Is it time to act . . . or . . .
Submitted by PriceRip on Thu, 03/24/2016 - 2:12pm
Is it time to suggest that Bernie Sanders supporters fill the ranks of the Democratic Socialists of America or should we go the way of Warren Beatty playing John Reed in Reds.
A viable progressive party is essential to the survival of our political system. We need to create a situation to eliminate the ineffective party and replace it with a real progressive party. I know this type of process can be done, because such shift/replacement events have occurred in this country in the past. We have the resources, we just need to use them.
Comments
When asked by Cenk if he would throw his support to Hillary
should he lose, Bernie did not say yes. He said he wanted a commitment from her and the party to his platform. When asked if he would believe it if he got it, he quoted the Chamber on their assurances she would support TPP once she was rid of great unwashed. There is a petition circulating to draft Bernie for a third party run IF he loses the primary. I think this is all good. It will piss off the Clintons. I would rather vote for him in a third party run and flyer than to give my vote to the Green Party.
http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/draft-bernie-sanders-3?source=s.em....
I signed, and I clicked the link for it to get enough votes for MoveOn to support it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Me, too, dk.
It would also be better than writing him in. This would be a more viable alternative, to me, but I'll write him in if necessary!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I have no problem with Jill Stein--
voted for her last time--but the Green Party does not seem to me to take itself as seriously as it needs to if it's going to truly challenge the Dems. This is a view from outside, and any Greens here, please feel free to chime in, but it seems to me that the Greens are content to hold up the flag of righteousness without considering how actually to disturb the power of the powerful.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Neither do I
If Bernie folds his tent, I will vote Green. Better than not voting at all. If he makes a third party run, I'm with him all the way. He said whether or not he would endorse the party's candidate and run depended entirely on what concessions he gets. The stronger he is in June, the more leverage he has.
Stein is published articles about merging Bernie and the Greens for a November run. If we need a revolution, Bernie has to be prepared to go out of the box.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I must disagree
I doubt anybody in this discussion wants to vote FOR Hillary. But let's be real. IMHO, If we really care at all about the actual way things work, we need to vote for the Democratic nominee. Here is the case I make, with all respect to those who would disagree.
1. Until Merrick Garland, a pick obviously made with political considerations, the Obama/Clinton record on appointing justices has been decent.
2. The fall vote will set the course of the Supreme Court FOR SURE
3. We need to win the court - the people appointed by the GOP are ridiculous ideologues who will destroy this country and what is left of freedom. They will enable voter suppression, environmental destruction, and police power in sick ways. They WILL roll back Roe v Wade even more, and they WILL roll back gay marriage if they get Ginsburg's seat. We know this.
So, how do we vote FOR THE COURT and AGAINST THE GOP, yet not FOR Clinton? UNITE THEN FIGHT
We get together as an online group, Move-on.org style. They originally existed to say about the Lewinsky affair, "Censure then move on."
Our slogan should be. "UNITE THEN FIGHT" Unite for the court. Unite against the GOP. But with an explicit message to Hillary Clinton and the DNC: We are not voting FOR you and all your cronies. WE WILL PRIMARY YOU IN 2020. WE WILL TAKE THE PARTY BACK FROM WALL STREET. AND WE START NOW. But, yes, we will vote for you even though you really don't deserve it. Enjoy it now, because if this movement has a head start WE WILL WIN.
So we hold our nose and vote, yet declare to all that this is done only in protest and in recognition of the evil monster that is the GOP. AND THEN WE WORK SO THAT THIS IS THE LAST TIME WE WILL HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN
Anybody feelin' me?
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
I came into this season fully prepared to vote for her...
and then Bernie got in. I am fully prepared to vote for her in November should Bernie try to sheepdog us towards Clinton, now way am I going there. But I have the same concerns with the Greens. But I have to think that the lack of the same kind of money and ridiculous roadblocks set in place for third parties is a damn nightmare. I've sometimes wondered if it's even possible for them to get into a position to truly challenge the Dems. I don't know. In the big political pressure cooker, maybe they're just there to vent lefty steam, or they wouldn't be tolerated at all, the peace loving freaks. Not that I won't vote for Jill, because I will.
