Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democrats are United

While Republicans are so divided they cannot find a presidential candidate they can work for, Democrats are united. Sure there is the battle among Clinton, Obama and Edwards. But it is clear that whoever wins the Democratic primary will be supported wholeheartedly by all Democrats, regardless of whether they are moderate DLC people or liberal netroots.

We've heard so much about the war between the liberal Democrats and the moderate Democrats. Daily KOS represents the so-called liberal netroots and the DLC represents the moderates. It's true that for a time harsh words were exchanged between the two groups, especially about the Iraq War. The DLC was more or less for it and the Daily KOS netroots were against it.

No longer. Both groups now want to get out of Iraq, the netroots a little faster than the DLC-ers.

The two groups are coming together. The first real sign was Hillary Clinton coming to speak at the YearlyKOS Convention. Hillary is a leader in the DLC and the netroots are not in favor of her getting the nomination. The netroots favor Obama and Edwards. Hillary came and was well received.

The second sign came on Sunday on Meet the Press. Harry Ford, the leader of the DLC and Markos Moulitsas, who runs Daily KOS, were to have a debate. Yes, they sparred a little bit. But it was amazing to see Ford complimenting Moulitsas on his accomplishments. And Moulitsas did not attack as he usually does. The big result came when Ford promised to attent next year's YearlyKOS Convention.

The two sparring groups are combining forces to make the Democratic Party strong and to lick the Republicans. Furthermore, the general approach of the Democratic Party is a little more to the left than it was previously.

Democrats are united as never before. We stand to win the next presidential election. We stand to win big. Perhaps even a landslide.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 13, 2007 8:30 PM
Comments
Comment #229289

Good luck on that one. I am betting on Hillary. The netroots are less and less fond of her.

I expect that most of them will end up supporting their party’s candidate, just as most Republicans will support theirs, but I do not see the Dems are particularly united.

They rallied around Bush hatred. Bush will be gone soon. They will have to transfer their hatred to the new guys and some hatred will be lost in the transaction.

I saw that same debate you did, BTW. It looked a little more strained to me.

The DLC types are reasonable. The netroots are nuts. I hear that their favorite is Kucinich. I am not even sure he is a native earthling. It is hard to see the common ground.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #229293

Oh yeah, the democrats are united all right: they want to raise taxes, nationalize healthcare, and defeat in the War. Also, you must not see what is going on with the democratic (Presidential) candidates; they bumped the DLC convention and went to (the far,far-left) Daily Kos convention, instead.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #229299

Jack,
You may find this interesting…
A few months ago, DailyKos conducted an unscientific poll to see who vote for which candidate. Hillary was near the bottom, and no question, she is definitely not the liberals favored candidate. But when the poll asked whether Kossacks would vote for her versus a Republican candidate, something like 97% supported Hillary.

She is certainly not my choice. But I have to give her a tip of the hat. She is running a smart campaign from the middle, she has lined up very powerful backers, she can raise funds (as unseemly as that may be), she conducts herself very well in debates, and despite all the baggage she brings, and all the negatives, I have to say it- I am impressed.

Democrats will almost certainly unite behind their candidate. There is a lot to do, and it looks like there will still be an opportunity in 2008 to do it.

How I wish Bush would dedicate himself to being a successful president, a leader for all Americans. With Rove gone, with the Republican legislative agenda dead in the water, now would be a perfect time to extend an olive branch. Instead of obstructionism in Congress and threatening vetos, I would be happy to see Bush succeed by co-opting the Democratic agenda. We would all be better off if Bush agreed to enact it, in exchange for pushing the agenda slightly rightward through compromises. And it would be much more effective for Republicans in the upcoming election if they achieved something, shared credit, and stole the Democrats thunder before 2008. Forget highly controversial topics like Social Security and Immigration. Take what he can, get something done! If only Bush would suddenly become interested in governing.

Oh well.

Posted by: phx8 at August 13, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #229304

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005370.html#228421

What you don’t seem to get is that the Democratic Party was founded, and was meant to belong to Liberals. We don’t need to “take over” our own party, we need only KICK OUT all these weak, spineless “moderates and conservatives” who have infiltrated OUR party and who are shamelessly thwarting and sabotaging all of the goals that Liberal Democrats ran on in the 2006 midterm election.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 02:39 PM

Mmmm, smell that unity.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #229306

Phx8

There are three problems for Bush working with Dems.

1. It is hard to tell what the Dem agenda is

2. To the extent that we can see it, it is not something we want. For example, raising taxes is not something most of us favor (except for my carbon taxes)

3. A big part of the Dem agenda - where they spend most of their time, taxpayer money and energy - is attacking Bush.

Here is my non-rhetorical question. Which Dem agenda items do you think Bush can cooperate with?

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #229317

Bush has absolutely nothing to lose by picking one or two domestic issues and launching a major domestic initiative. What issues are near and dear to the hearts of most Americans? The top two issues of the 2006 midterms, Iraq/Terrorism and Corruption, do not offer any ready inroads. The easiest target would be health care.

Bring together Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, & McConnell. Cut a deal. Craft a program which combines Medicare & Medicaid into a national universal health program along the lines of the Australian plan. Unite both parties in a bipartisan effort to resist Big Pharma, as well as the lawyers, by stablishing low liability limits, driving malpractice premiums down.

In exchange for giving the Democrats their heart”s desire, behind closed doors, cut a deal; call off the dogs (as much as possible) on investigations of corruption. No talk from congressman about impeachment. Leave the people who have left the administration alone.

This is only an example. It could be a different issue, different terms.

But the point is, anticipate where the Democratic Party will go after 2008, preempt their agenda, and take credit for achieving what they want to do, while getting whatever can be had in the bargain.

Posted by: phx8 at August 13, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #229320

Paul, your exuberance is a fine example of premature election prophecy. First, watch out for Huckabee. He is the candidate that could potentially pull out from behind and appeal to both the Conservative base and a majority of the Independent voters, and if that happens, Democrats lose the White House in ‘08.

Secondly, Hillary has made her first enormous mistake, not for the primaries, but for the general election, when she welcomed wealthy special interest bribe and blackmail money to her campaign. Huckabee is seeking a more grass roots Republican funding, and it comes down to Huckabee and Hillary, Hillary, could well lose if Huckabee hangs that albatross on her campaign with every debate and campaign speech he makes.

As for the electoral college, Californians can guarantee a Republican White House bid if they alter their delagate vote according to Congressional District. Lastly, Guiliani, polls show, can and will be supported by America’s rural heartland over Hillary or Obama. If the rural South, Midwest and West move to back Guiliani, it will be another very tight electoral college race.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but, the facts on the ground do not support such certainty as indicated by your article. Not by a long shot.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 12:01 AM
Comment #229325

phx8 said: “But the point is, anticipate where the Democratic Party will go after 2008, preempt their agenda, and take credit for achieving what they want to do, while getting whatever can be had in the bargain.”

That is precisely what Ed Gillespie, Rove’s replacement as policy adviser will advise. Gillespie has no problem working with Democrats, and the will to accomplish something successfully for his party through bi-partisan negotiation. Too little, too late? That depends upon how Democrats handle his olive branch. If they reject it, that could wound themselves in their attempt to further wound this lame duck. Democrats may become boxed into working with and handing Bush some domestic agenda wins if Gillespie and the President wisely choose their agenda item(s).

Iraq of course, will remain the stumbling block in both costs and public support for White House led agendas, and the compromise may have to be that the Democrats initiate, the White House negotiates, and together they legislate for the benefit of both. With Rove out of the way, this potential exists with Gillespie in.

A lot depends on Bush too. Can he live with only marginal recooperation of his legacy, or will he insist and demand on more which Democrats can block while retaining public support? Big questions for Pelosi/Reid and Gillespie/Bush.

