originally posted at Liberal Street Fighter
So, you say you want change, you voters in Connecticut? You think that you live in a DEMOCRACY, and that you should be able to influence the way you are represented in Washington? If your elected official works against your interests, do you Democrats actually believe you have a right to vote for a primary challenge without the national party working backroom deals to subvert your wishes?
Silly, silly voters! Boss Schumer is going to set you straight:
Schumer said the Dem primary voters want winners and are focused one electability. He couldn’t resist adding even “in 2008,” which pricked the ears of reporters who thought he was sending a message about the relative electability of Hillary Clinton. (He wasn’t, apparently.)
Schumer said that the DSCC “fully supports” Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.
There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. “You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”
Schumer said he had neither sought nor recieved assurances from Lieberman that an independent bid would not ensue if Ned Lamont tightened the noose.
Is it sinking in yet?
As Senator “Holy Joe” Lieberman continues to threaten to run as an independent, one has to wonder when leftists will get it. For years the center-right Vichy Dempublicans have bullied and threatened leftists who try to mount primary challenges, or vote third parties, yet here we are, with one of them whispering that he’ll do just that unless you re-annoit him to his apparent seat-for-life in the US Senate. “Look at what happened to McGovern,” they sneer, glossing over the fact that the right wing of the party refused to support the winner of the primaries and thus the party’s chosen nominee. “Nader is to blame for Bush in 2000,” they whine, refusing to accept any responsibility for a party unwilling to take chances, unwilling to protect the suffrage of the African American citizens in Florida, unwilling to actually work for the voters and not for the corporations leaning on them through an entrenched cadre of hack consultants. They will do EVERYTHING, including throwing races to the Republicans, to maintain the grip of the center-right pro-corporate cadre that has been destroying everything that this party claimed to stand for.
Do you GET it yet?
As J.S. Paine over on “Stop Me Before I Vote Again” puts it:
But at any rate, since the cutting edge of pressure is threat threat threat, the more credible the threat, the better. And consequently, the higher the chance respect will turn into substantive accommodation.
Now as for influence, which comes from money and volunteer time — nobody reading this, I’m sure, has enough money to make much of an impact — not even all of us put together. So it comes down to our time and energy.
Just as the withheld vote is ambiguous, the withheld effort is ambiguous. If you really want ’em to miss you, you have to let ’em know what they’re missing, by putting it elsewhere — referenda, independent runs, activism outside the electoral arena… lots of possibilities.
Do you GET it liberals, progressives, lefties? Back Lamont, don’t give into their threats, and repay them on other ballot lines. Work for third parties. If, as has happened in Virginia and Pennsylvania, you get stuck with some troglodyte “former” Republican who shares NONE of your values but just loves him some corporate cash and an increasingly militarized culture, DON’T work for him. DON’T support him. Find a third party candidate who does share your values. Find a local school board race to work for … something. This will take time, and it could very well lead to another win or two for the Republicans. So what? “Bi-partisan” hacks like Lieberman and Clinton and Schumer help to lock in the increasingly feral nature of our current social climate. In fact, in many ways they are worse than the Republicans, as their seat of the table requires them to pretend to give a shit about liberal values, at least when it comes to writing up fundraising emails. You can thank them for passing NAFTA, for confirming Clarence Thomas, for crossing the aisle to vote for CAFTA and Bankruptcy “reform” and so many other betrayals of the average working American. You can thank them for the Defense of Marriage Act, for the sad, banana-republic-like state of our elections, for our ridiculously huge prison/industrial system and our obscenely bloated military/industrial complex.
Both parties have helped create an America that is a modern mirror of warlike Sparta, a state where the police have powers akin to those of avowed dictatorships. Both parties have worked hard for years, through the “wars” on drugs and terrorism, to utterly shred the Bill of Rights. Do you REALLY think the Democrats are going to help reverse this nightmare as they increasingly recruit the likes of Webb and Casey, and continue to protect and promote the likes of Lieberman?
Do you GET it yet?
quit helping them destroy this country.