I shave my legs with Occam's Razor~
Thank god.
It would be very bad to run on the idea that she's bought and paid for...and then tell Americans to vote for her.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
When the other side is even
When the other side is even more bought and paid for, things like the Supreme Court matter. Lesser of two evils is a thing because it is better than extra evil. It's a matter of degree. Even if it is on the scale of evil, it is a degree nonetheless. Wow, I feel evil even justifying this crap. Yet I do truly believe voting for the Democratic nominee is the right thing to do. I want to be pure. But I REALLY want a Democrat to pick the Supreme Court. I have seen what happens.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
Yes! But....
Join the DSA...but work on persuading the Greens, the Socialists, and all of the other "little" parties to join us too... strength in numbers.
Please help the Resilience Resource Library grow by adding your links.
First Nations News
Well... in the meantime I'm
Well... in the meantime I'm phonebanking for Bernie.
Go Bernie !!
I'm not sure
Many "socialist", or purists have a problem with Senator Sanders, that since he's not completely and utterly against capitalism, he's, well, {insert ad hominem attack here}, about he's not pure enough. Of course that is the same line of attack / reason, why so many democrats are upset with him, because he hasn't been a life long democrat.
Thom Hartmann had a segment on his show about taking back the party, similar to the way the Tea Party took over the republican party. It was interesting and I wrote about it a bit in the great orange wasteland, but I won't link to the poopie place.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
People's progressive caucus within the Dem party
The advantage of progressives taking over the Democratic Party is that establishment Democrats are party loyalists so if you win through the nominating process they will all vote for you as the Democratic candidate. If you are run as a 3rd party candidate none of them will vote for you.
Just like Bernie. You have a chance of actually getting elected if you run as a Dem.
They would try to discourage us from running against an incumbent Dem but they couldn't stop us and if we were organized we would win.
I'm not sure the party is honest enough for that.
I believe that if Bernie actually threatens to win pledged delegates, the dirty tricks squad will step in. As seems to be happening already in AZ.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Why not run and support Dem candidates w/o a party takeover?
I don't understand why you need to take over many positions within the Dem party. The problem with being assimilated within the Democratic party is that it would suck all the life out of you to work with establishment Dems resisting your every thought.
Why can't you organize outside the party with other independent progressives to stay energized, focus resources, and be more inclusive; then endorse and fully support candidates who sign up and run in the primary as Bernie did. This has worked great with Bernie except the education of the voters began too late. A progressive peoples caucus could work year round educating and growing outside the party and then run candidates within the Dem party.
When our progressive candidate wins the Dem nomination and runs for office the establishment Dems will support them to prevent the scary Republicans from winning.
I agree and disagree
I believe we should have a progressive infrastructure outside the Democratic party. BUT, we should try to take over the party positions where possible, and that will allow the progressive infrastructure to slowly become the party infrastructure. We want to be the Establishment. We just want to ESTABLISH certain values that are currently missing from the neoliberal debate. Booman gets this. The left needs to want power, and to wield power, but hopefully it is done with strong democratic values, and an infrastructure in which The Grassroots is in a position to grant, or withhold if the case may be, legitimacy to the Establishment.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
What do we need to sustain a movement? My thoughts.
1. Universal Ideals
Central ideals that will attract Progressives, Democrats, Independents and Republicans (democracy)
2. People Activism
The universal ideals would be translated regularly into a more specific platform that would motivate people to become activists. ($15 minimum wage)
3. People Money
Raise money through many small donations to fund projects and candidates so the politicians are beholden to the people.
4. Decentralized Organization
Leaders will always fail us. Groups always get co-opted by an inner core of elites.
5. An American Movement
America is unique. A movement needs to reflect our values.
