You got that right!
John
Quotes About Life

Mirror?  No.  I don’t think my audience would be very interested in the particulars of an old crank living in Queens.  “And now, I’ve got to go out and buy some flour and some paper plates….”  But what’s that got to do with the subject at hand?

I just find the symbiosis between the desire to kill things in the woods, and the desire to keep the woods alive (so you can kill things in it) rather curious. 

**********************

To the best of my knowledge one cannot hunt in National Parks. As to diminishing Teddy’s legacy:

“At least TR, being crazy about killing animals, set aside a lot of national parks and preserves so there would be something for future generations to kill.  One has to hand him that.  But I digress.”

Yes you do indeed digress, and insult, and spout,too. You do post while looking directly into a mirror, do you not?

Abortion at will can only be guaranteed by one thing:  A concrete finding that
there is a specific, identifiable genetic signature for a “homosexual fetus.”  When
that occurs, all the red-neck women pregnant with their little fairy fetuses will
demand full access to abortion anytime, anywhere.  Until then, abortion will be
increasingly limited by those willing to give that up in order to get some other
political concession, currently a health care bill that the anti-abortionist
Democratic congressmen and senators - and they are all men - will vote for.

Baronscarpia—if you think I cavil, either you don’t know what the word means, or you have a reading problem, or you have a cognition problem.

As I said a couple of messages ago, your view of the world and mine are so fundamentally different I don’t know where to begin in attempting to establish the common ground necessary for some kind of discussion.  So I suppose the problem may well be one of cognition.  I can’t understand you, and you can’t understand me.  I’m going to have to give it some thought.

Anarcisse -

I don’t know when the caving will end, but for my part being on the receiving end of your caviling ends here.

ardee, November 17 at 7:42 am:
‘A: At least TR, being crazy about killing animals, set aside a lot of national parks and preserves so there would be something for future generations to kill.

****************************

How utterly dismissive of a wonderful legacy of a national park system. Anarcissie seems so hell bent to prove all govt bad that he stumbles like this.’

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the National Park system, did I?  Actually, I went out of my rhetorical way to give TR due praise for furthering it.  I just find the symbiosis between the desire to kill things in the woods, and the desire to keep the woods alive (so you can kill things in it) rather curious.  But it does make a kind of sense, and I’d certainly rather hang out with hunters than real estate developers, as would almost any other sane person.

However, it is my painful duty to reveal that TR was not the creator of the U.S. national park system.  The following is from Wikipedia, which first notes that non-governmental types were discussing things like national parks before they were invented by governments.  Then it says:

‘The first effort by any government to set aside such protected lands was in the United States, on April 20, 1832, when President Andrew Jackson signed legislation to set aside four sections of land around what is now Hot Springs, Arkansas to protect the natural, thermal springs and adjoining mountainsides for the future disposal of the US government. It was known as the Hot Springs Reservation. However no legal authority was established and federal control of the area was not clearly established until 1877.

The next effort by any government to set aside such protected lands was, again, in the United States, when President Abraham Lincoln signed an Act of Congress on June 30, 1864, ceding the Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias (later becoming the Yosemite National Park) to the state of California:

“The said State shall accept this grant upon the express conditions that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation; shall be inalienable for all time.”

In 1872, Yellowstone National Park was established as arguably the world’s first truly national park….’

At the time, TR was 14, so, bustler though he was, he may not have had a big role in this beginning.

At least TR, being crazy about killing animals, set aside a lot of national parks and preserves so there would be something for future generations to kill. 

****************************

How utterly dismissive of a wonderful legacy of a national park system. Anarcissie seems so hell bent to prove all govt bad that he stumbles like this.

NYC Artist,
Nah, definitely not a ‘man thing’, altho I’ve been told I take a rather masculine approach to a problem - Direct is probably a good description. Also, a 9th Grade English teacher accused me of only reading ‘masculine’ books - Like Grapes of Wrath, and Dos Passos etc. I am still wondering why a girl would not enjoy good books???

The art suggestions were based on your screen name. I assumed you chose it for a reason, and the reason was that you did some form of art. Call it a good guess.

The suggestions were part of my habitual proselytizing. I am always trying to encourage people to get involved in innovative ways. Making phone calls and marching are pretty old hat anymore… It just seems there should be something more I could do that would get people working for improvements that matter, instead of vegging in front of the TV.

xentrk: I just found your comment to me as “Artist of NY”.  Fascinated by what you did/do.

You suggest I do a mural:my kingdom for an opportunity. But I couldn’t do it myself, just the art for it: (severe cFS/ME).  I,too am older.  I did marches in the 60s, some civil rights work in the south, and in more recent times: I do political art, xerographics and give them away (limited editions due to limited money).  On Feb. 13, 2003 (I think that was the day of the big march), I wore a sign placed on my feet or lap, sitting in my wheelchair and was able to get partway to the march.
A rolling parade of one, with spouse pushing my wheelchair.  We evolve and do what we can.