Just as a side note, I suspect now that Rove is gone, and Gillespie is in, we won’t be hearing much from Dick Cheney for the rest of the term, nor will Bush be listening to his counsel, anymore, either. If Bush is a lame duck, Dick Cheney, I believe, is a dead duck, from self inflicted wounds surrounding Iraq, torture, rendition, waste, fraud, and abuse by Haliburton, and Constitutional breaches regarding FISA and intelligence gathering on Americans. If compromise and successful domestic agendas are in the offing, there is no room for Big Dick ramming neo-con hostilities into the mix.

Congressional Republicans are going to be seeking restoration of an image of bi-partisan cooperation to shore up their election campaigns with Independent voters, and there is nothing to be gained by siding with Big Dick VP who never could or would accommodate Democrats in any bi-partisan way, shape, or form.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 12:23 AM
Comment #229331

Rhinehold is correct in his estimation of what I think and feel. I will never vote for Hillary. She is no better than voting for a Republican in my estimation. I welcome and would vote for ANY other Democratic candidate, but her. If she wins, I will not vote for someone who will not admit that the Iraq war was a grave mistake, and that her support of it was also. If she garners the nomination from the “liberal” party, my vote will automatically go to the Green Party by default. I also believe that many other liberals and liberal independents feel the same way that I do.
Haven’t we all (liberals and liberal independents) had enough of special interests being represented at the expense of We the People? Haven’t we had enough lame excusers continuing this mistaken, failure of a war? I certainly have.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 14, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #229337

David,
This is one of those rare moments that offers Bush a chance to change course, and perhaps even become an effective leader of our country. During some introspective moment, it must surely occur to him that the advice he has been receiving has been, um, not so good. He has been reduced to the lamest of lame ducks, shunned by his own party, standing in a corner threatening to veto everything. It must surely occur to him that his “legacy” may be completely and utterly erased by 2010.

Bringing in Gillepsie would make a huge difference. Turning away from Cheney, demanding he resign “for health reasons,” or sending him on a 17 month tour to attend the state funerals of the world would be a great sign.

There is a potential congressional supermajority waiting for an astute politician to make use of. But it all depends on Bush cleaning house, and refashioning himself as a leader for all Americans, rather than merely Chief Executive of the Republican Party.

But everytime I try to get optimistic about Bush, and hopeful, he disappoints. There is a tremendous opportunity now available, and nothing for Bush to lose.

Adrienne,
I believe Hillary is “keeping her powder dry.” She is positioning herself as a “centrist,” which is obnoxious, and much of her power is derived by being beholden to special interests and lobbyists. Having said that, she is in a position to change tack as circumstances warrant. From a purist, liberal, ideological point of view she is horrible. No doubt. From a pragmatic, purely political point of view, there is a lot to be said for keeping her options open.

No, I do not like her either. Her stand on Iraq has been consistently despicable. But would you seriously spurn her, if it meant someone like Romney or Tancredo might win? Can you imagine what a candidate like Romney would mean for women”s rights?

Posted by: phx8 at August 14, 2007 1:27 AM
Comment #229341
1. It is hard to tell what the Dem agenda is

Jack,

This GOP rhetoric has me really confused. Before the election you guys were saying we couldn’t win because we have “no agenda, no plan”. Since the election, you guys have usually been saying that the Democrats won by making a lot of grandiose promises they couldn’t keep. Now you are suddenly back to “no agenda” again.

Decide what your revisionist history of the 2006 election is and stick with it!


Adrienne,

Honestly, what is so terrible about Hillary Clinton? You voted for John Kerry, right? I would bet she is far, far closer to you on the issues than the Republican candidate.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 5:59 AM
Comment #229342

Jack and rahdigly,

It is nice to know that you guys both endorse the DLC. We all know that you only want the best for the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 6:00 AM
Comment #229345

Woody

Our country needs the ideas of both parties. Neither is completely right and the interaction provides strenght.

The DLC uses market mechanisms. These things actually work. Although I can disagree with details and some of the goals, those who understand the strength market are almost always more effective than those who think they can impose their own pattern on the world w/o regard to it.

Re the Dem agenda - it IS hard to figure it out besides the anti-Bush stuff. So far, there have been few results and no particularly new ideas. I was not disappointed by the Dems because I did not expect very much. I suspect others will be disillusioned by 2008.

Posted by: Jack at August 14, 2007 8:04 AM
Comment #229349

Jack,

The Democrats have made a lot of specific proposals, including the ones “Six for ‘06”. Bush is free to support proposals, suggest modifications, etc. He could help the Democrats get those results you mention.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #229352

phx8 said: “But everytime I try to get optimistic about Bush, and hopeful, he disappoints. There is a tremendous opportunity now available, and nothing for Bush to lose.”

Sounds pretty accurate to my experience, though I would change the word ‘nothing’ to ‘little’.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 9:58 AM
Comment #229353


Adrienne: You are wrong about the Democratic party being founded by liberals. You are right about the sorry state of the party. Many of the so called Democrats that were elected to Congress in 06 may as well have been running on the Bush agenda.

I have just recieved a political add from one of those yellow backed Democrats. Some call them blue dogs but I call them yellow backed.

Wilsom votes to honor America’s veterans. In this add, Charlie Wilson, the newly elected Democratic representative in the Ohio 6th brags about supporting two bills to help American veterans. Nowhere in the add does he mention that he also dishonored everything that those veterans were fighting for by voting for the Bush spy on Americans bill.

The village of Liberty Kansas (pop.95) just recieved is’t first high tech security camera from the dept. of Homeland security. They are placing their camera in the village park, a known terrorist meeting and planning location. I would venture a guess that Liberty will be using their camera to bust kids smoking pot in the park rather than catching terrorists. The sheep who say I am a law abiding citizen, I don’t care if the government watches me are as ignorant as one can get.

The government is like my Big Brother that only wants to protect me and keep me from harm. That is why I am being watched.

People who value their freedom had best be stoping this now before there is no freedom to value.

Posted by: jlw at August 14, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #229354

“But would you seriously spurn her, if it meant someone like Romney or Tancredo might win?”

The “lesser of two evils” argument Phx8? Against Adrienne? Get real man.
There is nothing wrong with voting for what you think is best for the country and not for what is best for a certain party and of all people on here, Adrienne certainly knows that.

How can you expect significant change when you yourself are not willing to help bring it about?
That is, afterall, what got us Bush.

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #229360
I believe Hillary is “keeping her powder dry.” She is positioning herself as a “centrist,”

This is because just like her husband she either has no real core beliefs or makes sure that they never get in the way of her desire to acquire power. That’s really her only agenda, win. Once in, do what ever it takes to stay in.

Of course, that just makes her not so different than any other of the running candidates either I suppose.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 10:36 AM
Comment #229362

kctim,

Several things got us Bush, but a big factor was people deciding to support Nader because they thought Clinton and Gore were sellouts.

If you want four more years of the same, vote for the Green Party.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #229368

Woody
Voting for clinton will be nothing but four more years of the same.
Sure, some thought clinton and gore were sellouts, but many also believed they were voting for the “lesser of two evils” and that is not how we will get significant change in govt.

We are stuck with the status quo because people “fear” the alternative and the shape of our country reflects that.

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 11:21 AM
Comment #229371

“That’s really her only agenda, win. Once in, do what ever it takes to stay in.”

Rhinehold,

I’m no big fan of Hillary, nor for that matter was I a huge fan of Bill. My biggest reason for opposing Hillary is that we (collectively as an electorate) seem to almost be creating levels of monarchy or aristocracy. Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton ……. sounds cute but it makes me want to puke. Of course this is not a new phenomenon. Everyone remembers or has heard of the Kennedy/Camelot phenomenon.