6. A Progressive Movement
We can define what “progressive” means to us in this movement, particularly in its ideals and platform
7. American Progressive Association
Progressives are independent activists who go out and start many kinds of groups. A loose affiliation of individuals and groups many be possible.
Thanks for the link!
And I'll give joining some consideration. I just need to finish my cross town move to see how much money I've got left
And I noticed today that the congressman in my district OR-3 is completely unopposed, maybe I'll pay the filing fee to get on the ballot just for shits and giggles
Gold is the wealth of kings; silver is the wealth of commoners; barter is the wealth of peasants; and debt is the wealth of slaves.
I say Run!
Do it man, run for office. I'm researching my local and state offices myself and learning about how to run for office. I want to run, if nothing more than the challenge the Texas constitution that actually requires anyone running for public office, they have to acknowledge a Supreme Being.
"Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Snark alert!!!
Since I consider myself an ancient astronaut theorist (lol), I wonder if my belief in the Anunnaki would qualify as a supreme being?
End Snark alert!!!
Yes, I'm only kidding, but hopefully you get my point. Someone in Texas needs to challenge this religiosity in our Tea Bag Taliban "government" down in the southern waste land, known otherwise as Texas. Land of the most ignorant members of congress and Cruz.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Alright
I just signed up online with the OR secretary of state. I can file in June
Gold is the wealth of kings; silver is the wealth of commoners; barter is the wealth of peasants; and debt is the wealth of slaves.
That is COOL!
n/t
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
You've got my vote!
Oh wait, I live in Arizona...
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Me as well also
I was going similarly post that I live in Nebraska, except I will start moving into Medford, Oregon (OR-3) in a few weeks. So, maybe I will be able to vote for B. Joe King.
The American two-party system is well defended
I would love to see another Progressive Party (the previous one was better known as the Bull Moose Party). The Gallup Poll says 42 percent of voters identify as independents, compared to 29% Democrat and only 26% Tea-GOP. I don't have any more numbers handy, but I think the bulk of independents are progressives fed up with corporatist politics. Still, I'm not optimistic.
The American two-party system is well defended. A takeover of the Democratic Party is a long shot, but it would be much harder to form a new major political party. Probably most of you reading this are familiar with the obstacles.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Yes, it's well defended. Inside and out.
There is no getting around the fact that the fight will be hard.
Trying to improve the odds by working w/in the Democratic party hasn't worked yet.
It's been tried repeatedly, for the past 30 years.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Totally Disagree
BERNIE RAN AS A DEMOCRAT FOR A REASON. IT'S EASIER TO CHANGE THE PARTY THAN TO BUILD UP A NEW ONE.
The ONLY ANSWER IS TO HIJACK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FROM THE GROUND UP, like a Tea Party based in reason.
Replace the Wall Street money with shoe leather organizing. Take over the local, state, and national party apparatus. Draw a clear line between the MONEY PEOPLE and the ACTUAL PEOPLE. Welcome certain money people only when they are ready to sign on to a truly progressive platform for the greater good, at a cost to their own bottom line. GIVE THE PEOPLE A REAL CHOICE AND THEY WILL CHOOSE REASON. WE GIVE THEM REPUBLICAN LITE AND IT CAUSES WIDESPREAD DREAD AND CYNICISM.
Most Sanders supporters are not hardcore socialists. We are FDR Democrats who are fed up with pay for play politics, the purposeful attacks on workers and the social safety net, Third Way Clintonism, treating the racist anti-government GOP with kid gloves, and stupid wars to go along with massive arms sales. We are tired of how the Democratic Party has become a comfortable home for Wall Street social climbers, but hostile to true progressive lawmakers who want to govern to the benefit of all and not a few.