  I asked what you were doing, but didn’t give advice.  Interesting that you gave suggestions re art.  A man thing?

Baronscarpia—I’m really not very interested in the detailed permutations and metamorphoses of bourgeois power when it deals almost entirely with itself.  I do know that Roosevelt was an ardent imperialist and that he was not alone.  With Manifest Destiny having been completed, the Indians exterminated, and the South pacified by a caste system, the more advanced members of the ruling class were turning their attention to imperial adventures.  For this, they wanted a highly centralized state under the explicit control of the government, so any excessively freewheeling capitalists had to be broken, just as the excessively freewheeling Confederate ruling class had to be broken.  I’ve been told that it was Taft who did the most real trust-busting, after which the U.S. got the total, real, out-and-out world-domination imperialism of Wilson.  Sure, it might have happened a bit differently, because now we’re talking about a few thousand people, not a whole population.  For the average citizen, life went on as before; the big imperial payoff wasn’t going to occur until 1917.  But that’s just the comic-book version; as I said, I don’t pay a lot of attention to these things.

At least TR, being crazy about killing animals, set aside a lot of national parks and preserves so there would be something for future generations to kill.  One has to hand him that.  But I digress.

In the case of the Civil Rights / Black Power movement(s), what we have is a social force emanating from the lower classes and profoundly affecting the whole population of the country, indeed, the world, which had to be dealt with in some way, the two main choices being suppression by force, which would have led to civil war and possibly Balkanization, and cooptation.  Obviously, the smart people who were not too committed to the racial caste system wanted the latter, because they could preserve their power and social position easily while admitting a few elite members of the former lower caste into their ranks.  For some reason you think that LBJ just pulled this enormous cultural and political shift out of his hat, which as I say is beyond my comprehension.  You want me to read history; I want you to read it.  Start with something like the Greensboro sit-ins.  That’s history, too, and not just sentimental history as you seem to believe.

Anarcissie -

Let’s take just one peak at American history.

From 1876 until 1901 we had a run of Republican presidents, interrupted only by the two terms of Gover Cleveland.  In that time we witnessed the greatest accumulation of individual wealth among the thinnest of the elite strata of society and corporate power, and dissolution of the middle class that this country has ever seen (although we’re coming close right now), all with the eager blessing of then firmly entrenched Republican power brokers.  Then along came Theodore Roosevelt.  By mistake.  And in his seven plus years as president he was architect some of one of the most radical uses of federal power we have ever witnessed, all aimed largely at improving the lives of all Americans in nearly all social and economic strata.  He did this in spite of the early opposition of his own party.

So, then, were the sweeping achievements of the TR presidency a monarchical coup? 

No.

Would they have happened in McKinley had finished out his term and had he been succeeded by another finger puppet of the robber barons? 

No.

Please…read your history, get your emotions into check…and THINK.

Baronscarpia, November 16 at 11:11 am:
’... What’s different between now and the mid-sixties?  The leadership. ...’

I am rendered speechless by your proposition.  Really, your view of the world and mine are so different I can’t imagine how to proceed.  It is the most extreme example of the monarchical or great-man theory of history I think I have ever observed.

Ardee -

I don’t see how my support for liberal Dems below the top of the ticket disproves my theory that real change occurs only when party leadership is willing to make it happen.  Quite the contrary.  When a party is led by a bunch of weak-willed, spineless wind socks (as is the Democratic party, including our President), filling the ranks below them with Congressional caucus mates who want change, and may thereby gather enough votes to change the leadership that resists it, is a conceivable and practical solution to the problem.

And as I have said to Anacisse, there is no question but that strong-willed and visionary leadership at the top of the ticket can bring about change as well.
History shows that plainly, and shows many more examples of how a vaccuum of leadership maintains the status quo.

But since you’re looking for my “plans” here, fair’s fair - tell me this…what’s your “plan” for overcoming the enormous financial advantage that the entrenched two parties have over almost any potential third party candidate?  Have you got an inventory of Bloombergs and Perots out there who not only share your beliefs, but are willing to self-finance their campaigns AND are willing to run for a seat in the House?

I think not.

Now, if you start with the premise that real campaign finance can be achieved in this country, and you show my another “plan” for getting that done, to, count me in.  I’d like nothing better than to dump this Democratic Party and support someone else.  But I’d also like to be able to flap my arms and fly through the Grand Canyon on my own power.  That’s more likely to happen than any significant success of third parties without dramatic overhaul of our system of financing campaigns, and that will only happen when there are great flocks of Democrats, Republicans, and their well-healed financiers blotting out the sun as they swoop and glide through the sky with me.

Anarcisse

Take LBJ…a Southerner, a former Senate Majority leader and most notably a Democrat with the balls to put principles ahead of winning elections…out of the White House when those laws were passed and those laws would not have been passed.  There’s not any debate about the social upheaval that was occurring at that time, but if you take LBJ out of the picture we may not have gotten the legislation passed.

