home

Accountability In The Big Tent

The Netroots is meeting in Austin the next few days. I will not be there. But if I was, I would talk about what Markos said:

“I’m positioning myself, at DailyKos, which isn’t the broader netroots, to not be carrying water for anybody,” he said. “We’ll work to keep our party honest. We’re not going to pretend that just because he’s Barack Obama, his actions aren’t sometimes problematic. But that doesn’t mean we’re abandoning him or that we won’t vote for him. That’s ludicrous.”

And I would discuss this approach to accountability:

". . . But once the primary is over, [most of us] are all Ds. And we support all Ds. At least that is how I look at it. Does this mean SYFP during the general election? Nah. First of all, it ain't going to work anyway. Folks are not going to. But it does mean being cognizant that our election system is binary. None of the above does not win elections. And it means being realistic about Political Space Time Curvature:

What [Crashing The Gate is] talking about is a Democratic Party that is committed to its core values and also is a Big Tent -- the type of party required to be a majority party in the United States. They are arguing for a party that has defined its values while at the same time NOT requiring lockstep agreement on all the issues across the country. It will be a party where Ben Nelson will stress his fight for working Americans and contrast that with the Republican Party's neglect of the common man, but also a party where a Ned Lamont will battle with Joe Lieberman over the Iraq War and where Ted Kennedy will fight for civil rights. Much may divide Ben Nelson, Ned Lamont and Ted Kennedy, but their core values, values of the Democratic Party, pull them together. And each should stress those values in ways that make sense for each of them in their respective political situations. And in this way a national Democratic brand can be created that appeals in all sections of the country.

How did Dems win in 2006?

This was the intellectual battle the Netroots, led by one Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, has fought with the DC Establishment for 4 years:

While Brownstein is right about the belief from most of us that the right politics demands confrontation with Bush and contrast with the Republicans, I think he is wrong to believe that this approach alienates independent swing voters. If anything, the alignment that Indys are having with Dems in most polling shows that it is exactly the opposite. That this approach is ATTRACTING swing voters. This is where the fundamental divide between the DLC Centrists and us lies. Where we think the swing voter will land. Take my friend Ed Kilgore of the DLC for instance. Ed is a sharp thinker and writer, but Ed lacks confidence in our Democratic ideals:

[S]everal other centrist party strategists worry that the hyperpartisan turn-out-the-base strategy that many online activists demand won't work for Democrats, because polls consistently show that more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.

"We are more of a coalition party than they are," says Ed Kilgore, the policy director for the DLC. "If we put a gun to everybody's head in the country and make them pick sides, we're not likely to win."

[T]his is simply not true. . . . When we make folks pick sides against the GOP Extremism of Dobson and the committed support to a policy of making sure the government leaves you alone in your private decisions advocated by Liberals, they will pick our side, in droves. Don't fear that fight.

And that [wa]s the real lesson, at least for me, of Markos and dailykos.

Are we forgetting these lessons? I fear we are. The Netroots must not forget this fight, how we won it and how we must continue to win it in our Democratic Party.

How was this internal struggle carried out in our Big Tent? By Crashing The Gates:

[Michael Crowley] explains that "Democrats say there's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders....Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates."

Update by kos: Good. Let people think that. People have always been naysayers. Instead of getting riled up about, we'll keep doing what we're doing. And at the end of 2006 we'll be able to take stock of the situation and declare, definitively, that the conservative blogosphere is merely a redundant extension of their noise machine.

We fight for what we believe in in our Big Tent. And then we come together as Democrats. And we do this every day, every week, and every year. That is the importance of the Netroots. It is why, together, we accomplished what we did these past years.

STFU? Never. Ever."

I wrote that post in February 2007. I think I have not strayed from that approach. I assert that the Netroots has. I looked at the agenda for this week's gathering in Austin. I saw nothing that leads me to believe that anyone there will be discussing this subject. Perhaps they are comfortable with what has transpired and where they are going. That is certainly their right to feel that way. It is a big blogosphere as Markos always says.

Some of us have chosen a different path. I respect the choices of others even as I choose to criticize it. I hope they can return the respect even as they choose to criticize others.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Raises 52 Million In June | Racial Profiling Class Action Suit Against Phoenix Sheriff Joe Arpaio >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My belief (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:29:33 AM EST
    is that you have to find a way to vote for the Democrat, no matter what, but to make sure at the same time that they don't take you for granted.  It's a bit of a paradox!  You have to be an agitator, always.

    It occurs to me (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    that the BCRA might have made it more difficult.

    [ Parent ]
    How so? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:18:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    For me, the only conceivable vote is for the Democrats.