Now, this is what needs to be said, as opposed to encouraging a game of Follow The Leader!
Wait just a sec. If the “troglodytes” from red states get elected to Congress and vote for Dems for Speaker of the House and Dem committee chairs in the Senate, and support the exercise of subpoena power so Bushco can be investigated we should cut them some slack. But we should demand progressive dems from places like Conn, not Bush-kissers like Joementum.
Wrong.
How many of those “red state” dems cross the aisle and vote for the Republicans agenda. Reid, the Nelsons, Hoyer, Herseth …. the list goes on and on. How about the ones that basically helped the Republicans pack the court with wingers by making the filibuster impossible … do you think they will REALLY help work to bring down Bush. Lieberman is just the most visible of them, but there are 40+ in the two houses who may as well be Republicans.
Do you think there aren’t any progressives in “red states”? There were several progressive candidates who were available to run in PA, which leans liberal thanks to the urban areas, yet that fucker Schumer recruited a REPUBLICAN to run for the Senate.
Grow up, open your eyes.
I think we should support progressive candidates in the Dem primary. I think at this point in time we should (holding our noses as necessary) support all Dem candidates in the general election.
IMHO Democrats are going to narrowly lose race after race in the fall due to a massive unprecedented level of Republican fraud, so spending time supporting them is kinda pointless if you believe this. Because the cheating will by necessity have to be huge it should be more obvious than the past 3 cycles, so I prefer thinking of and implementing ways of highlighting and exposing this fraud than spending any time campaigning (though I have friends running so I can’t stop completely).
Letting people know what really happened after this election is the only way I see left to rescue our democracy. Supporting the Democratic establishment is counter-productive, since they will fight against what I feel is necessary.
Agree, this is unfortunately a real possibility.
Disagree about this. The fudging up till now has been small enough that it could be ignored by the mass media and most Americans. The bigger the discrepancy between the pre-election polls and the announced election results, the more likely it will be that the public won’t be able to ignore it.
My point is that given the last decade of complete incompetence it’s pretty clear that the media WILL ignore the cheating regardless of how blatant it is. We need to spend as much time as necessary before the election planning how to get the message out past the mass media wall so that the public will understand what happened.
No amount of work for candidates is going to get them elected if Republicans make up whatever numbers they want on election day.
Agree with you. Unfortunately the DNC, Schumer, and blogs like D-Kos (or at least their front-pagers) are ignoring this issue. I’m happy people here giving the issue the attention it deserves, but the question is, how can this be made a mainstream issue.
It doesn’t have to be a mainstream issue before the election, but we do need a well-organized group of at least a few thousand poll watchers spread around the country who have spent time strategizing on what to look for. The more evidence that organization gathers, the easier it will be to create an uproar post-election. If we don’t start such an organization soon to gather evidence, I doubt we will make much difference.
I may write a diary on the subject next week if someone more politically-connected doesn’t take up the challenge before then. I am interested in contributing and participating regardless.
Quake: Will it really make you feel better to have your Constitutional liberties abridged by Democrats? Will it really make you feel better to have the American Empire abroad managed by Democrats?
It’s not Democrats v. Republicans, it’s democrats (with a small “d”) v. fascists.
Like the Constitution and the Democratic Party Platform, that’s a great theory with lots of pretty words.
Unfortunately when the people whose job it is to bring the words into the real world to help the people don’t actually act on them, or act to undercut them, they don’t get very far.
See, this damn argument keeps coming to D v. R, and that’s just a sideshow. The issue is Freedom v. Authoritarianism… and although there aren’t a statistically significant number of Freedom voters on the Right (the Godwin’s Law Party is pretty clear on discipline), there are still a fair number of Authoritarians on the “Left.”
If D>R is your goal, that doesn’t matter, of course, but if you’re aiming for a democracy, sooner or later you realize that an Authoritarian D has so much more in common with an Authoritarian R than s/he does with a Freedom anything that it really doesn’t matter which color coat Massa’s wearing — you’re still scrod.