Who was it who became the very next president after LBJ?  The window of opportunity was there for a brief time, and it took a leader with strength and vision (albeit blinded regarding Vietnam) to articulate the social change as civil rights legislation.

Think…what did the electorate in the last presidential election demand?  And what are we getting?

What’s different between now and the mid-sixties?  The leadership.  There was a political upheaval that occurred in this country, but there is no one in place to articulate it in the form of real legislation.

kfreed, November 14 at 7:48 am

I think there is a bit more to it than you postulate.

The language of the bill also prevents women receiving coverage from obtaining private insurance covering abortion.

As the President noted, this is a health care bill not an abortion bill and thus the language is out of place.

Sorry, Baron, I wasn’t being sarcastic, I thought from something you said that you were female.

Baronscarpia, November 13 at 6:26 pm:
‘Anarcisse -
Of course there was not a political and social vacuum.  It would be absurd to make that case, which I did not.  You infer that, but you are wrong. ...’

Well, what you said, which I quoted and will quote again, was ’... LBJ - and ONLY LBJ - was responsible for sweeping, radical political change in this country in the 60’s.’  I really don’t know what that can possibly depict, other than a lonely, heroic LBJ striding forth upon the continent and pulling the social revolution of the 1960s, including Civil Rights, out of nowhere and nothing.

While this view is, I agree, absurd, it is widely held and noised about, although sometimes a different character is inserted into the heroic figure role.  However absurd, it would not be particularly surprising to see it popping up in this venue.

Baronscarpia, November 13 at 6:52 pm

I appreciate the response regardless of my opinion that your lack of out of the box activism and belief that voting for the most progressive democrat available seems to fly in the face of your conclusion that the party can only be changed from the top down.

Supporting Ned Lamont, however worthy that candidate might have been of your support, does nothing to the top of the democratic party. Those like Dennis Kucinich remain basically isolated from the power positions in his own party.

You chastise me, however politely, for my belief that third party politics is the only rescue in sight from the creeping fascism of corporate control of both major parties, insisting that the progress will be glacier slow. Yet what do you offer but a similar creeping with support for liberals in primaries? Support that will find an uphill battle as the money and support from the DLC/DNC driven party will find its way to those candidates more in line with the hide bound status quo that I believe dooms your party.

Artist of New York, How do I [personally] influence local issues? or how do generic me’s manage it? First, it helps to have a local community. When I was younger, and living on a different Island, I also had more energy. I door belled. I marched, with my dogs dressing in bumper stickers, in local parades. I got elected as a Precinct committeeman. I volunteered for District and County Platform Committees. I door belled. And, I wrote a District-wide Newsletter, and had a political column in the local paper. Did I mention I doorbelled? First, I got my Precinct to vote for McGovern - we were the only one in our Legislative District, Which gave us 2 votes at both District and County Conventions. I built from there. Within 8 years, the 16 Precincts on my Island were voting democratic, and we had the District Chair [not me, I am not a great meeting goer]. Also, it is much easier to build support with like minded people when you are out of power. Once you are in charge, the dynamics change. People even expect you to do something other then write and talk a great line.

Now, I am retired and out of the game. I did try the Greens, who were active here in 20000 - but they were not really politically motivated - they wanted to talk rather than build a Party.

I write letters to my county Council, attend meetings when I have to, and support the local Global Exchange Chapter at U of H at Hilo. I also pick my issues carefully. It is much more effective to concentrate on one or two issues then to try to put an oar in when things are moving away from you.

People don’t doorbell here, btw. They hold signs and wave at passing cars!!! Perhaps it’s a sign of a latent suicide gene. But, I am a writer, so I mostly write and harangue people, and try to educate and politicize casual acquaintances.

If you are an artist, I would try street art, murals a’la Diego Rivera, and exotic groups of marchers in the many parades in NYC. You want visibility, and credibility. Being a nag also helps.

Ardee -

If I suggested that we should all paint our faces and run through the streets singing madrigals, would that constitute an effective plan of action?  It would be a “plan,” or an “action,” but would it be effective?  No.  I give about as much credence to the efficacy of supporting third party candidates who garner a paltry percentage of the vote.  Yes, you can win a local election here and there, but as far as bringing real change to what really matters - legislation, appointment of judges, policy…not hardly.

I will give you this…sometimes third party candidacies can have an effect, but perhaps not the intended effect.  I think the case can be made that Bill Clinton was elected only because Perot drew enough support away from Bush I to secure the election for Clinton.  Was that the effect intended by supporters of Perot?

Look, throughout the most recent presidential campaign I came to believe we were on the verge of a sea change of politics in this country.  I thought, as did millions of others, that Obama was going to make a real difference.  I was wrong.  Obama has turned out to be a conciliator, like so many Democrats of recent years, and we’re getting more of the same.  But he could have made a difference if he had the will to wield his power to that end.  He doesn’t however, so we are stuck here waiting for the next opportunity.