Sorry to sound like some kind of jerk, but migrating this movement to an explicitly socialist organization is the best way to bury it. THIS IS A TWO PARTY SYSTEM - WE HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT TO OWN THIS DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS THE CORPORATE JERKS WHO CURRENTLY HOLD THE POWER - WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM THEM THROUGH TRUTH, ORGANIZING, AND HARD WORK. BERNIE RAN AS A DEMOCRAT FOR A REASON. EASIER TO CHANGE THE PARTY THAN TO START A NEW ONE.
Sorry if I sound strident but this seems obvious to me. Thanks for reading.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
It is currently a two party system
Never specified nor enshrined in the Constitution. It CAN be any number of parties we want. Two sucks.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Given the comments at TOP
I tend to think, until the neoliberals have become moribund taking over the party is a moot point. Although I must reiterate: Here in central Nebraska, a Sanders supporter as committee chair helped make a big in our caucus. It is true that the Hillary campaign abandoned Nebraska at the last days before the caucus, but I don't think that is why so very few of her supporters came to caucus, although I could be very wrong.
While I prefer the idea of a new party, I am not yet convinced such a thing could be successful nationwide.
I appreciate that you have an
I appreciate that you have an open mind, and don't seem married to your original suggestion, which was, after all, framed as a question. I think the goal should be to explicitly drive out the corrupt and Third Way elements in the Democratic Party and replace them with the millions who have given up on the process.
Overall, I am interested in any energy that keeps this movement going AND growing no matter how the delegates shake out. The movement is part of the Democratic Party now, due to Sander's decision to run within the party. So let's just make it a Political Revolution, and keep the brand name. FDR, Kennedy, Obama are names that will ring throughout history. We should claim them even if many of their positions are not exactly what the Revolution is about. In spirit, they are good heroes to have in my estimation.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
Two sucks. Agreed. But the
Two sucks. Agreed. But the way our system works, running as a third party will only split the vote we need every fall. And when it comes to committee assignments in Congress, in the beginning we will be at the mercy of the now pissed off Blue Dogs.
Many Democratic voters have forever had their heart where Bernie is, but we are always told that we must be "realistic" and "moderate." Let's give those Democrats something to vote for with gusto, as many who are casting votes for Bernie do now. Let's mold this party. All we really have to do is have our policy stick more closely to our already professed principles. It's not a leap that the Democratic Party can better itself and show America a new way. It's all about the grassroots having a sustained focus on the goal of the claiming the Democratic Party as ours.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
There's two questions here. Socialism y/n? Party y/n?
I want to address the second question.
I won't attempt to "take over" or reform the Democratic party again until someone, preferably lots of people, together do an honest and thorough analysis of what went wrong last time we tried to reform it.
The last time we made an effort to take over and reform the Democratic party, it was a magnificent multi-year effort that engaged tens of millions of people and had a savvy, fiery, and honest leader.
Here's how it turned out.
(1) We ended up with less power than we had before.
(2) The Overton window moved so far to the right that:
(a)we went from being a party that defeated Bush's unsuccessful attack on Social Security to a party that made its own unsuccessful attacks on Social Security,
(b)the "Bush tax cuts" became "the way America does taxes," and
(c) "Bush's Iraq War" became "how America does foreign policy."
(3) The leader of the movement went from being a voice of reform and a fighter against corruption to
(a) being thrown out of the public sector,
(b)going to work for a private lobbying firm, and
(c)becoming a superdelegate for Hillary Clinton hailing from Vermont and justifying his support for Clinton by saying he owed nothing to the voters (who had, in VT, gone overwhelmingly for Sanders). In other words, an overwhelming voice for the status quo in direct defiance of the will of the people.
All the evidence I have suggests that the last time the Democratic party was changed for the better happened before I was born, 48 years ago. All efforts to change the party from within since the re-alignment engineered by the Clintons and Al From have failed. Spectacularly.
I won't be involved in any such repeated effort until a lot of us sit down together and thoroughly, and honestly, assess exactly what we did, and how and why it failed. After which, we could discuss what we could do that might succeed, avoiding the mistakes of the past.