But, back to the point, I want a President that cares about public opinion. It amounts to serving the majority of the constituents. If that’s what you mean by, “do what ever it takes to stay in”, I say GOOD!

A great example is Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform”. I honestly think his heart was in the right place, but it was so overwhelmingly unpopular among the public that it stood no chance whatsoever. I guess voter outrage really does matter.

OTOH if doing whatever it takes means pandering to special interests and lobbyists to amass a reelection campaign fortune ……. well that just stinks!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 14, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #229372

phx8:
“Can you imagine what a candidate like Romney would mean for women”s rights?”

Which womens rights are you talking about here? If you’re referring to the right for a woman to have an abortion, even for health reasons, the conservative majority with lifetime appointments who sit on the Supreme Court are the ones who are in the process of removing that right, and that train has already left the station.

Woody:
“Adrienne,

Honestly, what is so terrible about Hillary Clinton?”

Because she’s DLC, and I can’t vote for those people. They’re in the pockets of special interests just as much as the Republicans are. They’re the ones who gave us Joe Lieberman (who was once the head of the DLC). They’re the ones who voted for the Credit Card Industry Bankruptcy Bill. They’re the ones who thought/think NAFTA and CAFTA were good ideas, and American workers have paid the price with the loss of their jobs. They’re the ones who won’t stand up to this president, and who often voted in concert with the GOP when they had the Congressional majority.
All the DLC Dems do is weaken our party, and ignore the needs of the people. I won’t vote to give them power because it is too much like voting for the GOP.

“I would bet she is far, far closer to you on the issues than the Republican candidate.”

In some ways, but in too many ways that count, she isn’t.

“Jack and rahdigly,

It is nice to know that you guys both endorse the DLC. We all know that you only want the best for the Democratic Party.”

You asked me to spell out my feelings about the DLC (Hillary), yet you seem to know exactly what I’m talking about.

jlw:
“Adrienne: You are wrong about the Democratic party being founded by liberals.”

You’re talking about Jefferson again, right? I still say he was a liberal thinker for his time — indeed, you could call him a radical populist. He hated the idea that this country would be run by and for the wealthy and corporations. The party that he and Madison started was called the Democratic Republican Party, and they ran in direct opposition to the Federalists. We still see this divide in America today between Populism (liberalism), and Wealthy Elites/Corporations (conservatism). Times have changed, and so have many conditions in this nation, but the core ideas are still very similar and significant, IMO.

“You are right about the sorry state of the party.”

The Democratic Party will become strong again, and will once again stand for and represent our beliefs, and our hopes for the future, as soon as we stop allowing the DLC Democrats to run and guide the party.

kctim:
“There is nothing wrong with voting for what you think is best for the country and not for what is best for a certain party and of all people on here, Adrienne certainly knows that.”

8^0
I’m shocked Tim! You never do anything but argue with me, but now here you are defending my position?!!
If I may make one correction to what you’ve written here: what is best for the country, is also what is best for my party — because all that means is Democratic leaders placing more importance on the needs of our people, rather than always giving in to the desires/greed of the wealthy and the special interests. It also means showing respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and our freedom, rather than ignoring the Constitution, and letting this country turn into a police state because of “terrorism”, or because some people would like the ability to control all of our actions, and remove our rights and freedoms.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #229376

Adrienne, unlike most who will settle and vote for the “lesser of two evils,” you say you will stand by your beliefs and vote accordingly.
I respect that in anyone, no matter how wrong on the issues they may be :)

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 12:27 PM
Comment #229385

Adrienne,

In your opinion, what candidate on the left is the least “tainted” by the DLC?

The only two that really even qualify in my mind are Kucinich and Gravel. This is not a “loaded” question. I truly am curious.

I personally still support Biden, Richard’s has slipped to a distant 3rd or 4th place, and Edwards would be my second choice. I tend to think “compromise” or centrism certainly beats the heck out of anything the right has to offer.

Even if it means voting for one of my two least favorite Dem candidates: Hillary or Obama!

I certainly don’t think we have things wrapped up as neatly as many do. I still look for Newt to jump in at the last minute and shake things up. And I believe he could win.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 14, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #229387

Jack,

They rallied around Bush hatred. Bush will be gone soon. They will have to transfer their hatred to the new guys and some hatred will be lost in the transaction.

It was Republicans as a group that foisted a platform of unproven theory regarding war, economics, and free markets down America’s collective throat. All of Bush’s moves came out of a Republican playbook, and I think most Americans see that. There certainly was a well-defined Republican agenda when Bush was in office. Those cards were played, and the results were disastrous.

I think you’re right that Democrats don’t have a unanimous party line agenda. Personally, I see that as a plus, and I’m thinking a lot of people do since we just saw where unquestioning groupthink leads. As far as Dem candidates go, I think all the front runners are great. I would gladly vote for any of them.

Posted by: Max at August 14, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #229388

I find it pretty odd that any Democrats would want rid themselves of the “taint” of the elements in their party that have actually enjoyed success on the national level over the last quarter century.

The DLC is why we had Clinton, and was a response to the brilliant electoral successes of people like Mondale, Dukakis, Eugene McCarthy, and Carter (who only managed to win his single term because of Watergate before getting whipped by Reagan).

If that’s what Democrats want more of—losing elections—I’m all for it.

Anybody who thinks that the recent successes of Democrats in picking up congressional seats was a result of running left-wingers instead of DLC-syle moderates, or for that matter, Democrats who are even MORE conservative than those in the DLC, are kidding themselves. The facts speak for themselves.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 14, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #229389

How in the hell do you vote for somebody who does not best represent your views K-Dem?
You like candidate “A” but you will vote for candidate “B” because candidate “C” scares you and might win if you vote for candidate “A?”
That is fear my friend and that is groups like VOID will not make a difference and it is exactly why our country will continue along this path to destruction that we are currently on.

Personally, there is not a Dem running as of yet, so I will not be voting for a Dem in the election and there is not a Republican I like yet, so I will not be voting for them either.
So, it looks like I will be forced to vote for a nobody again, but at least it will be for someone who I want and not someone I “settled” for.

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #229392

It’s too bad the Green and Libertarians don’t have a candidate to field in the media now against all of the press the current crop of ninnies are getting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #229395

KCTM
Absolutly! You should definately not vote,even for the local offices.You show em!


Jack
“Bush hatred” is really not specific to Bush.It applies to every neo-fascist,war mongering,imperialist plutocrat.


Paul
Most likely Rove’departure means the Bush presidency is effectively over.We can hope ,however, that Bush remains as incompetant as usual and decides to make another run at sticking a spear in SS. That would insure a Dem sweep.More damage he could do is continueing to prevent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from doing what they are supposed to do and stabilize the morgage markets.These are idealogically driven stupidities.

Posted by: BillS at August 14, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #229396

“Bush hatred” is really not specific to Bush.It applies to every neo-fascist,war mongering,imperialist plutocrat.

If those are the qualifications for hatred I guess there’s reason to hate most of the politicians in both parties…

Posted by: TheTraveler at August 14, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #229397

Not vote Bill?
How do you get that out of: “but at least it will be for someone who I want and not someone I “settled” for.”

And as far as “showing em,” I take comfort in knowing that I vote for who I believe in and not against who I fear.
I believe that is more effective than fearing some mythical “neo-fascist, war mongering, imperialist plutocrats” who are setting up a theocracy and voting to stop that, BS.

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #229398

Is this discussion occuring in the USA? Where Jefferson founded the Republican party? Which later became the Whig party, and then the Republican party again in the 1850s? Jackson was the first president from the Democratic party. I do not see why people are claiming Jefferson as a Democrat. It sounds like historical revisionism to me. Gore Vidal argued that the democrats came from the Aaron Burr faction of the Republican party, but I don’t see what Jefferson had to do with it.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 14, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #229404

kctim said: “So, it looks like I will be forced to vote for a nobody again, but at least it will be for someone who I want and not someone I ‘settled’ for.”