    But if that's the only conceivable vote... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by EL seattle on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:45:03 AM EST
    ... how can there be accountability?  Primaries aren't the most effective way to weed out corruption (for instance), and the republicans have shown that they can effectively use one poster child or two to tar the entire  democratic party with a particular stain.  See: Rostenkowski, Dan.

    [ Parent ]
    For me (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    saying that the "only conceivable vote is for a Democrat" is the equivalent of saying "impeachment is off the table".

    The only accountability force you have is your vote.  The rest is kerfluffle.

    [ Parent ]

    There is very little accountability (none / 0) (#182)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    at the presidential level. Not saying there isn't any, not saying people shouldn't agitate for it.

    In the end, in the booth, when it's McCain vs. Obama all other choices are meaningless insofar as the election results are concerned. Ross Perot proved that in 92, and Nader in 2k. It's a two party system like it or not.

    People can convince themselves otherwise, but it is what it is.

    [ Parent ]

    From Bush's two terms (none / 0) (#192)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    I would say that accountability comes from a President's partisan Congress members.

    aka elections and re-elections.

    Alberto Gonzales was forced out, that much seemed apparent.  By who?  Not Bush, who seemed very unhappy about it.  The Dems?  Not likely.  The GOP worried they'd lose more seats in 2008 than in 2006?  Well....yes, that could be it.

    So Congress can exercise its power, when it chooses to.  Not often enough for me, I must say.

    [ Parent ]

    I can agree with that (none / 0) (#195)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    Very disapointed in the current dem leadership in both houses.

    [ Parent ]
    For me, not voting was inconceivable (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    until now.  So Obama has brought a big change, after all, with the blatant corruption of the Dem party.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel the same way (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    and yet I wish I didn't.  I felt very much like my vote is being taken for granted by Barack Obama when he decided to vote for telecom immunity. After months of being told on DailyKos (before I joined the flotilla of boat people who washed up on this and other shores) that Hillary Clinton wasn't really a Democrat, that a vote for Hillary Clinton was a vote against progressive values because of her vote on the IWR, suddenly Daily Kos no longer believes in ideological purity? Suddenly, a candidate who votes the "wrong" way on a particular issue is to be forgiven, because he's a Democrat?

    I'd say I was shocked if I'd ever believed that Obama was the Second Coming of Progressivism. Since I always thought he was just another (very talented) pol, I'm not surprised that he's moving toward the center.  I'm just surprised that this move isn't causing his support from the left to hemorrhage.

    I was so angry at the DNC after the MI/FLA debacle, about the DNC's tolerance of overtly sexist and misogynistic messages about HRC, so furious at Donna Brazile and Howard Dean, that I took a long sabbatical from political boards after Obama clinched the nomination.  After all, Obama's supporters had said quite explicitly that Obama "didn't need" Democrats like me. I've come around, largely because the fact that McCain is so close to Obama in the polls, despite a recent series of gaffes, scares the living crap out of me. I feel I can't afford to hold the DNC "accountable" -- not this year.

    But the question of how one does hold the DNC accountable remains. If Obama is elected, the DNC will consider its actions during the primaries vindicated, and its ranks will be populated by those who supported them. In the end, not having John McBush become president of the United States is more important to me than accountability amongst Democrats, but I wish the choice were not binary.

    [ Parent ]

    L-Mom, I think you CAN hold the DNC (none / 0) (#86)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    accountable.  I'm withholding my contribution to the DNC this cycle, and I sent them a letter telling them why (much the same reasons you express).  The letter also said that I would contribute my usual total amount, but this time all to individual, progressive candidates who need it.

    I'd go so far as to say one ought to give to the Obama campaign, rather than the DNC, if she is pissed off about Florida and Michigan.  

    What, after all, was Obama doing, except being the politician we always knew he was, in the primary and with regard to Fla. and Mich.?  It was the DNC -- Dean, Brazile, et al. -- that disenfranchised those Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally (3.66 / 3) (#95)
    by Nadai on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    I don't think being a receiver of stolen goods is a major moral step up from stealing.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't hold any politician to such exacting (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    moral standards.

    [ Parent ]
    And yet, you hold bloggers (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    to exacting moral standards; see your comments below.

    Somehow, I still think that a president is more important than a blogger.  But that's just me.

    [ Parent ]

    No, I think that policies and results matter, (none / 0) (#128)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    and I expect less from my politicians.  That is a core reason I never signed on to the Obama mania.

    I hold newspapers and bloggers to a high standard because they are supposed to keep politicians' feet to the fire.

    As for politicians, an honest Abe or a George Washington happens only once every so many generations.  And even with those two, I suspect history or momentous times (or some combination of both) elevated them to the standard you expect of our politician-Presidents.