This analysis must not only be honest and thorough, it must also have clarity on exactly the kind of corruption and power politics which are running the Democratic party today, and their links to some fairly frightening people in the private sector and the security state.
And it must take into account, too, the current state of the Democratic party's reputation, and what that reputation is likely to be should Bernie lose.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Reform is a strong word
I'm not sure that I was part of the we who tried this "reform." What you write of was a political campaign strategy that had nothing to do with resetting the party's values. It ran against the status quo, which wasn't that hard given the long wars and an economy that was on the verge of imploding.
What I want to be part of the we who tries reform is a platform that defines us rather than our enemy. This, if it follows many of the principles set down by Bernie, I will join in a heartbeat. But the Clintons and their allies have to be shoved into a skanky gutter before we can clean up their nastiness.
The Dean movement had everything to do
with resetting the party's values--back to what they were before the Clintons and the DLC moved them so far to the right that they lapped George W. Bush's.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcQ1XM-Oqk]
And the political campaign strategy it used is the same strategy people here are suggesting we use again to "take over" the Democratic party. This is the Howard Dean playbook. Try for the Presidency, if you fail, organize your campaign structure into a giant national movement that gets progressives elected to Congress, to state legislatures, to governorships, etc. Eventually have so many politicians on your side that you become the party. That is Dean's method. Last time, it failed spectacularly--and not because it was done badly. It was done well.
If people see recent history differently, or if they believe it'll work out differently this time, I wish them well, but I won't participate.
I like the idea of reform, but not of a rehash of Howard Dean's methods, reprised without even looking at what went wrong before.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Problem with the word "socialism" as a unifying term
Looking at the DSA website I see the constitution declares the members as "socialists". So you have to be willing to identify yourself as a socialist. The DSA also views themselves as a democratic socialist voice within the progressive movement. So it doesn't see itself as the movement itself.
IMO you cannot unite progressives, independents and Republicans (the 99%) if socialist is your leading identity. We live in America within an American culture, not European, so I think we need a terminology suited to our own history and people, and socialism is certainly not suited for an American unity movement. I'm not debating ideas here, just terms. Terms can be defined and redefined by new movements, as Bernie is always trying to redefine socialism.
The first question seems to be what is that unifying term? Maybe its "progressive", I read that Republicans and of course Democrats have both used the term historically.
What do others think is an appropriate term that the 99% could unify under?
Maybe declare a definition of Progressivism?
Maybe we come up with a Sanders-esque definition for what a Progressive Democrat should embody, and then declare that anybody who differs on key elements (such as raising millions from Wall Street) may not call themselves a Progressive. We declare a Progressive slate of candidates in the primaries and in battles for party positions. We welcome democrats who straddle the line to come over to our side and give up the corporate $$, and declare open warfare on Democrats who are a lost cause (Schumer, Clinton, DWS, Emmanuel and many others). We purify the party, not based on some Tea Party racist or anti-immigrant rhetoric litmus test, but instead on clean governance, pro-worker governance, pro-earth governance, and pro-peace governance. We just declare the old way dead, and make it explicit so that people are forced to take sides. As opposed to now, where people just adjust their positions to whatever is currently popular (like Clinton on the TPP). You are with us or against us, and you don't want to be against us, because we clearly own the electoral future.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
Could this work
I like the tone of your suggestion. I think closely matching Sanders would be a selling point to get younger people involved in the effort. The energy at our caucus 5 May was definitely helped by the presence of that contingent.
The problem is--the term 'progressive'
is a DLC-coined term, which was borrowed from an earlier era, in order to repudiate any association with so-called 'liberals.'
I posted the C-Span video [here in the comments section] of DLC co-founder, Al From, saying as much last year.
IOW, corporatist neoliberal Dems--formerly DLCers, now 'No Labelers'/Third Way'ers)--own the term.
Somehow, I'm rather doubtful that we can co-opt it back.
