats and Republicans see masses of antiwar voters reregistering Green and a couple of Green victories in congressional races, they'll have little motivation to change their tune."
...and work towards that end personally.
If you (the universal collective you that is, not individually) want to remain a Democrat then stop apologizing for them and make them change. I realize it's not gonna happen over night, but if this is the era of "new Democrats," then why are they still using the same old tactics and rhetoric?
QUOTE(trinharder @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 6:04 am) [snapback]93928[/snapback]
The majority of the people in this country have already given up on politics and don't vote. The younger generation especially has said thanks but no thanks. As I see it there are only two viable alternatives. Either take back the Democratic Party or abandon them in favor of a mult-party system. I think the later is better. Instead of trying to fix something that is so entrenched and broken, it seems better to say to hell with them and start over. I vote with AFW on this one.
I chose the Green Party, but I would suggest all just take a look at all the 3rd parties and see what fits them best. But I will post a quote from the Green Party...
...and work towards that end personally.
If you (the universal collective you that is, not individually) want to remain a Democrat then stop apologizing for them and make them change. I realize it's not gonna happen over night, but if this is the era of "new Democrats," then why are they still using the same old tactics and rhetoric?
I chose the Green Party, but I would suggest all just take a look at all the 3rd parties and see what fits them best. But I will post a quote from the Green Party...
...and work towards that end personally.
If you (the universal collective you that is, not individually) want to remain a Democrat then stop apologizing for them and make them change. I realize it's not gonna happen over night, but if this is the era of "new Democrats," then why are they still using the same old tactics and rhetoric?
The Green party, I'm sorry, is not a viable alternative.
Questions.
What percentage of registered voters are Greens?
In any given national election in the last 50 years in which a Green was on the ballot, how'd he do?
Seems to me Nader was the last credible candidate, and he got what, 3%?
Yes, the Greens do have good ideas, but like Kucinich, a Democrat who I very much respect, aren't (as of yet) electable.
Look forward. My response is that as a liberal progressive, I want to support candidates that are liberal progressives. If they happen to be a Democrat, fine. But as a party, I see the Democrats as a wing of the Corporate party, left of center, but not liberal or progressive. For me, it's not about winning elections, it's about the road taken. It's about changing one person at a time. It's a generational change I seek and I'm not willing to wait until it becomes feasible to begin. You start with what you have, either to reform the one your with, or with something that more closely corresponds with our own ideas and ideals. The Democrat's ideals are not mine so why should I adopt them? Is getting elected all that matters? Is that the end all and be all? When they misbehave is it enough to slap them on the wrist and say I still love you, and I still need you, because without you, all hope is gone? Is it not possible to say I gave you a chance, and you disappointed me, so "seeya, wouldn't wanna beya." It will take time, many many years, but the timeline has already started, and the lead horse has stumbled. Give it cortizone and steroid shots, or trade it in for a younger horse? We each have different answers. You reject mine, and I reject yours, but they are not incompatible over the long haul. One or the other, or a combination of both can work. Maybe the ones who will move to 3rd parties are not Democrats at all, but the so-called middle or the righties who are fed up with where the Republican Party has gone, but don't see the Democrats as an answer either. Think big, think globally, act locally so the saying goes. Think long-term and not just the next election, not just getting rid of the current transient occupants of the Whitehouse. If there is to be a progressive future for this country, it needs more than a single spice to satisfy the palate, especially when one of them tends to leave a bitter aftertaste in our mouths as they cave in to Bush.
The advantage, as I see it, to 3rd parties is as a collective voice. The larger the contingent, the louder that voice is. I also see it as a way to say to the Democrats, until you shape up, I'm breaking off the engagement. I still like you, kinda sorta, but enough is enough, you've cheated on me one too many times. Call me up some time when you get your act together and we'll talk, but for now, I think we need to split up. Stay in touch, but don't call me on Friday nights cuz I've got a new gal.
The advantage, as I see it, to 3rd parties is as a collective voice. The larger the contingent, the louder that voice is. I also see it as a way to say to the Democrats, until you shape up, I'm breaking off the engagement. I still like you, kinda sorta, but enough is enough, you've cheated on me one too many times. Call me up some time when you get your act together and we'll talk, but for now, I think we need to split up. Stay in touch, but don't call me on Friday nights cuz I've got a new gal.
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Tuesday, 22 May 2007, 7:32 pm) [snapback]93903[/snapback]
Don't give up, period!
The Democrats have not folded up their tent and left town, and unless you or anybody can suggest a viable alternative.....
AFW, you are smarter than that.
I'd suggest you spend some time reading Gore's newest book!
Very soon I'll be reading it myself.
The Democrats have not folded up their tent and left town, and unless you or anybody can suggest a viable alternative.....
AFW, you are smarter than that.
I'd suggest you spend some time reading Gore's newest book!
Very soon I'll be reading it myself.