    [ Parent ]

    except it was Obama's (none / 0) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    campaign claims in the primary that he was "change" and a "new kind of poiltics" and able to "hold up those standards" that got the nomination for him.  So, in my eyes, accountability is much more important this year than usual.  I'd rather have McCain for 4 years than to reward what went on and continues to go on this year.

    [ Parent ]
    If you'd rather have McCain, I really don't know (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    how I can explain any of what I'm saying to you.  I'll just say that I have NEVER cast a vote for a politician for any office that in some sense did not come down to a choice of the lesser evil.

    [ Parent ]
    well then i guess (none / 0) (#142)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    it all depends on what you consider evil to be.  I consider what went on in these primaries to be an "evil" that I don't want to reward.  And, I think it is the greater of the two evils if the other evil is 4 years of McCain.

    I think rewarding it would just cause it to continue into the future for much longer than 4 years of McCain.  And I am going to just have to trust the dem majorities in the house and senate to stop McCain from doing any damage.

    [ Parent ]

    You have a lot of trust in Congress, then. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST
    They've given me very little reason to believe they will stand up to McCain as president.

    And, my vote or support is not given as a "reward" for good behavior, but rather as a vote for the policies I want to see enacted, not to mention avoiding "100 years" in Iraq.

    It seems to me that Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain essentially to punish McCain are on a par with extreme Obama supporters who think Obama can do no wrong.  The better candidate is not the one who "campaigns right" or who personally "deserves" (or does not "deserve") the office.  

    The better candidate is the one who is more likely (more able or committed) to enact progressive policies.  For me, that meant Hillary is better than Obama is better than McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Correction: (none / 0) (#148)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    Third para:  "to punish Obama"

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmmmm (none / 0) (#150)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    The better candidate is the one who is more likely (more able or committed) to enact progressive policies

    With positions such as he took on FISA I am not that confident of Obama.  To me his best quality is that he Is Not McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    well lucky for Obama then that I live in NC (none / 0) (#155)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    because he won't win this state whether I vote for him or not.

    I will vote for Obama if and only if Clinton is on the ticket.

    But, like I said, I'm in NC so it doesn't really matter.  What you need to worry about is how many people like me are there in actual "swing" states.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not worried about it. I'm just not (none / 0) (#158)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    accustomed to such binary thinking from progressives.  I've seen it for months from the more radical Obama supporters.  And I'm seeing it now from those Clinton supporters who seem to want to vote for McCain apparently out of some sort of spite.

    [ Parent ]
    i really think (none / 0) (#169)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    that I have provided some valid reasoning that doesn't deserve to be derided as "spite".  You just may value different issues than I do.

    [ Parent ]
    I was speaking generally. I haven't seen enough (none / 0) (#171)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    of your reasons to talk about you specifically.  Sorry it came out that way.

    But I believe what I said as a general matter.

    [ Parent ]

    On what do you base your trust? (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Totally understand your point, Tim (none / 0) (#153)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    At this point in our history, the Democratic Party is ALL WE HAVE to fight the insane power that has been amassed. It is supposed to be THE GOOD GUY in this fight. And we are watching it begin to take stances that would have been labelled GOP in earlier times.

    What other form of protest do we have, without our vote? We are being fenced off, as protestors, at OUR OWN CONVENTION. Our petitions are ignored, our messages are ignored, in favor of massive Telco money and other interests.

    The only power we have is A) our Money, and B) our Vote. I've sworn to withhold 'A' for as long as these schenanigans continue; I haven't yet figured if I'm going to withhold 'B' yet, but it may be the only thing that wakes up somebody: Taking them the f*** out of office.

    [ Parent ]

    Except (none / 0) (#179)
    by Mike H on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    Fighting the "insane power" of the bad guys is EXACTLY what the Democrats have NOT been doing!

    I don't see what good it will do to vote for Obama when:

     (a)  it will vindicate the unethical activities in the primaries that I vehemently disagree with; and

    (b) it is unlikely to do anything to undo the damage of Bush or to advance progressive causes, especially given Obama's own actions and words, combined with the inactivity of Pelosi, Reid, et al.

    The Democratic Party clearly DOES NOT CARE about advancing progressive policies, and anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention.  How does continuing to vote for Democrats in these circumstances, and sending them campaign donations, make them support progressive policies?  It doesn't make sense, you're just reinforcing their idea that they can do whatever they want because we have "nowhere else to go".

    Their confidence in counting on our votes no matter what they actually deliver makes our position weaker, not stronger.

    [ Parent ]

    did you used to post (none / 0) (#180)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    on AmericaBlog as Mike Hunt?