Bravo! kctim. That is the heart and soul of the Vote Out Incumbents Democracy thinking. If growing numbers of voters withhold their vote from those who fail expectations, giving it instead to those they believe likely to fulfill them, inevitably politicians will be elected whose purpose is to fulfill the voter’s expectations to solve more problems than they create or defend.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #229408

“That is fear my friend and that is groups like VOID will not make a difference and it is exactly why our country will continue along this path to destruction that we are currently on.”

kctim,

How’s this for a flash-back to the past:

“Bush still has a chance for my vote. I just won’t know for sure until tomorrow morning.”
“Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2004 02:49 PM”

“Down to the wire”
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001769.html

Which way did that vote go?

Posted by: KansasDem at August 14, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #229409

KCTM
Excuse me.I should have said vote for “nobody”. That is far different than not voting. Hang in there.

Posted by: BillS at August 14, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #229410

Democrats are united as never before. We stand to win the next presidential election. We stand to win big. Perhaps even a landslide.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 13, 2007 08:30 PM

Paul, thanks for making my day. Not one of the Democrat candidates even bothered to show up for the DLC summer meeting. Bill Clinton was there because he understands the need to attract moderate and conservatives for Mrs. Bill to have a chance. You people are laughable with your talk of unity. When the nominee is selected and starts to sprint to the center it will be wonderful to hear all of you howl. You’re just sugar-daddies to these people and you’ll be thrown away with yesterdays newspaper. I am hungry for another McGovern type landslide. Great fun.

Posted by: Jim at August 14, 2007 7:19 PM
Comment #229411

Jack
“No agenda”. Pure spin. Everyone of the Dem camdidates has a universal healthcare proposal,most well thought out and doable.From the Reps we get the same tired old stuff about medical savings accounts and weakening malpractice protections.
Same with the Iraq war. What from the Reps? More of the same. (Except Paul)
Where is the agenda?
Seems Rudy is going with the immigrant bashing race card. Anybody remind him that did not play so well in o6. Might work well in the Rep primary though.Of course you can kiss off the Latino vote in the general unless you did already.
How about a pact,at least in the primary. Niether one of us votes for anyone from New York?

Posted by: BillS at August 14, 2007 7:19 PM
Comment #229414

K-Dem
“Which way did that vote go?”

It does not matter which way I voted.
IF I voted for Bush because I believed he best represented my views and not out of fear, then I voted for whom I believed in, not because I feared who would win if I didn’t.

I believe it went to the Constitution Party though.

BillS
Ah, you understand more when you read sentences as a whole my friend.

“So, it looks like I will be forced to vote for a nobody again”

You see? I voted for a nobody in the political world, but I voted for who I believed in, not who I feared.
I did not vote for nobody.
Hang in there buddy.

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #229415

Dont forget about Fred Thompson. I mean he hasn’t even formally announced, and he is still garnering some 20 odd percent of the vote.

And what makes you so sure that the conservatives wont rally behind whomever is nominated? You could make an argument that the republican field has several strong candidates, which causes party division, whereas there is only one true “electable” candidate on your side, which could account for the polarization.

There are always two sides to every coin.

Oh, by the way…I didn’t know DailyKOS members were referred to as “netroots”. I alway thought they were anti-american, pinko, communist, leftist wackos. My bad.

Posted by: b0mbay at August 14, 2007 7:49 PM
Comment #229416

universal healthcare = socialized medicine
immigrant bashing race card = border control

Posted by: b0mbay at August 14, 2007 7:51 PM
Comment #229419

“It does not matter which way I voted.
IF I voted for Bush because I believed he best represented my views and not out of fear, then I voted for whom I believed in, not because I feared who would win if I didn’t.”

kctim,

I live in a world where outcomes matter much more than principles. It’s not just a matter of voting for the “lesser of two evils”. When it comes down to a general election it’s a matter of making the most informed choice possible. Everything needs to be taken into consideration. IMO anything less amounts to pure ideology.

In the 2008 Presidential election I’ll consider EVERYTHING when I vote. You can bet that VOIDing all Republicans will play a huge part in my decisions.

Posted by: KansasDem at August 14, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #229421

KD
IMO both parties should be voided. But there will be some diehard Reps. & Dems. voting party lines so that would be almost impossible to do.

Posted by: KAP at August 14, 2007 8:47 PM
Comment #229425

KAP,

I always love these blanket statements. If there were no Rep or Dem parties who would you vote for?

As my memory serves me you consistently support Bush in nearly everything. I was specific about who I support …….. do you care to do the same?

Posted by: KansasDem at August 14, 2007 9:13 PM
Comment #229432

Ohrealy, the stories behind the evolution of both major political parties make for fascinating history, but honestly, these histories have virtually nothing to do with explaining the modern Democratic and Republican parties.

Somebody from 100 years ago would be amazed to learn that the Democrats now have their strongest base in the geographical North, while the Republicans (who were behind the Union invasion of the South) have their strongest base in the South. Hell, even somebody from 50 years ago would be shocked by this, and even more shocked that the party of Lincoln doesn’t enjoy more support among African Americans while the party that was chiefly behind segregation and Jim Crow during the heyday of the Dixiecrats (which wasn’t even that long ago) does.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 14, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #229435
I am hungry for another McGovern type landslide. Great fun.

Me too, Jim.

Wait, you didn’t mean that the REPUBLICAN candidate would win in landslide, did you? Tee hee.

Adrienne,

Well, I am probably going to convince you, but I find it hard to believe that after eight years of Bush anyone on the Left can seriously maintain that a centrist Democrat is as bad as a Republican. For heaven’s sake, look around you!

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #229436

Oops, of course I meant I probably would NOT convince Adrienne. Alas.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #229438

What I think the responses here are demonstrating is that Democrats are a lot less “united” than Paul claims. This talk of who is a “real Democrat” and who needs to be purged in an anti-conservative or even anti-moderate crusade shows that pretty convincingly.

The first real sign was Hillary Clinton coming to speak at the YearlyKOS Convention. Hillary is a leader in the DLC and the netroots are not in favor of her getting the nomination. The netroots favor Obama and Edwards. Hillary came and was well received.

Well received? Hillary was booed at that convention. Don’t you find at least a little cognitive dissonance between boos and being “well received?” Hmmm…

It’s very likely—verging on a certainty at this time—that Hillary will be the nominee. It’s not nearly as clear who will be the Republican candidate.

But I’ll promise you this: no matter who the Republican nominee is, Republicans will be EXTREMELY united when it comes to trying to keep Hillary and her husband out of the White House. And if Hillary is the nominee, as it seems she will be, there are pretty good indications that a lot of the more left-wing “netroots” types aren’t going to be so passionate in supporting her.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 14, 2007 11:18 PM
Comment #229456

kctim:
“Adrienne, unlike most who will settle and vote for the “lesser of two evils,” you say you will stand by your beliefs and vote accordingly.
I respect that in anyone, no matter how wrong on the issues they may be :)”

Hey, thanks for the left-handed compliment, Tim. Good thing I’m left handed. Btw, my problem is NOT being frequently wrong, it’s being frequently right, but having many folks choose not to listen to me. Then, when it turns out that I was right, I get the distinct honor of appearing like a big A-hole for sometimes feeling the burning need to murmur: “humph, what’d I tell you?”
:^)

Kansas Dem:
“Adrienne,”

Yes, sir?

“In your opinion, what candidate on the left is the least “tainted” by the DLC?”

Do you mean among those who are actually in agreement with the goals of the DLC? Or lean toward the DLC? Or do you mean those who clearly reject the DLC — you know, the ones we’d call “from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” as Paul Wellstone once labeled himself?