I do feel this is true however - as we watch Republicans vote as an almost unified bloc against anything other than giving more money to the fabulously rich, more power and immunity to corporations, and taking more liberties and opportunity from individuals, there is NOTHING to be expected from them for many years to come.  So we’re left with the Democratic party.  You can choose to throw support to third party candidates, of course.  But if it’s done only as an endorsement of the Pollyannaish Nader sentiment that it’s a case of “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum” you might just as well vote for a can of tomato soup for all the effect it’s going to have.

So, then…my “plan?”  My plan is to continue to support Democratic candidates who I think offer the prospect of voting on the liberal/progressive side of important issues (my money sent to Ned Lamont is a recent example) and hope for the best.  My plan is to support Democratic party candidates who take on DLC standard bearers in primaries, and hope for the best.  And I will give extra attention and support to any candidate who voices support for RADICAL reform of our rotten system of campaign finance.  If that occurs we might then have an environment in which third party efforts might succeed on a larger scale than now.  Until then, it’s all about the Benjamins, and although that’s corrupt and sick and counterproductive to any significant progress in this country toward basic fairness in this country, that’s the way the system is rigged.  That kind of radical change will not occur through third parties.  It has to come from within the system, the only way to play within the system is with millions of dollars of backing, and that’s just not in the cards for third party candidates.

But hey…prove me wrong.  I’ll be delighted.  Stunned.  But delighted.

Folktruth -

Well golly gosh, what part of my commentary led you to assume I wear skirts?  Come back with something a little less sophomoric and perhaps it will merit a reasoned response.

Anarcisse -

Of course there was not a political and social vacuum.  It would be absurd to make that case, which I did not.  You infer that, but you are wrong.  My point is that radical change is only institutionalized when the people in power - at the TOP of the power structure - are willing and able to recognize the will of the masses and respond with action.  I submit to you that what we are seeing now is a case in point, but with a very different result.  Clearly the electorate has shifted back from the narcoleptic rightward tilt it has taken in recent years, yet…where is the response with action?  It doesn’t exist, in my view, and that’s because the people of the party which is ostensibly in power are cowering in the corner afraid of what the consequences might be if they take positive action for real change.  Not the “real change” promised in empty campaign rhetoric, but real change with legislative action once they attain power in both branches.  Do you see that happening today?  Not hardly.  That’s my premise, nothing more.

The Dems are like Swiss cheese, full of holes, so a little pressure and they collapse.

Baronscarpia

You downplay the ability of third party politics to make a difference, you downplay the ability of the Democrats to pass legislation even with a great majority ( I obviously agree with this). You also note that the Democrats can only be swayed from their self destructive course by top-down action.

So I am confused as to what action you yourself envision from the electorate. I find no recommendations only hints that any actions are futile. I would appreciate clarification.

Baron(ess) I also second Anarcissie’s comment.  You are living in a Democratic party dreamworld where power is the only currency and the people can go fuck themselves except fot their money and votes.  All historical change occurs first at the rank and file level before it is managed, and usually corrupted, by the powerful.

Xntrk and Ardee’s experience of decades each in the Dem party before they quit in disgust serves as a good example of trying to reform a PARTY from the roots up. Parties crystalize at the top, and in the ususal case the powerful are interested solely in power, despite the rhetoric. (see for example THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY)  Policy is a definite second, and decided on the basis of power.

Xntrk and Ardee, I congratulate you both on allowing truth and morality to guide you away from the Dems.  Clearly a first step on a long historical road of a thousand miles.

The Stupak amendment seems like something right out of John Grisham’s latest
novel, the Associate.  There, the idea was raise a red flag, off topic subject in
order to effect judicial appointee outcome.  There is absolutely no reason to
include Stupak’s amendment.  The abortion discussion can be concluded
elsewhere.  Right now, Congress and the Executive branch of our government are
fully aware that we need healthcare in this country.  Health care to improve the
quality of life in the U.S. and healthcare to make us more competitive with other
nations that provide healthcare for its citizens, thus taking the burden off
business.  The Democrats really need to recognize that the Republicans have no
intention of compromising or seeking the common good for constituents.  It is all
about winning.  It is all about greed.

KDelphi,
    Good prediction.  See http://www.blackagendareport.com
I’m in the “older” batch of voters, Dem. by a thread…which may get clipped any moment…

Xtrk,
  I see your point.  How do you, as some do, fight for local issues?  I am curious, not judging.

Dirty Ernie,
  This woman thanks you.

you got that right, Anarcissie!

Baronscarpia, November 13 at 9:47 am:
’... LBJ - and ONLY LBJ - was responsible for sweeping, radical political change in this country in the 60’s.  He was willing to sacrifice the Solid South for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.  Without his strength of leadership, the Democratic Party would have been pleased to maintain the status quo. ...’

