New Coalition Aims to Keep Dems in Check.
Now if it can be effective, disciplined and not be infiltrated by DLC corporate-types, there might be some progress.
click here for the new...
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!
FIVE BEFORE CHAOS HAS OFFICIALLY MOVED TO A BIGGER AND BETTER PLACE! PLEASE CLICK THE ABOVE BANNER TO GET THERE, AND DON'T FORGET TO BOOKMARK THE NEW LOCATION. THANKS FOR STOPPING BY!Monday, January 22, 2007
We need more of this. Much more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"We're not trying to force people to the left of their districts," Rosenthal said. "We want to make sure that Democrats primarily represent their districts."
Shouldn't that be left up to the VOTERS in that district? Look what happened in CT. Bloggers won the Primary and Lost the Election.
I just don't see that as the way to move things forward.
PS- Not that I'm happy Joe stayed in office, I'm not, but I do see it as a case in point.
Alex, i see your point, to an extent. Unfortunately, our system is so rigged that voters don't even have the best chance of getting things done, many times because of spin and lack of information. Is Lieberman representing his district, being one of the most vocal supporters of the war?
One of the reasons I think this idea is good, is first off, many pols in both parties tend not to feel accountable to their own parties anymore. Because of the high-stakes money in politics nowadays, nobody wants to deal with primaries and raise the extra money. Just look at how people initially reacted to someone challenging Lieberman...it was almost like an outrage. We need this to be the norm.
I'm hoping that here in VT, if Peter Welch doesn't stand up for the progressive Vermont values, that there are people calling for his head in a primary challenge. The Dems have strayed soooo far from their values and roots in the last two decades. Anything that will hold them accountable and bring them back that way is a good thing in my opinion.
Well,
You and I have had this discussion before, and we will disagree (I am the infamous goDLC at GMD) again I'm sure..
but as far as the Democratic Party goes...it is only now returning to it's New Deal roots. I would contend that the Democrats have never really been "progressive" or very left leaning at their core. (unless you judge by Republican Winger Standards..in which case, Bill Clinton becomes a bleeding heart communist..which we both know is crap.)
By going too far to the left, it has outpaced the (rather slow, it must be admitted) thought process of the Average American. This perceived left-ward drift has served to open the door - from 1968 onward to a conservative reaction that has wrought terrible things on this nation- and put the true reform of which we all– even those of us called “republican’s –lite” do truly dream.
It must not be forgotten that, "real" Leftists used to make the argument that FDR and the New Deal were the worst things that could have happened, because, by moderating capitalism, they SAVED capitalism. (And I’m old enough to remember Bernie shouting about Democans and Republocrats.)
Where I think we DO agree is that, if possible, we should look for and work for opportunities - like instant runoff voting- that will allow us to expand the political process rather than sticking all of us into "one big tent".
That way, those of us on the Left, and those of us in the Center can work together when practically possible rather than waste all our resources in a struggle for the control of one party.
?
Again, I'm a centrist, not so much because I disagree so very deeply with most liberal values, but because I believe "getting there" is going to take a lot longer than my more idealistic brethren believe.
I think it's going to take time...and the job will be done by increments.
So for me, in a way, the war against Joe Lieberman proves my point...If he had bowed to the will of the party, and not run against Lamont, Lamont would have lost, and Pat Leahy would not now be kicking ass in judiciary...
Lieberman is odious, but another two years looking at a Republican Senate is EVEN worse...the war is important, but there is other stuff that must be done- Patriot Act Repeal, Social Security, etc. etc. etc.
A few things, w/ agreements and disagreements.. First, you think if Lieberman had bowed out, Lamont would have lost to single-digit Schlessinger, and a Republican to boot? No friggin' way.
It's funny, how you are centrist because we need to get there in increments. I've often said the very same thing, in the sense that many of us on the left, esp. in VT seem to forget that places like Alabama exist, and that what seems like common sense to us is Marxist/terrorist coddling/sodomy lovin' stuff to them. So in a sense, we agree. However, I contend that many of these things we hold dear are not so out of the mainstream, it's just that the right-wing noise machine has dominated and poisoned the discourse in this country for so long now that somehow many are convinced that what they say, and how they frame things are the dominant paradigms, even though the reality may be otherwise.
I don't think this country has ever been in danger of 'going too far to the left'. Abbie Hoffman was never a congressman. Where the left has failed, as I see it, is in not confronting the right-wing challenges in a forceful yet constructive way, in a way that rationally deals with misinformation and people's fears.
I doubt the DLC'ers who had a huge boner for these destructive free trade agreements were worried too much about being perceived as 'too far to the left'. It's just that the corporate cash they are so fond of spoke louder than any kind of will or sense to do what was right and good for the country. I hold them only a little less responsible than the Repubs for the mess that this country has become.
And yes, I agree that IRV would add much-needed diversity to government. If we had more parties different factions could work together on common ground instead of this 'split down the middle' b.s. we have now, that enables Joe Lieberman to be a huge thorn in the side and liability to the Dems.
No, I think we agree- the danger in this country is not that we will ever lean to far to the left- it is our strong temptation to lurch rightward as a people.
I've always felt that the best way to counteract this was to pull gently rather than stage a revolution (I deeply distrust the kind of fanaticism that leads to revolution anyway, be it right or left leaning.)
I was always intrigued by Bill Clinton and the DLC, not because of NAFTA, but because, at it's heart, it was the wing of the Democratic party that NEVER forgot that "places like Alabama" exist (pockets of Alabama in EVERY state- even hear in "Take Back" Vermont) and that we have to deal with them.
But, more to the point, that many good people have a big chunk of Alabama inside of themselves. This makes them much more comfortable at a bar-b-que than at Bread and Puppet- if you get my political point.
Anyway, I appreciate the dialogue…until next time!
(PS- I'm not an expert on CT politics, so I don't know- but I suspect Lamont would have done better against the Republican. Still, the problem with Primaries, as you know is that only those on the edge come out to vote in them, as a general rule...this is not the fault of the passionate people...I applaud them for their commitment...but the fact remains that we usually wind up with people who are out of step with the more general voter...and again, as much as I hate to admit it, Lieberman was right—despite the primary, the people of his state, as a whole, went for him in spades…I don’t know what that means, but I’m tempted to ascribe it to more than simply the power of money- not being a Marxist, I tend to look for additional factors besides the economic.)
Post a Comment