If it’s the first, that would have to be Al Gore (I know, he’s not a candidate, but should be), because he was formerly DLC (half-heartedly) but has now moved completely away from them, and is now not beholden to anyone. If it’s the second, (those who lean toward), that would have to be Obama, simply because he hasn’t been a Senator long enough to have become deeply entrenched among the DLC, or infected by having tons of money given to him by special interests. If it’s the third, that would definitely have to be Kucinich, because despite his success, that man has had to struggle for everything he’s ever done, and has never forgotten where he came from.

“The only two that really even qualify in my mind are Kucinich and Gravel. This is not a “loaded” question. I truly am curious.”

I hoped that answers your question?

“I personally still support Biden, Richard’s has slipped to a distant 3rd or 4th place, and Edwards would be my second choice. I tend to think “compromise” or centrism certainly beats the heck out of anything the right has to offer.”

I also like Edwards.
Personally, I don’t view the DLC as a “centrist” position. I see it as standing fully on the right with those who are selling out this country.

“Even if it means voting for one of my two least favorite Dem candidates: Hillary or Obama!”

I would vote for Obama, because of what I just told you. I can’t vote for Hillary.

“I certainly don’t think we have things wrapped up as neatly as many do. I still look for Newt to jump in at the last minute and shake things up. And I believe he could win.”

I don’t think Newt can win. He’s been fawning all over the religious rightwingers, and I think the country has had quite enough of that holier-than-thou stuff. Especially since it’s so clearly fake and meaningless.

ohrealy:
“Is this discussion occuring in the USA?”

That’s where I am. Where are you?

“Where Jefferson founded the Republican party?”

No he founded the Democratic-Republican party, which is the origin of the Democratic Party.

“Which later became the Whig party,”

No, that was the Federalists that changed names a bunch of times, then became the Whigs, then finally they became the Republican Party. With Lincoln becoming their first president under that name.

“Jackson was the first president from the Democratic party.”

But Jefferson was the first president under the Democratic-Republican party. For years they were interchangeably called Democrats or Republicans.

“I do not see why people are claiming Jefferson as a Democrat. It sounds like historical revisionism to me.”

No it is not historical revisionism. Because it is true that the roots of today’s Democratic Party reach all the way back to Jefferson. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, who was Jefferson’s eldest grandson, gave a speech at the 1872 Democratic National Convention and in it he said:

I am perhaps the oldest member of this body, and a life of eighty years spent in the Democratic Republican party constitutes me a senior member. I remember freshly every presidential contest from the first election of Jefferson to the present time…

Additionally, Martin Van Buren, (eighth president, and active organizer of the Democratic party in his day and age) wrote a book called “Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States”, and in his book he mentioned how the party’s name had changed from Democratic-Republican to Democratic, and talked of how Jefferson was the original founder of the party.

“Gore Vidal argued that the democrats came from the Aaron Burr faction of the Republican party,”

Well, I’m very sorry Gore Vidal, while I think you are highly intelligent, admire a lot of your work, and often find you extremely witty and hilarious, in this instance you happen to be wrong.

“but I don’t see what Jefferson had to do with it.”

As I hope you can see, he had plenty to do with it.

Woody:
“Adrienne,

Well, I am probably (not) going to convince you, but I find it hard to believe that after eight years of Bush anyone on the Left can seriously maintain that a centrist Democrat is as bad as a Republican.”

As I told KD, I don’t see the DLC Dems as being centrists. I think they’re as bought and paid for as the Republicans, and as a result, they vote anti-populist in compliance with the wishes of their corporate overlords, and the military industrial complex.

“For heaven’s sake, look around you!”

I know, it’s awful. Look, I’m not equating the DLCer’s with the horror of the Neocons or anything. But I didn’t return to the Democratic party after leaving it previously to vote for the DLC wing of the party. I came back to fight to make my lifelong party proudly liberal again, not make it weaker and more meaningless by helping to move it ever farther to the right and vote against the best interests of the middle class and the poor.
But why worry so much about my one little vote? I’m sure if Hillary wins the nomination my vote isn’t going to make her win, nor will it keep her from winning.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 15, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #229467

Adrienne
Respectfully,it was one vote per pricinct that separated Humphry from Nixon. What a different place this country would be now.HH was far from a peace dandidate and Nixon was..well,Nixon. That was one of the few election I did not vote in. Wish I had selected the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: BillS at August 15, 2007 2:39 AM
Comment #229485

Adrienne
“my problem is NOT being frequently wrong, it’s being frequently right, but having many folks choose not to listen to me”

I have the exact same problem.
And, btw, even though I had a little fun with my last response to you, I was very serious about the respect part. Our type of voter is very rare and I respect everyone willing to do something about it.
Differing views do not make people enemies. Not respecting the persons right to have that view could though.

K-Dem
“I live in a world where outcomes matter much more than principles”

Thats really kind of sad to me. Giving up and settling for something less like that when you could fight for what is important to you. To each his own I guess.

“Everything needs to be taken into consideration. IMO anything less amounts to pure ideology.”

VOIDing someone simply because they are a Republican amounts to pure ideology.

“As my memory serves me you consistently support Bush in nearly everything. I was specific about who I support …….. do you care to do the same?”

You have been “specific” in saying you will vote for any Democrat no matter what. That is voting based on fear and that is why our country is in the mess it is in.

I know its easy to say voting against Republicans is supporting your principles and that it justifies your decision. But, if it doesn’t bring about the change you want by doing so, whats the point?

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #229487

Adrienne,

I voted for Nader in 2000 as a statement, and because Illinois went easily for Gore and I knew my vote wouldn’t come back to bite me philosophically in the backside. While I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Hillary (except for my belief, repeated ad nauseum, that I think she will lose the general), if I lived in a swing state like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania I would vote for her or anyone whom the Democrats put forth. I would rather keep a Republican out of the White House than make a statement any day.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at August 15, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #229489

kctim,

I can only speak for myself, but I would not vote for literally ANYBODY because they have a “D” after their name. But looking at the current lists of plausible Democratic candidates and plausible Republican candidates, it is a really a no-brainer that the Democrat is going to deliver results more to my liking.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 15, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #229491

kctim,

I also said, and I’ll repeat, “In the 2008 Presidential election I’ll consider EVERYTHING when I vote.”

You say, “You have been “specific” in saying you will vote for any Democrat no matter what. That is voting based on fear and that is why our country is in the mess it is in.”

IMO this country is in the mess it’s in because of George W. Bush and a Republican congress that marched in lock-step to his every whim. While I have voted for and/or considered voting for congressional Republicans, both at the state and federal level, in the past. I was even impressed with John McCain circa; 2000, but at the end of the day I am a Democrat ……… period!

I made it clear that I support Biden but other than sending a few paltry campaign donations I have no real influence on that outcome. When the DSCC basically hung Paul Hackett out to dry I was so POed that I did seriously look at the alternatives …………. and I decided that I am still, and perhaps more so than ever, a Democrat!

Posted by: KansasDem at August 15, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #229492

Considering the desirability of the lesser of two evils, consider this quote from Camus:

Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children.

Now, lest people jump all over me, I am not claiming that the upcoming election is literally about which party will torture fewer children. My point is that if you have a choice of the lesser of two evils, you should really think about taking it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 15, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #229493

My understanding is that the Federalist party basically disappeared after 24 years of Jefferson Madison Monroe. The increasing importance of New York and immigration moved the power center north. The Erie canal connected the Great Lakes to New York, and Virginia and the south gradually became a backwater. McCormick came to Chicago from Virginia. Lincoln’s family came to Illinois from Kentucky.

I would be interested in reading where the first instance would be of the use of the term democratic Republican. It may have been used to distinguish between states where most of the adult male population could vote from states where fewer people could vote. It sounds like VanBuren wanted people to think that the Democratic party had already existed before it did.