Oh, come on.  The Civil Rights / Black Power movement had created an enormous political and cultural crisis in the United States, and the ruling class had to do something about it.  Their two options were cooptation and suppression.  The latter would have meant an ethnic civil war, along the lines of what later happened in Yugoslavia.  Most ruling class people were not interested in the local problems of the South and their power and status didn’t depend on them; their eyes were on the prize of world domination, so they hung their Southern Whiteman colleagues out to dry.  The better choice was obvious and Johnson was the fellow in power at the time they had to be carried out.  Nixon subsequently carried his program forward (example: Affirmative Action).

The mystical monarchist idea that Johnson pulled the radical changes in the U.S. around race out of his hat are absurd.  Historical changes of that depth do not come out of a vacuum or at the behest of some great leader.  The great leader’s job is rather to mediate them so that his political apparatus retains its power.

ardee -

How does one bate one’s own breath, anyway?

Not sure this is the place to be waving around one’s CV’s, but I’ve worked on three presidential campaigns (one as the chief volunteer coordinator for my state) and two senatorial campaigns.  I’m a member of my town Democratic committee and have been for 9 years now (which long ago provided me with a lifetime supply of “Madame Chairwoman”‘s).  I’ve also worked on a few initiative efforts, the most recent being opposition to the petition which would have overruled the same-sex marriage ruling by the MA SJC.

If that’s not sufficient, then, well…I don’t care.

And it’s unimportant, regardless. 

Here’s my essential point.  Radical change of political parties rarely comes from the grassroots.  Sorry, but that’s an historical fact.  Change can occur, but it almost always occurs because of the influence of one or a very few individuals who happen to grasp power at the top of the pyramid, not the bottom.  Three examples who come to mind immediately are Reagan, LBJ and TR. 

Reagan was the person who convinced the leaders of the Republican party which had two factions - the faction primarily supporting a conservative social agenda, and the one primarily supporting small government (i.e., lower taxes) that they needed to coalesce into a united party or they would continue to cede huge majorities to the Dems as they had through the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s.  Reagan by force of his personality and strategy, rescued the Republican party from oblivion and was ultimately responsible for the success of the Republican Party we’ve been battling for the last quarter century.

LBJ - and ONLY LBJ - was responsible for sweeping, radical political change in this country in the 60’s.  He was willing to sacrifice the Solid South for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.  Without his strength of leadership, the Democratic Party would have been pleased to maintain the status quo.

And regarding TR, perhaps no other president in the history of this country achieved a more radical change of course for his party, and that was after a half century of Republicans bedding with, and only with, the super rich.  Rights to collective bargaining, government opposition to trusts, conservation of the environment, etc…these were never items on the agenda of the Republican party until a bold, strong, creative leader succeeded within their ranks.  No amount of effort at local party meetings would have had the same result.

Please understand what I’m saying here.  I’m not gainsaying work at the lower levels of political parties.  It has its purpose and can have a positive effect.  However I do believe that among those effects CANNOT be radical change to the policies of a party, since there is no evidence of that having occurred without leaders at the top of the party structure FIRST having led.

In the case of the Democratic party at this time, the leaders are clearly afraid to fight on matters of principle.  Witness, for example, the seven prominent cowards who joined the “Gang of 14” a few years ago, effectively promising not to filibuster USSC nominees.  Well, where are they now that they have a majority?  Where is Ben Nelson?  Is he entreating the Republicans to return the favor now?  No.  And I won’t even speak of that “independent” pile of political shit from Connecticut who was then a Dem and was part of the “Gang of 14.”

The Democratic Party has been polluted for over two decades now by the influence of the Democratic Leadership Council.  Their strategy has been to abandon any principle in the interest of garnering votes and winning elections.  DLC party “Leaders” like Chuck Schumer, who wouldn’t know a principle it it vomited in his mouth.

And now we have a president who thinks bipartisanship has intrinsic value.

Crap. And more crap.

Salvation of the Democratic Party, if it comes, will come from the top.  Unfortunately Obama, Reid and Pelosi have none to offer.

A call to action

Send this to 2 friends.

Catholics, Protestants, Jews please stop tithing and
donating until Stupak amendment gets stripped from
the health care bill then tell your priest, reverend
and rabbi why.

Then sign this petition http://bit.ly/public_option   
for a STRONG public option where HR 676 appears the
public option but will still allow private plans but
tis public option will have no monthly premiums, no
copays, no yearly deductibles, etc. completely paid
for by taxes and medical care, medications generic
and patented, surgery, hospital care, nursing home
and hospice stays will not cost you a cent at the
point of treatment.

Send this 2 to friends.

I’m with Sara Silverman—lets tax the fricking Catholic church asnd pay for universal health care!