You are nothing but a fucking Democratic apologist and have been from day one, Sky. There is nothing the Democrats could do that would prevent you from putting on the Blue Donkey cheerleader suit and poms poms. Go read your book. I'm looking for a new party, and am going to help organize the campaign against the Democrats who support this bill.
QUOTE(trinharder @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 7:55 am) [snapback]93935[/snapback]
For me, it's not about winning elections, it's about the road taken.
Understood, and all are fine and noble rationalizations.
However, if you are not about winning elections, how are you about losing elections?
How are you about allowing the real bad guys to get, keep and expand their control?
Priorities. First things first!
In the mean time, we do what we must, to get where we should go.
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 10:20 am) [snapback]93931[/snapback]
The Green party, I'm sorry, is not a viable alternative.
Questions.
What percentage of registered voters are Greens?
In any given national election in the last 50 years in which a Green was on the ballot, how'd he do?
Seems to me Nader was the last credible candidate, and he got what, 3%?
Questions.
What percentage of registered voters are Greens?
In any given national election in the last 50 years in which a Green was on the ballot, how'd he do?
Seems to me Nader was the last credible candidate, and he got what, 3%?
If all the people who voted Dem last election based on the war issue switched parties, the Greens would suddenly be credible.
QUOTE(Spud Demon @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 9:13 am) [snapback]93947[/snapback]
If all the people who voted Dem last election based on the war issue switched parties, the Greens would suddenly be credible.
Obviously.
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 11:06 am) [snapback]93944[/snapback]
Understood, and all are fine and noble rationalizations.
However, if you are not about winning elections, how are you about losing elections?
How are you about allowing the real bad guys to get, keep and expand their control?
Priorities. First things first!
In the mean time, we do what we must, to get where we should go.
However, if you are not about winning elections, how are you about losing elections?
How are you about allowing the real bad guys to get, keep and expand their control?
Priorities. First things first!
In the mean time, we do what we must, to get where we should go.
There is political theory and there is politics. I'm a theorist. The two are so dramitically different because politics on the ground involves human emotions and ego. I'll vote the candidate, not the party line, but I'll work for the party that most closely matches my ideologies (theory), and I'll think long-term. If I end up supporting a candidate that doesn't win, it's not the same thing as a loss. It's kind of like the old two steps forward and one step back. If it comes down to Rudy and Hillary, I'll vote for neither. By your way of thinking, Hillary is the better choice (I presume and assume). By my way of thinking, neither is a step forward. Now, Thom Hartmann's theory is that he'd back Hillary and expect her to fall in line with his way of thinking, it's what he calls leading the parade. Whether she would do so or not I don't know.
You seem so focused on good vs. evil, which is a very conservative frame. It's conservative vs. liberal as I see it, and neither is either good nor evil, they're just different world views. If Hillary becomes the next president, I couldn't see her as "good," and one who will adopt a progressive world view and thereby turn this country around.
Do you see the Democratic party as being liberal and/or progressive? Or are they just the only game in town?
There is of course another option -- Don't change voting habits, but register green or independant.
I've never met or heard of a Green candidate who I would ever vote for, but if the democrat in the race was bad enough...
I've never met or heard of a Green candidate who I would ever vote for, but if the democrat in the race was bad enough...
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 12:37 pm) [snapback]93960[/snapback]
There is of course another option -- Don't change voting habits, but register green or independant.
I've never met or heard of a Green candidate who I would ever vote for, but if the democrat in the race was bad enough...
I've never met or heard of a Green candidate who I would ever vote for, but if the democrat in the race was bad enough...
That's pretty much what happens. There's not a lot of Green's on the ballot locally. The only thing you surrender is voting in the primaries, and while you could change affiliations in order to do so, it's my opinion that it is the change in registration that sends the primary message more so than a primary vote.
QUOTE(trinharder @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 11:50 am) [snapback]93961[/snapback]
That's pretty much what happens. There's not a lot of Green's on the ballot locally. The only thing you surrender is voting in the primaries, and while you could change affiliations in order to do so, it's my opinion that it is the change in registration that sends the primary message more so than a primary vote.
The bad news is you're going to have to actually BUILD a political party. Nobody's going to make it easy for you.
QUOTE(Spud Demon @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 10:13 am) [snapback]93947[/snapback]
If all the people who voted Dem last election based on the war issue switched parties, the Greens would suddenly be credible.
What are the odds of that happening?
IMO, very very slim.
QUOTE(happymisanthropy @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 12:13 pm) [snapback]93964[/snapback]
The bad news is you're going to have to actually BUILD a political party. Nobody's going to make it easy for you.
While in the mean time, the Democratic party and all it's infrastructure is already in place.
IMO, it would be much easier to restructure the Democratic party, then to attempt building a new party from virtual scratch.
Sure as hell worked for the Neo-cons in the Republican party!
Consider it.
QUOTE(trinharder @ Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 2:50 pm) [snapback]93961[/snapback]
The only thing you surrender is voting in the primaries
In states with open primaries, you don't even lose that. I get to decide when I get to the polls which party's primary I vote in.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.