In which case you start looking outside the “accepted” options, or you simply accept that you’re a slave and hope you get a kinder, gentler massa at the next auction.
Well, sorry if I don’t agree. First let’s vote out the Bushites. I certainly don’t think the dems are perfect or non-corrupt or ….., but who would you rather have, Bush or Clinton?
Getting His Nibs out of power is job #1. But, if we want someone in the White House who shares our values and beliefs, we have to start by electing them to lower offices first and populating the ranks with them rather than pinning our hopes on one or two people.
Absolutely.
For the next several years, the US citizenry is basically scrod. We thought maybe the rules and the laws meant something, and in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we believed that the other guys were basically Good Patriotic Americans with similar goals if different ideas about how to get there, and we’re paying the price for THAT delusion.
And we’re being told that we should once again ignore the evidence and buy into DIFFERENT delusions because THESE leopards will, given the chance, change their spots.
Okay, I’ll admit it takes some SERIOUS chutzpah to even present that argument, but if chutzpah were enough to make good leaders Halliburton would have the contract to pour cement over Rushmore to put up Shrub and Cheney and Rove and RayGun.
So if there’s going to be a rebuilding project, it’ll basically be starting all over again. The question, as you said downthread somewhere, is whether you want to try to take over the party, or just start over somewhere else.
And it’s a hard call with good arguments on both sides. I don’t think, at this point, that it’s possible to tell which is the better way to proceed. What I do think is that until the Authoritarians start seeing their support failing in ways that make a difference to them, they will continue on with status quo. You won’t be able to do a gut-and-rebuild until the current tenants are evicted.
In any case it’s a VERY long-term project, which means it’s going to have to be under-the-radar for quite a while, and there may not be enough time left. The Authoritarians are spinning the clock back as fast as they can turn the crank, and they may well win the race…
“May you live in interesting times.”
What makes you think, as things sit, that we’ll GET to make that choice? (After all, we didn’t get to make a Bush/Kerry choice, or a Bush/Gore one.)
Right now the D’s are no more willing to have real elections and real votes than the R’s are. The choice here isn’t Bush/Clinton, the choice is election/fraud… and both the major parties are SOLIDLY lined up on the “fraud” side.
And neither one is interested in “fixing” the system because they don’t consider it broken.
And until that changes, we’re still scrod… and if hoping for a better massa is all there is, well…
(I don’t really have a horse in this race, in a personal sense. IF there are 2008 elections, and IF it looks like they might actually have real votes and real vote counts, and IF I’m still a US citizen (still thinking this one over)I’ll be voting absentee at an embassy somewhere. The only difference it’ll make is whether I bother to come back to visit or just stay home.)
Now Madman, you need to trust Schumer. He and JoeMentum know what’s best for us 🙂
the women’s studies classes and hippies I’ve hung out with made me stupid and forgetful.
So far, Russ is the only one who is calling them as I see them!
SIC ’em, Madman!!!
AG
P.S. I have a friend who trains attack dogs. He has two himself. Wonderful animals, I would trust them with an infant.
His attack command?
“Supper!”
Soup’s on.
Go get ’em, Madman.
IIRC, in Andrew Vachss’ “Burke” novels, Burke’s dog Pansy attacked when his master said something like “SIT!”, which had the added advantage of making the adversary relax. I can’t remember if that was the exact command(it’s been a while, but I highly recommend those books) , but it was something like that.
That’s actually a fairly standard training motif for “security” dogs. The “Rip His Lungs Out” command is always something totally innocuous. I knew one gent who had his dog trained to watch his hands and could actually turn the dog loose just by moving one hand a certain way, without saying a word. It was … impressive.
So easy to use when training a dog, it is unbelievable how many people don’t.
Also more common than many realize.
They are so gentle! One of my cousins had one and I used to wrestle with it, just playing. NEVER got bit! (Believe I was 9 or 10, something like that, at the time.) That dog was a big baby!!!
You’ve got to remember a few things about dogs:
First, they think you’re a dog.