The problem with EMK’s “reform:” is that it wouldve been “maassachusetts” which has bankrupted the state and not covered as many as predicted. We need to cut the health care budget by 30% by cutting out the insurance industry…no one I know is going to be able to go into the “public option” and the subsidies are just not big enough to cover individual policies..most people will have whatever they have now, or wil have to buy coverage with a $10,00 deductible or something.

I dont really care if Dems win anymore or not. They never do anything. i cant vote for them anymore and sleep at night. How can anyone?

samson—this happened in 1994 and dems didnt seem to learn a fricking thing. They just courted younger voters with a “cool” guy and threw “
liberal Dems” , who have been voting for them since JFK, under the bus again.

They will lose majorities in 2010 and everyone in the neo-liberal media will talk about how stupid the populace is and jhow they dont vote for their own best interestsanda how the rich tried to tell us how good Obama was, we just didnt see it. He wouldve fixed everything, if he just had a bigger majority…and, the second term, he wont have to worry about getting re-elected sok that is when he will realy shine, blah, blah, blah. Obama will in and be lame duck but blame it on not having majorities anymore. Dems will forget that they did have al three..blah, blah and so will their public.

Silly question. With Democrats the caving never ends.

Baronscarpia, November 12 at 4:10 pm #

ardee -

By all means, fight the third party or independent battle if you like.  I hope you have the life expectancy of Methusela to see it bear fruit.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of working for what I think is right.

I was a member of the Democratic Party for well over forty years, and active in local democratic clubs as well. There is no way to sway the party from the grassroots level, none that I am aware of at any rate. They hand down mandates, asking only for money to come upward.

On the national level we see the Democrats moving further to the right with each passing day, wedded more and more to the corporate funds that get their attention and sway their votes.

On the other hand , we see the Green Party moving, albeit slowly, to more and more local and state offices with each passing election. We also see that party renouncing any ties to corporate monies.

You work your way and I’ll work mine. I , for one, will not denigrate any REAL effort on your part to reform your party . Care to mention any such you have undertaken? In the last two years we have registered over three hundred locals as Greens, a drop in the bucket, of course when viewed on a national level.

But ,whether or not I live to see a Green as my Senator is not a problem for me because I believe the presence of third parties in this nation is a way to combat the continuing encroachment of corporations on legislation.

So, I await your plan for reformation of your own Party with bated breath.

They say those who forget the past are forced to relive it. What about the rest of us? I remember the past all too well.

Separation of Church and State? Fogettaboutit! A minority religion, the Roman Catholics, have 5 out of 9 members of the Supreme Court. If you look at their voting records, they are anything but supportive of retaining, much less extending, Personal Liberties, Like the Freedom to Choose whether or not to have a child.

The Church, AND the Government need those kids for cannon fodder in the continuing Crusades against the Infidels - be they Muslims, or Pinko Liberal Commies. They have even created the Faith Based Office of Religious Propaganda in the White House itself. They dictate their Religious Fanaticism to the rest of us as surely as the Taliban does in Afghanistan.

The UN, and most Countries, have defined Human Rights as including the Right to Food, Shelter, Health Care, and Employment. The Great Empire has refused to sign on, of course. Its definition of Human Rights is based on the Rights of Inhuman Corporations to unlimited profits and the full protection of the State.

As for working with the Dems, as Baron suggests, I tried that for 20 years. I was on the State Democratic Central Committee. I Chaired a State Platform Committee in 1992. I organized Initiative Campaigns and managed local political campaigns. I was a real power player. Then I had an epiphany: all the time and money I had spent working for left wing causes within the Party was a waste of energy. Sure, I could get my photo in the paper, and make speeches to the choir. But, when it came to influencing National Policies, I had no input at all.

The State Chair of the Washington Democrats sat in my living room and explained that she didn’t give a damn who won the local caucuses - She was for Clinton, and the State Party would see that he got the votes.

I quit in disgust, and voted for Nader.

Now, we are being told that the hard-fought battles for Women’s Rights and Universal Health Care are too much for the Party to support.

Fuck ‘Em! I would rather stay home than vote for these arrogant Bastards. We don’t have a Democracy any more than Honduras does. We are just too stupid and too lazy to take to the streets. ‘Going along, to get along’, is not working. Opposition may not result in a viable third party, but maybe it will. And continuing to semi-support the existing system only gives them more power. And a free pass!

Samson -

Send your strategem to the RNC. 

They’ll help finance its implementation.

ardee -

By all means, fight the third party or independent battle if you like.  I hope you have the life expectancy of Methusela to see it bear fruit.  Look no further than the myth of the “60 vote/filibuster proof majority.”  The Democrats can’t even win battles with a 2-1 margin (although as I’ve pointed out on other threads, counting Lieberman, the Nelsons, Byrd and a few others in a 60 vote count was grist for the talking heads’ shows, and nothing more). 

So…how are you going to win any “battle,” no matter how principled your position might be, with a third party that wins…let’s see, what’s a reasonable number of Senate seats given the realities of our corrupt campaign finance system..?  2 seats?  3 seats?  In what…the next 20 years?