Maybe we could come up with another term, though, to replace the two (progressives, liberals) that have become so tainted.
(Music City) Mollie, C99P & Daily Kos
elinkarlsson@WordPress
"The obstacle is the path."--Zen Proverb
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Here is a modern progressive platform
The progressive label has been co-opted, but it looks like Progressive Dems of America is trying to reclaim it. I personally would unite under a true progressive platform. I'm not a socialist though I may be called socialist-light... but I wouldn't fit in that party. And I agree that it would be an uphill battle trying to get the US to embrace the term, even if they like socialism-light, like me. It wouldn't matter to me if we were in the Dems or Independent, we just need to be effective.
I found this platform a week ago (now I can't remember exactly where):
1. Peace first
2. Full employment at a living wage
3. Saving the environment
4. A real social safety net
5. Medicare for all
6. Fair trade
7. Human rights/civil liberties
8. Election reform
9. Corporate accountability/reform
10. Infrastructure investment/ownership
"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change." Stephen Hawking
NEW: http://www.twitter.com/trueblueinwdc
Accidental post
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
I see a problem with Hijacking
I grabbed this two minutes ago
I am concerned that BWilson may be echoing the sentiments of many Democrats.
BWilson is WHINING.
This is what the trade refers to as a whine.
Bernie's movement has far from failed. And this is simply a Turd Way psy-op attempting to derail the movement as a failure, just like all those postings which attempt to back the lie that the Turd Way somehow "saved" the Democratc Party, or "kept it relevant". All of these are blatant attempts by conservatives to ensure that only the right has any future voice in American politics. And they will fail. Bernie Sanders' supporters are the future of the Democratic Party.
And we know it.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I need to clarify:
I don't think Bernie has failed. I think he could win the nomination.
I fear that if he does win the nomination, Hillary and DWS will bring out the dirty tricks squad. My guess is, they're already here, and that's why AZ went down the way it did.
Bernie's movement should not be limited to being a movement to reform the Democratic party. It should not exist solely, or even necessarily primarily, w/in the Democratic party (have you seen how many independents love Bernie?)
That's how I feel.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
He echoes my sentiments, until I'm convinced otherwise.
There is a path to convincing me otherwise, and I've laid it out in my other comment.
Sorry to be so hard-to-get, but I've already been here repeatedly, and have had the exact same thing happen each time. Last time was the worst, and brought us to the brink of having NO viable left-wing voice left in American public affairs.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We already won the Party, we just don't see it yet.
Although Sanders began his campaign by pushing his message up the hill, the message is now rolling on its own and pulling Sander and the rest of the electorate behind it.
Staying the course with Bulworth truth-talk is changing the American people. They are discovering, finally, that they have nothing left to lose — whether they stand up for themselves or not. It's gone way past the tipping point. Party members are never coming home again, wagging their tails behind them.
A key pivot is the possibility that Trump will be unseated by GOP bosses, at the convention, or before. If that happens and Trump runs independently, it could open the door for Sanders to do the same. But for now, the Message has taken over and is calling all the shots.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Failed? We are just getting started.
We have not failed yet. Let's look at the narrative.
-Obama was the progressive savior.
-Then we saw his cabinet. Well, ok, we aren't going to primary the first black President, who is still a huge improvement from Bush, so with no active movement and no support from the Party we have to wait till 2016.
-We get behind Bernie. The MSM and the Party do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SABOTAGE THIS GUY WITH NO NAME RECOGNITION
-And yet, Bernie is tied with Hillary in today's Bloomberg poll and polls as the most electable against the GOP. IT'S NOT OVER.
-OK, say we lose. What then? Wait till 2020, 2024? HELL NO!!!!!
-We keep it going, but with a focus on every level in every state. 50 state strategy, fighting for every nomination and every party apparatus position. We don't split the vote in the fall. We elect democrats, and WE JUST KEEP COMING until the Democrats is us.