Second, yours think you’re the Big Dog.
Third, they are submissive to the Big Dog. They’ll play with the Big Dog, but they won’t bite him. Mine used to close his jaws on my arm to the point where I could feel his teeth, look up (apologetically, it seemed to me) and start licking.
Fourth, they’ll do what the Big Dog wants them to if they can figure out what it is.
Fifth, if you are in favor with the Big Dog, you can get away with a lot of crap. My father had a dog when I was about two or three (so I am told — I’m not sure if I remember her, or just remember what I’ve been told) who didn’t much like kids but tolerated me because she could tell I was the Big Dog’s pup.
The culture of corruption isn’t just a Republican monoply, nor is the culture of arrogance and self importance.
No, but at this moment they’re holding a majority position in the publicly traded stock issues….
And they’re using the power and influence of that majority position to (a) indulge in a lot of insider trading, (b) manipulate the market in some fairly extreme ways, and (c) disable all the regulation and investor protection policies.
Caveat emptor.
a few more big defeats, blatant betrayals, and obvious stabs in the back before the exodus has any chance of being a serious possibility.
To that end, those who see the destruction of the Democratic Party as the first real hurdle in building truly progressive politics should be watching the Lamont-Lieberman race very closely.
It could be one of the clearest cases of the entrenched leadership thwarting the will of the people.
To that end, some might suggest that Schumer may be a best friend to the “tear it down and throw it away” camp.
I remain conflicted on whether it is better to tear it down or try to take it over.
On the one hand, the Democratic Party really is where most people are at…and the potential for many of those folks to make a radical shift in allegiances is small – it would take a massive political firestorm to get folks to jump…and many of them might not jump the way we on the Left would hope.
On the other hand, the Democratic leadership really is pretty fucking stupid, supine, treacherous and disgusting…
Bleh.
I’m pretty confident it would be better to take it over than tear it down, unless you tear it down only to transfer the assets to something with less baggage, a course of action I’ve thrown out for discussion in the past. I once opined that Howard Dean should dissolve the Democratic party and replace it with a party that looks a lot like Democrats but actually has leadership and principles. Anyone who wanted to follow the leadership and principles would be welcome in the new party; everyone else, so long, goodbye and God bless.
Hey, rebranding worked for Philip Morris, why not for a political party?
But really, I think the only viable course is to take over the party and put the organization that’s already there to use. You would have to have the same committed core activists you would need to launch a viable third party, if such a thing is even possible, with the end result that you wouldn’t split the non-Republican vote.
I live in Washington state, where the Senatorial race is between incumbent Maria Cantwell and insurance executive/lobbyist Mike McGavick. I like Cantwell’s taking point on the environment, but not her stand on Iraq. (In all fairness, Washington is not solid blue. There are a lot of red votes across the mountains from Seattle. Maybe those voters have her ear on that particular issue. I don’t know.)
Cantwell is being challenged, sort of, by at least two candidates who are solidly against the war. Great. However, one of them, running as a Green, has never voted in his life as far as anyone can tell. Certainly he’s not on the rolls here. The other has a platform that looks good on paper, with opposition to Iraq and support for alternative energy; however, I have yet to hear one mention of a campaign stop, speech, or other action taken by the man to convince me that he has done anything to run for the Senate other than to file for the office and put up a web page, much less convince me to vote for him. (Neither has the Green candidate, for that matter.) A search of the local paper, for instance, only shows his name in articles about Cantwell saying “also running in the Democratic primary are . . . “
I would rather have Cantwell in office voting the way I would like her to 50% of the time than McGavick, who by my estimate would vote the way I want him to 0% of the time. I’m perfectly willing to support guys like Lamont who can take back the Senate for the Democrats. Then, senators who continue to keep their powder dry and support failed Republican policies when their party is back in power become fair game for primary challenges. I’m an optimist. I am hoping that some of our elected officials, once they have a chance to do something that will benefit the country, will come out from under the rock they’ve been hiding under and do it.