It just ain’t gonna happen.

FT is right about the changes we need.

But, one of the mistakes the left constantly makes is that it always seems to say that it must have a perfect plan in place before it can start to do anything.

The key is to get active and start today.  Don’t wait for some perfect plan. 

45,000 people a year are dying from lack of health care in this country. They don’t have the time to wait for us to build some perfect movement with some perfect plan.

We need to start now. The 2010 elections are less than one year away.  Start organizing campaigns now.

The movement will come from that.  The key is to get active right now.

While Samson is quite right, we can have a thrid party the day people want one, it will soon be as corrupt and ineffective, or almost so, as the Dems.  The reason is the one Anarcissie cites: voters go from the TV directly to the polls.  If the people’s consciousness is not changed from the irrattional drivel of the American truth cosensus, they will continue to identify with the power that oppresses them and the other people of the earth.

What is needed first, before a poarty is founded, is a a pro-people’s movment, that works out a viable and consistent ideoogy, including strategy, for implementing people policies.  In my opinion this will be a revolutionary ideology, since the US power system is completely obsolete. The ‘checks and balances’  the sepeartion of powers, make the US state the prey of the united plutocrats who plunder it and the US.  The ‘seperation of powers’ is part of the strataegy of divide and rule, allowing the US ruling class to invest a unitary president with making war unchecked by congress and the judiciary.

The rule of the American plutocracy has become so anti-American people, as well as anti-earthperson, it must be replaced.

This is not going to be done by voting, athough voting is necessry.  The strucure of the American power system must be replaced or transformed, or both.  this is a historical project, and what we should be doning now is not thinking of a replacement of the Dem party, but a replacement of the American political system.

We can have a third party the day we decide we want one.  That’s what scares the Democrats. That’s why they are out in force shouting their message saying “You can’t have a third party.” so loudly.

The Democrats hope if they shout that any alternative to their corrupt and lying party is impossible, that enough gullible fools will believe them in order so they can pull this same con again and again.

We can have a third party today, if we want one.  Step one is to stop listening to the lies of the Democrats and their supporters.

The day we realize that the Democrats are the enemy, that’s the day we start to move towards a solution.

Want we really need to be doing is to be running independent, opposition campaigns in the 50 or so CLOSEST House races.  By doing so, we can take enough votes away from the Democrats to cost them their majority in the House in 2010.

We need to teach the Democrats a lesson. Its not time to be nice.  We need to kick as many Democrats out of Congress as possible in the next election.  Who replaces them doesn’t matter.  What matters is that the political message is delivered that if you shaft the American people, your congressional career will soon be over.

Basically, its time to kick the Democrats in the balls as hard as we can.  The goal is to inflict pain.  We need to inflict pain upon the Democrats to deliver a message that they simply can’t screw us over for more corporate profits.

If we don’t deliver that message, then we continue to get shafted by Democrats who think that its perfectly safe to shaft us.

We must realize the Democrats are the enemy.  Priority number one in 2010 needs to be to hurt the Democrats in any way possible.  We have the power to do exactly that.  All we have to do is to choose to exercise that power.

If we openly and deliberately take the Democrats majority away from them, we won’t be ignored and shafted in the future. They will get the message.

Its not ‘caving’.  That’s Democratic propaganda.  We see these same propaganda pieces every single time the Democrats sell out American citizens to corporate America.

The word ‘caving’ implies that they really supported an alternative, then ‘caved in’ at the last minute.

That’s not today’s Democrats.  Today’s Democrats clearly and openly support the corporate agenda.  Today’s Democrats do not support progressive causes.

The Democrats did not ‘cave’.  The Democrats always supported the corporate position on health care from day one.  If you doubt this, go back and look at the pictures from the hearings where anyone who supported ‘single-payer’ was arrested and removed from the hearing room in handcuffs.

Its time to stop believing the myth.  The Democrats are not on our side.  The Democrats openly support corporate interests.  They don’t ‘cave’ into them, as that implies that there was at some point some real opposition.

The purpose of this propaganda is to try to convince gullible voters to continue to support Democrats.  We are somehow supposed to believe that if we just keep voting Democrat, then on some magical day they’ll find some courage, probably from a wizard behind a magic curtain, then the Democrats will magically support the people over corporate interests.

This is just typical Democrat propaganda.  You see some version of it every single time the Democrats sell us out.  Which means you see it all the dang time.

Its long since time to stop believing the lies of the Democrats.  When you see a (D) after a candidate’s name, just remember that (D) is for liar.

Like the Baron, I think the right strategy for the Democrats would have been to formulate an uncompromised bill, lose in Congress, and blame the loss on the Republicans and any recalcitrant Democrats.  I’m assuming here that the purer Democratic proposals are as popular as you all say they are.  The moment to do this would have been the summer and fall of 2010, so that while opponents of the bill would be focusing their power and money on Congress, the Democrats would be focusing their power and money on the electorate.  Lose, but lose in such a way that you win.  However, I think this sort of judo is well beyond the strategic capacity of any Democrats in leadership positions.