Currently, I will vote for any of the Democrats running for president. I voted for McGovern in 72 in IL in the Watergate election. In 76 in IL I voted 3rd party for McCarthy in when Carter was running as the Democrat because I thought Carter was too conservative. In 80 in FL I voted for Carter against Reagan. In 84 in FL I voted for Mondale, but in 88 in FL I voted for a third party candidate against Bush and Dukakis, the last liberal Democrat who ran for president. In 92 in FL I voted for Clinton. In 96 in IL, I voted for Clinton by affadavit after calling the States Attorney’s office, since the 90 year olds running the precinct couldn’t find my registration. In 00 in IL I didn’t vote in the morning, had a busy day, got rained out, and ended up not voting. I do not know if I would have voted for conservative Gore, or someone else, but it did not matter in IL. In 04 in IL I voted for Kerry.

It would be nice if a Dukakis/Kucinich type could win, but there is too much at risk to vote for a third party candidate. Hillary may be too conservative, but Thompson or whoever will be lining up the same coalition of Pro-War Pro-Pollution Pro-Debt Anti-Taxing Anti-CAFE standards bunch that got us to where we are today.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 15, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #229498

Woody
“it is a really a no-brainer that the Democrat is going to deliver results more to my liking”

I’m sure that is true. It is also a no-brainer that a right leaning person is going to take your place in being unhappy with how govt is being ran.
He settle now because at least its not some evil liberal in charge and you will settle then because at least its not some evil Republican in charge. It will basically be the same corruption, favoritism and elitism with only its supporters changing. We saw it when we went from clinton to Bush and we will see it again when we go from Bush to clinton.

Us settling because we fear the otherside is not going to make this country better.

K-Dem
“and I decided that I am still, and perhaps more so than ever, a Democrat!”

I guess thats where we differ so much my friend. Years ago, I decided that I am an American and not a Democrat or Republican.

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #229503

kctm
So there is no difference between one of the best,most competant presidents we have had since ww2 and one of,if not the worst president ever?


All
Consider the source when reading these exhortations to throw your vote away.Vote your heart in the primary and your head in the general.

Posted by: BillS at August 15, 2007 1:23 PM
Comment #229505

Bill
Sure, Reagan was a good President and clinton sucked bad, but neither one of them really got govt only doing govt work did they?
I admit that I was pretty young during Reagan and can’t really remember which individual rights he violated, wars against nations that did not pose a threat to us he started or how many American citizens were murdered by the govt under his command, but I sure as hell know clinton did. I have heard that some Presidents were worse than clinton though, so I’m not quite as ready to call him the worst President ever as you are.

“Consider the source when reading these exhortations to throw your vote away”

Aw, you caught us Bill. Can’t get nothing by you can we.
Adrienne, a liberal who is tired of the status quo, and myself, a person who loves his country way too much to ever vote for a liberal, have joined forces to ensure hillary doesn’t win.

Posted by: kctim at August 15, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #229510

BillS said: “Vote your heart in the primary and your head in the general.”

That’s precisely how we ended up with tweedle dee and tweedle dum to choose from in the 2004 election. Tweedle Dum won.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #229521

1. It is hard to tell what the Dem agenda is

Jack,

It won’t include Halliburton, tax cuts for the rich, blood for oil or torturer. It will be crazy %#@* like repair schools, roads and bridges. Also fair wages, good jobs, health care, clean food, clean water, clean air, safe toys, and safe work places. You know things that make a difference in the quality of life for the American people. They will do things for all the people of this country, not just corporate America. I think we have had enough of the (you are on your own you $@#*^) attitude to last us a life time. We want tax cuts for the working people of this country, and we want to eliminate welfare for the rich. Get a job and pay your taxes like the rest of us have to. We want accountability in government, no bid contracts are out.

Posted by: Outraged at August 15, 2007 4:33 PM
Comment #229535

Woody:

“My point is that if you have a choice of the lesser of two evils, you should really think about taking it.”

This argument has been used by the DLC/centrist Dems since I began voting.

This is the same party, mind you, where every legitimate Democratic candidate (Obama, Edwards, Clinton) doesn’t have a dime’s worth of difference policy-wise from Bush in ending this fiasco in Iraq. Not one has questioned the legality, the morality, of a preemptive invasion of a country that couldn’t possibly have harmed us, and had nothing whatever to do with 9/11. In that regard, Hillary is the most dangerous, because being the trinagulating bitch she is, she is hell-bent on proving to everyone she is every bit as stupid and arrogant as the worst neo-con when it comes to dropping bombs on people.

This is the same party that has been totally recalcitrant in ending this war in the eight months since they won the legislative branch. This is the party that has enabled the trashing of the Constitution through a bogus FISA law even worse than the original one, enabled a rogue executive branch with the Miltary Commissions act, thus eliminating habeas corpus. This is the party that has laid down and died regarding Bush’s signing statements, and the dismantling of any governmental oversight from FEMA to OSHA to the FDA.

This is the same party that steadfastly refused to filibuster the Alito and Roberts nominations, when it was obvious to any fifth grader that they encompassed a corporate ideological fascism that would trash individual liberties for the corporate bosses. Every time, all the time.

No Democratic presidential candidate has taken it upon themselves to discuss how some of Bush’s more egregious totalitarian machinations will be corrected, such as habeas corpus, FISA and unsupervised wiretapping of innocent Americans, and torture and the ‘disappearing’ of innocents. Which indicates to me that they probably intend on using it themselves when they win, and pretend not to notice it trashes the Constitution.

In short, this is the party that has enabled some of the most egregious usurpations of individual liberties and Constitutional protections in the history of the country!

And now, like Bush waving the tried and true, yet very tattered flag of terrorism to get his way, the Dems are telling their grassroots (again) that
not voting for them enables more Republican skullduggery. Talk about unmitigatied GALL!!.

I’m of the opinion that a furtherance of Republican fascism is in keeping with corporate, plutocratic Democratic leadership; if it were not so, the Democratic party would be challenging the GOP wherever and whenever it could. Which it is not doing.

I think the only way out of this corrupt cynical duopoly, this national leadership gorged on malfesance and murderous greed, is to give the bastards more than enough rope to hang themselves with.

An armed insurrection will probably be the result: because this government, whether Democratic or Republican, cannot and will not conduct policy that doesn’t placate the powerful and the rich, and devastate the working classes and the poor.

The Dems have been promising their loyal grassroots progressives and leftists filet mignon and actually delivering spam on a shingle for years now. Enough—I’ve had enough.

If the election were held tommorrow, I would stay home. Why pretend we have a functioning democracy when we don’t—and haven’t for several generations?

Posted by: black & red at August 15, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #229537

DR
Nonsense. If Kerry had won we would not be in Iraq.Pretty big difference,wouldn’t you say.
There is about a million other differences also. We would not have an NLRB packed with union busters. We would not have a Supreme court packed with plutocrat apoligist. We would not be loseing the “war on terror” but US and Nato troops would be mopping up the last remaining strongholds in Afganistan. All but the first paragraph here are sadly, historical speculation. The first is very clear.No difference ? Hardly.

Posted by: BillS at August 15, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment #229584

BillS, the people did vote their heart in the primaries of 2004, and Tweedle Dee lost to Tweedle Dum. In 2008 I hope voters will vote with their brains engaged as to which vote will best represent their own self interest for family and nation.

Feelings can be, and often are, what con artists play upon. Voters will be less likely conned if they engage their brain at primary elections as well as general elections. Your argument of voting from the heart at primaries is just plain bad advice, and certainly not what our founding fathers would have considered a rational and well informed vote.

Instead of waiting for PR and Marketing Firms to create an artificial image of a candidate that makes party supporters “feel good”, it is far sounder advice to voters to demand sufficient facts and history on the candidates upon which to make an informed and rational choice of the mind.