"NEVER SURRENDER"
-Dan Felder on the soundtrack to Fast Times at Ridgemont High Learn it, know it, live it.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
OK.
With no disrespect intended at all, you and I disagree on a very important point.
President Obama, though better than Bush in a couple of respects (CAFE standards; the Iran agreement; a reluctance to do overwhelmingly stupid things in the Middle East which was worn down, apparently, by Secretary Clinton and her allies) was not "a huge improvement from Bush."
He was the way Bush policies got normalized and made a near-unchallengeable bipartisan political reality.
Whether you're talking about the tax code, attacks on Soc Sec and Medicare, an all-of-the-above energy strategy, the police state, or endless war, all of those policies are now, simply, "the way things are."
In order to challenge those policies, you have to get Senator Bernie Freaking Sanders, a democratic socialist who's been an independent his entire life, to run for President--because no one is left in either the Democratic or Republican parties that is willing to challenge the ever-expanding Washington Consensus.
Barack Obama may have been an improvement on Bush on three or four specific points. But while he was giving us better CAFE standards and an Iran agreement, he was also enshrining the bulk of George W Bush's policies as THE NORM for US politics for the foreseeable future.
I believe in getting behind Bernie, yes. I believe in not waiting if Bernie loses. But I don't agree with your assessment of the Democratic party's corruption. If the method you're suggesting worked, we would have succeeded when we stormed the party under Dean. Perhaps not via Obama, but through the people we got into Congress. That's not what happened. The majority of the people we elected are supporting Hillary Clinton, or are remaining silent and uneasily neutral.
There is a deeper corruption in the Party than we have understood or dealt with, and if we try to take over the Party again without fully understanding what's going on within it, we will fail again, probably spectacularly.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, I agree that it will be
Well, I agree that it will be difficult, and an examination of what failed before must be done. But I also feel that on the policy points you made, you underestimate how much the grassroots has been divorced from the leadership. And all of these lawmakers endorsing Clinton? That has more to do with her bigfooting every other plausible contender out of the race. That doesn't mean they won;t back a true progressive.
But your skepticism is well earned. My answer is we have to do what Dean tried to do. But we need to do it better and with more people and with more shoe leather and less e-mail. But it's still no guarantee!.
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
Really, this work is already done.
The people are ready. The pump is primed. They are not waiting around to be organized and re-organized and activated by some Party volunteer.
They are waiting for the words they need to hear spoken by candidates they can vote for at all levels. No weasel words designed to snag "moderates" — but brave, true, all-or-nothing words infused with a vision stronger than their own life-force. They are waiting for any candidates with the right stuff.
Give them that, and you can save your shoe leather. You'll never need to phonebank again.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
True, that.
You can't see the sun by looking at it directly. But if you turn your back on it, and look at the shadows it casts, you can see even more than you bargained for. You can see that the "deeper corruption" is running both Parties, and executing the same strategies to reward the same people.
Personally, I believe this is a very dangerous time. The risks are high. What power the American people still have is hanging by a thread. It may sound counter-intuitive, but there has never been a better time to ignore domestic political issues. These are shiny mirrors manufactured by the elite to blind the people; to convince them there are urgent and momentous ideological differences between the Parties; to distract them from the global war that is crushing the American people with austerity-without-end and grinding backwardness.
The US quest for Empire is the ONLY topic worth talking about with presidential candidates. The only topic candidates refuse to discuss, collapsing instead into piles of word salads or big swinging dicks.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
My thoughts
Voting for Hillary is like the situation Lindsey Graham presented as the dilemma facing his party: "If you nominate Trump and Cruz I think you get the same outcome. Whether it's death by being shot or poisoning, does it really matter?"
I now amend his statement to reflect my thoughts: "If you [vote for] Trump [or] Cruz [or Hillary] I think you get the same outcome. Whether it's death by being shot or poisoning, it doesn't really matter, for corporatism will rule the nation to dust. The only difference will be whether or not you get a Last Kiss before the nation dies."
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.