A third party might be fun, but I don’t see how it’s going to avoid the attraction to money which now dominates the two present mainstream parties.  All that huckstering is expensive.  Scientific studies show that only about five per cent of the people vote on issues, the candidates’ characters and records, and other such arcane considerations—the rest apparently go straight from the television to the polls.

“Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!”

“That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”

(attributed to Adlai Stevenson)

It depends on “whose ox is being gored” as they say.
When Ellen Goodman wrote not long ago, column posted on this website, about “maybe we need to ration healthcare” and made it into “old vs young” - a false choice, in my opinion, she got a lot of sage comments.

Now, with “the shoe on the other foot”, Ms. Goodman’s “ox is being gored”.  While my uterus is no longer available for active service, I support choice.  (I had an abortion before it was legal.)

I also am disabled by illness (severe CFS/ME - see
Hillary Johnson’s Op Ed NYTimes, Oct.21, 2009 “A Case of Chronic Denial”).  John L. Hess wrote/spoke for years about the phony choice/battle between the old and the young in re social security.  http://johnlhess.blogspot.com

Ellen Goodman did us a disservice recently about making a false choice between medical care for the older vs care for the young.  She got “suckered in”.
See http://www.notdeadyet.org

Now she supports a group that’s being “picked off”: women and choice in re abortion.

I won’t repeat the German minister’s words, but you know what I am referring to.  Medical care for All.
Continue to fight for single payer - everyone in and no one out.  Also see http://www.adapt.org  (disabled
activists fighting to get “our people out” and have choice of living in our own homes with attendant care, cheaper than institutional lock-up, or in “facilities” - nursing homes, which use same word,“facilities” as does NYS prisons, which are
Correction facilities.

Baronscarpia is correct, sometimes to win a war you have to fight a few unwinnable battles. The problem is that the dimmos have been playing this underdog game for too long. They cowered in the corner for nearly 12 years, not offering any opposition to conservatives, hoping beyond hope that they and GW would fly the plane into the mountain. Well. it worked. In 2006 and 2008 the dimmos slunked back into power not because of their own chutzpa, but because of the massive failings of the repugs. And now they still play their ineffective game of crying about repugs that won’t play nice.

The dimmos are gutless scum. They are mangey dogs that need taken out to the field and shot. And don’t for three seconds believe that a viable third party is somewhere over the horizon.

ardee - I wish you were right, but parties succeed in this system only with gobs of money, and you can see right here what that need does to politics.

I wonder, my Lord Baron, if you think that one might influence a party ruled, as you note so aptly, by the money? I see your position and understand it, but I also think it conducive to maintaining the status quo.

Revolutions come in all forms, always seem to be a massively uphill battle, and then surprise many by succeeding. I guess the real issue here is whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of the DLC/DNC machine or ,by opposing, with the creation of a party not beholden to corporate funding, end its rule?

“Caving” is what one expects Democrats to do. To be honest though they aren’t so much caving as following their long established M.O. Run to the left in order to rally the base, but govern to the right because that is, after all, who the Dems really are—the good cop Janus head of the One Corporate Party.
The present “health care reform bills” are a hoax which accomplish little in making health care accessible and feed the insurance industry that all but authored the legislation.

Democrats are conciliating pussies.

The right move here, morally and politically, is to craft a health care package which does not compromise, put it to a vote…and lose.  Then go to the 2010 elections with the argument that they went to the mat for health care, and what’s missing is another 30-40 progressives in the House, and a flip of another 5 seats in the Senate.

It’s OK to lose a vote on principle.  It really is.  If the electorate agrees with the principle, and you’re willing to make the argument, you’ll be rewarded come election time. 

We can live without a better health care system for another few months if we have to.  We can’t live with bargaining away the victories we’ve already achieved.

ardee - I wish you were right, but parties succeed in this system only with gobs of money, and you can see right here what that need does to politics.  What we need is a Democratic party that is willing to stand firm on important issues.  That is the only aspect of the Republican Party that I respect - they’re willing to fight for their despicable principles.

It certainly seems that Democrats are adept only at cutting their own throats. At a time when the GOP has become the voice of extremism, and thus both out of the mainstream and seemingly unaware of the wishes of the electorate, the Democrats will certainly fail to capitalize.

I think that third party politics may be on the verge of a real breakthrough.

The “Blue Dog” Democrats are misjudging the electorate if they believe that they will get a “pass” from liberals on the abortion issue.  They will not get that pass and they will get no support from the Republicans, so they will lose both ways.  This will be how Republicans pick up seats in 2010 elections.  The liberals will just stay home.  It is better to have an enemy in power than to have a turncoat “friend”.