The former is what makes fools of voters. The latter is what makes fools of political candidates seeking the “feel good” marketing and public relations victory designed to hide who they really are.

Remember, Bush won because he “felt” like a straight shooter. Kerry lost because he felt like a complicated nuanced sophist capable of changing his message to suit what voters wanted to hear. This voting from the heart does not insure the best candidates will win.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2007 1:00 AM
Comment #229587

DR
So you REALLY believe there is no difference between Bush and Kerry? Astounding.

Posted by: BillS at August 16, 2007 1:14 AM
Comment #229666

“Adrienne
Respectfully,it was one vote per pricinct that separated Humphry from Nixon.”
Leatherankh:
“I would rather keep a Republican out of the White House than make a statement any day.”

I might change my mind about voting for Hillary if it actually looks as though a Republican, most especially Guilani, is going to win the national election without every single Democrat voting for the Democratic candidate. But I don’t want to vote for Hillary, and I’ll deeply hate feeling as though I have to. I certainly won’t go out of my way to volunteer my time to the party machine as I usually do, if she’s the party nominee. Nor will I give the national campaign any money.

kctim:
“I was very serious about the respect part.”

Thanks.

“Differing views do not make people enemies.”

True, but go tell that to the Neocon Republicans. To them liberals are all that is bad and wrong with the country. We’re also traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

“Not respecting the persons right to have that view could though.”

Exactly. Respect must be a two way street.

ohrealy:

“My understanding is that the Federalist party basically disappeared after 24 years of Jefferson Madison Monroe.”

No, they didn’t disappear, they just changed names. These were men who believed that this country should naturally and automatically be run by the rich, well educated elites who ran industry and banking, or who were wealthy merchants and landowners. This sentiment has never disappeared among wealthy people since it was first promoted by Hamilton. But the name Federalist came to be associated with nothing but their upper class bias — and that was increasingly rejected by people who came to see that being rich does not mean they should automatically trust these people’s judgment, or even their desire to do the right thing by the working classes who help them create their wealth. So with their name going out of favor, this group of elites was absorbed into smaller parties, especially the National-Republican Party (though many wealthy merchants chose to join the Anti-Masonic Party). Those smaller parties were eventually absorbed into the Whig Party, which eventually became the Republican Party. Same exact mindset, just different names.

“It sounds like VanBuren wanted people to think that the Democratic party had already existed before it did.”

Yes, because it did exist before. There is an unbroken chain from Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party to our Democratic Party today. Although the party has certainly changed with the times and circumstances that have been faced by the nation.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 16, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #229744

I hope you are not reading Wikipedia and thinking that it is necessarily accurate history. I have heard this Democratic-Republican terminololgy before and always regarded it as revisionist. Jefferson was a Republican in the same way as current Virginia Republicans. I have a high opinion of Jefferson for his nation-building accomplishments, but a low opinion of him on almost every other count.

I apparently have a much higher opinion of Hamilton than you, except on the point of agreeing to have the capital where it is, instead of at the economic center of the country. New York won anyway, because it is now the capital of the world. The Federalists would be more like the modern Democratic party IMHO.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 17, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #229756

ohrealy:
“I hope you are not reading Wikipedia and thinking that it is necessarily accurate history.”

I can assure you that I don’t need to go searching through Wikipedia when it comes to this subject. I went to an excellent university, and have done a lot of reading on my own because early American history has always been an interest of mine. This is how I have come to my opinions, and why I’ve written what I have here. I have no idea where you’ve gotten your views.

“I have heard this Democratic-Republican terminololgy before”

Perhaps because it is based on the facts?

“and always regarded it as revisionist.”

If this is all simply revisionist history then why did Jefferson’s grandson famously claim that this was precisely the case in 1872? Do you really think Thomas Jefferson Randolph would make this claim only because he was a Democrat, and in complete defiance of what his grandfather would have thought if it wasn’t the truth? I sincerely doubt he would, especially since Jefferson is so monolithic a figure in American history.
And why would Van Buren make the same claim even earlier that this was the case in his memoirs, which was later turned into the book “Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States” by his sons in 1867?
I have provided dates and sources for my claims here, and do not consider this to be revisionist history. You have not provided anything to refute what I’ve given you, but are still trying to label it revisionist. I’m afraid I now need you to give some credible sources that have said otherwise, and then you can explain exactly why Jefferson’s grandson and Van Buren had to have been wrong.

“The Federalists would be more like the modern Democratic party IMHO.”

I strongly disagree. But perhaps you could explain why you think so?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 17, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #229786

It is always a mistake to seek perfection in human leaders of the past or present. Jefferson was a great man in our history, he was not infallible. The same is true of Hamilton and G. Washington for that matter, who was the only president to ever be unopposed by any major faction in the populace. The fact that he finally won the Revolutionary War as Commander does not negate some horrible military blunders on the way to winning.

There is no clearer evidence of this than in Stephen Hawking’s renouncement of his own theory of black holes erasing information from the universe which made him famous and notoriously controversial as well as one of the greatest minds to ever challenge cosmologists in modern times.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #229791

David:
“It is always a mistake to seek perfection in human leaders of the past or present. Jefferson was a great man in our history, he was not infallible.”

I agree. But I’m defending Jefferson’s early influence on the Democratic Party because it is one of only a few reasons we have to proud of the Democratic party — until we reach the twentieth century and FDR and his New Deal, that is. The truth is, with the sensibilities and awareness I possess now, I would not have belonged to this party at all if not for FDR, and for the later Black Civil Rights Movement. The Democratic Party, for all it’s populism has a very nasty streak of previous corruption and rampant racism running all through it. Likely, during the Civil War, I’d have been a Republican in order to fight against slavery. On the other hand, the GOP has always been a party that represents little besides Big Business and the wealthy elite at the expense of the people. So, it’s very likely that aside from that era I’d have spent a lot of my time and energy on populist parties that had little or no consequence. Uh, if I was a man, that is! Just like the Democratic Party, we ladies were pretty well screwed until the twentieth century, as well. ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 17, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #229819

Adrienne
It should be noted that the Dem Party also gets credit for women’s sufrage also.

Posted by: BillS at August 18, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #229824

Yes Bill, President Wilson eventually helped to get the 19th Amendment passed — after completely opposing the idea of women’s sufferage. The truth is, the way we finally got the vote is a long, arduous, and rather complicated story.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 18, 2007 12:38 PM
Comment #229877

Adrienne

I am aware of the struggle.Still it was the Dems. Its incredible that there was more willingness to free blacks and even let them vote than to allow women the same.

Posted by: BillS at August 19, 2007 12:24 AM
Comment #229985
Why pretend we have a functioning democracy when we don’t—and haven’t for several generations?

Actually, we’ve never had a full democracy, thank god. Mob rule is not a form of government that protects the rights of the minority from the majority’s whims.

I have my complaints about our current government now but it’s the best one that I can find in my searches around the globe, the fact that we have such an immigration problem is a clear indicator of this view.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #229999

Interesting that Rove does not think H.Clinton is a viable candidate because of her negatives,at least publically. Hard to figure what his intentions are. Does he hope Dems will listen and not give her the nomination because he actually thinks she is the best candidate?Does he hope his apraisal will actually gain support for her among Dems?Is he trying to give heart to the Reps looking at defeat?There are other possibilities,none of which include a forthright appraisal or concern for the Dem prospects. Sneaky SOB.

Posted by: BillS at August 20, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #230000

Or, he could be giving an accurate representation of her prospects in winning the White House. Why is that not an option listed in your comment?

The only presidential candidate with a worse approval rating going into the election was Al Gore in 2000. As you can see by the comments in this article there are many progressive democrats that see her as the worst kind of democrat, she has baggage of her attempt at healthcare reform as first lady and her perception at being completely unprincipled. In fact, the only thing she has going for her is that she is a smart campaigner. Though that may not be enough, I have always wondered if she would have ever won her senate seat if Giuliani had not pulled out of the race at such a late date…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #230007

Rhinehold
Because Rove would not know an honest motivation if it jumped up and bit him. PS Gore got more votes in 2000.

Posted by: BillS at August 20, 2007 4:18 PM
Comment #230010

Too bad that’s not what wins elections in our country.

He was also the VP of the administration with a high popularity rating, his personal one was horrible, and he couldn’t even win his own state.

As for Rove, it always amazes me that people are so easily willing to accept pure evil in their enemies but view only pure good in their ‘side’. The REALITY is that most people, including Rove, are just people who are doing what they think is best for them and their own. He is no more evil than Carville, or any other ‘democratic’ political strategist, IMO. To assign him this ‘great evil’ title not only displays the illogic of how some view the world but prevents any rational discussion of the topic.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #230017

Rhinehold, I couldn’t agree with you more. Well said.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 20, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #230019

Adrienne, I had a busy weekend, but I would say that throughout our history, the parties have primarily represented local interests.

Jefferson represented the interests of slave owners with large wine cellars, opposed to using federal government spending to improve the nation, like modern Virginians, although they now have the military and the FBI and CIA as their local interest.

Hamilton represented the interest of building up the nation through capital improvements, more like the modern democratic party, representing the blue states.

Until WFBuckley and others came along and began a decades long effort to change our polititcal parties into conservative and liberal, ideology was irrelevant to the parties, only local interest mattered.

You have to read history written by people outside the local influence, to get a clear view of it. There used to be a website called History House which was useful, but I think it barely exists now.

I would not be interested in reading a book by Rove or Gingrich about the history of their party, any more than I would read what people who had a vested interest in the Democratic party had to say about it’s history.

Yes to the question about Randolph slanting Jefferson’s views. Wikipedia has a page which is exactly what you are saying, and it was what came up on a search of Democratic-Republican.

I would never doubt your education. I respect all of the women who come in here to write their opinions, and we certainly need more of them and less of paranoid Northwestern elitist jackasses like me. I apologize for all my shortcomings, but if you look at the blog that I am linking to my name, you will see some of what I have read and am reading.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 20, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #230055
Until WFBuckley and others came along and began a decades long effort to change our polititcal parties into conservative and liberal, ideology was irrelevant to the parties, only local interest mattered.

ohrealy, can I have some of what you are smoking?

“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.” —Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73
“Men have differed in opinion and been divided into parties by these opinions from the first origin of societies, and in all governments where they have been permitted freely to think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate the U.S. have existed through all time. Whether the power of the people or that of the [aristocracy] should prevail were questions which kept the states of Greece and Rome in eternal convulsions, as they now schismatize every people whose minds and mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact the terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural as well as to civil history. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals.” —Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:279

I could go on if you like…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #230119

Jefferson was talking about monarchies and monarchical tendencies 9 years after Waterloo. Our government is based on The United Provinces of the Netherlands more than anything else. Admiration for Greece and Rome, as civilized slave holding societies appealed for obvious reasons. That is why we have a Senate instead of a Parliament.

Of course his party would identify themselves with the people, so would his opposition, and so would the monarchs who claimed to represent all of the people, not just those allowed to vote.

What people aren’t getting is that Jefferson was advocating an aristocracy of thinkers. Do you know what Duma means in Russian? Napolean complained about the Consulate about 1799 or 1800 that “We have a dozen or fifteen metaphysicians that ought to be thrown into a pond.” Jefferson would have been one of those. People often read American history out of context. Events in Paris were probably more significant to Jefferson than events in Albany or Savannah.

I dont’ even want to get started on Whigs an Tories, because it was a strain to relate British political parties with American ones.

On the smoking thing, I met a union carpenter yesterday who took off the summer to make an easier living selling black market cigarettes in Chicago for $80 a carton downtown, and $56 a carton in the neighborhoods.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 21, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #230120

Sorry to double post, but do you know how I used to write papers in college? I would read a book, picking quotations as I went along, and then find the topic by looking through the quotations, and string them all together with some writing in between. One professor, a Brit from Cambridge, was upset about this when I told him, and later F’d me over by wandering off to Alaska before he turned in my grade. Quotations don’t impress me. They just indicate that someone doesn’t know what to say for himself about the subject.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 21, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #230121

Rhinehold, excellent retort. But, of course, Jefferson’s view was but one. There were others in his day, and many more fulcrums since, upon which to divide the electorate along issues of governance. Jefferson’s view however, has stood the test of time, and still rings true today, though it remains but one fulcrum of many upon which to weigh ideology regarding political parties and interests. The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party offer other fulcrums of division on governance not based in particular upon the wisdom and trust of the electorate, or absence thereof.

Greens cite science and holistic balance as the fulcrum, a form of Platonic philosopher Kings who promote the education of the people to the extent that these environmental philosophers shall be retained in positions of leadership. It combines a trust and confidence in the people IF educated properly with leadership by an intellectual aristrocracy assented to by an educated electorate.

Libertarian philosophy’s fulcrum is the individual who shall be supreme in self-governance and responsibility and who shall only grudgingly acquiesce to leadership on fundamental projects designed to protect and defend individual liberty from those who would usurp such freedom. A small and limited government which is checked and constrained by maximum individual liberty protected by the vote. This fulcrum doesn’t contemplate aristocracy or leadership at all, but, merely hired help to enforce a very limited set of rules designed to maximize individual choice and consequence. Though it does contemplate fear of power intensely and thus proposes that the wisdom needed to govern IS in fact held by the people themselves.

The Constitution Party’s fulcrum rests on one specific religion, and you either join or suffer the consequences of rule by those who do. Little wonder this party remains no bigger than the American Nazi or Socialist Party. Wisdom to govern rests in the Bible, which covers so many leadership styles and authorities as to render it an utterly contradictory resource for manner of governance and repository of ultimate power of governance - the followers and adherents, or the pastors, ministers and evangelists? They are quite conflicted over this when pressed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2007 11:40 AM
Comment #230137

Back on the Randolph quote, remember that he was writing after another Jefferson, Jefferson Davis had been POTCSA including parts of Virginia. People should also read a history of Scotland from about 1550 to 1700 to find another source of some of our liberties.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 21, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #230226

Rhinehold- Defending Carl Rove as just trying to be
a person whose only interests are helping his fellow
workers, is the illogical rational, an to disseminate
such a contrived notion only negates the rest of
that post. You have posted some good arguments lately, but this Carl spin from hell, just can’t fly.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 22, 2007 3:56 AM
Comment #230263

I’m sorry, -David-, but I wasn’t aware you were ‘inside the man’s heart and mind’? You seem to know how he thinks as a fact, not as a theory.

What, preytell, leads you to conclude that Rove is an ‘evil man’ instead of a guy just trying to do what he thinks is best in the best way he knows how?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #230378

Rhinehold- I am in a persons heart an mind because
I am a Forensic Psychiatrist an Attorney. I determine whether or not a person is mentally competent to stand trial or goes to prison. I do not
believe Rove is evil however, I could not legally,
give a valid diagnosis openly, even if I wanted to.
I do enjoy playing mind games on occasion, with
some people. After 30 years and hundreds of patients,
I guess that might give me an edge. The funny thing is that my patients always think they are
are more clever than I am. I would love to try some sodium pentathol on old Carl to really hear
what he thinks, not a legal procedure, but it works well most of the time.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 23, 2007 5:00 AM
Comment #230379

In the above post, the person is treated for their
problem then if possible is referred back to the
Judge for final disposition.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 23, 2007 5:32 AM
Post a comment