    [ Parent ]
    This is what finally made me decide (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by litigatormom on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    I  had to vote for Obama.  Because I am not sure the country will survive four years of McCain so that we can reform the DNC. At least not the country as we know it (even if he avoids nuclear conflagration).

    Bottom line: Obama disappoints me.  McCain scares the living crap out of me. Lesser of two evils, yeah, but a big enough difference to make it real for me.

    And yes, I have hung up twice on DNC fundraisers after telling them why I refuse to give them money. Apparently they don't believe it, as I've given money to the DNC in the past and I remain on their lists. But they're going to hear the same thing until November.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel the same way. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mari on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    Obama flip-flopped on FISA. Why is there an assumption that he is better than McCain? He might be worse. He can push through more center-right(mostly right) legislation such as the beginning of social security privatization. Divided government is a better option.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeez, I miss the old daily kos (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    It seems that at the start of 2007, the leftospherere split into three. Those who wanted to go along to get along, those who wanted to focus on the 2008 Presidential primary, and those of us who actually believed in the primary Democratic message of 2006.

    I miss ek hornbeck, but not (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    the grammar police.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen and amen. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    I miss McJoan but not the dittoheads.

    [ Parent ]
    I still read mcjoan. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't give Daily Kos hits. Period. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    And, while I think McJoan is highly credible, I choose my reading in part based on where people choose to write and publish, and the editorial standards of the publication.  The same goes for blogs.

    [ Parent ]
    That is an unachievable standard. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Really? It's very easy not to give Daily Kos (none / 0) (#107)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    hits.  Quite achievable.

    If you are speaking more broadly, I don't expect perfection.  

    But I can tell you this:  I would never pick up ANY publication whose owner/lead contributer signed on to a baseless smear such as the "Obama photo darkening."  That is right up there with some of the lesser smears that came out of the Arkansas Project.

    [ Parent ]

    I read mcjoan because I very much (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    respect her work and persistence.  

    I also respect most of the NYT, despite the obvious past failings of that newspaper and the presence of op-ed columnists with whom I strenuously disagree (and usually don't read for that reason).

    [ Parent ]

    Funny -- I had a phrase in my previous (none / 0) (#125)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    comment about the New York Times that essentially said "no publication or blog is indispensable, except perhaps The New York Times."  But I deleted it -- weird we both thought of the NYT.

    But, if you put Daily Kos on the same level as The New York Time, as an "indispensable" source, that is your judgment to make.

    [ Parent ]

    One Difference Between NYTimes and Blogs... (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    like DKos is that with the NY Times you know that the editors and reporters have standards that they don't always live up to but they strive to.  The  swift  disintegration of any pretense at standards at the political blogs during the primaries amazed me.  What could have been a great instrument for change turned into a great propaganda instrument.  

    Credibility once lost is hard to recover.  Once a blog becomes a mouthpiece for a candidate it is hard to take that blog seriously.  And I'm sorry to say that goes for the contributors to the blog.  

    The NY Times as bad as it has been on certain issues at least recognizes its errors, which is the first step towards improving.    

    [ Parent ]

    Agree with all of the above. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    Except that I do believe writers can correct themselves and recover credibility.  In my example above (the darkened Obama photo smear) the time for that has long past, however.

    [ Parent ]
    Daily Kos is no indispensable to me. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    Neither is NYT, actually; I really subscribe for the Arts coverage.

    [ Parent ]
    Well perhaps some progressives (none / 0) (#132)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM EST
    subscribe to William F. Buckley's rag for the witty cartoons, as he used to say in the advertisements.

    [ Parent ]
    Of Esquire for the articles. (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't either (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by litigatormom on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    I thought I was addicted to DK, and wrote not one but two GBCW diaries before I finally lost patience and quit for good.  I finally got mad enough that I didn't miss it, not even lurking.

    I must confess that I twice clicked onto DK inadvertently because the listing was next to EBay on my favorites list. So I took DK off my favorites list.

    There were several frontpagers I liked, but I could not abide by a place that was willing to run trusted users who had been there for years get troll-rated and abused for the simple act of expressing their preference for Clinton. I will never go back.

    [ Parent ]

    i used to be the same (none / 0) (#177)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    with AmericaBlog.  Used to read it every day.  Completely quit after the Clinton bashing took over completely.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's what I don't get (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    Unless there's at least a strong implicit threat to not vote and/or not donate money, where's the incentive for the politician to care what we say or think?  They take certain positions, say on FISA, because they think it will get them votes (or sometimes actually on principle).  If there's a lot of yelling about it from the "Netroots" or anywhere else, with the coda "but we're going to vote for him anyway because he's better than X," why should he or any politician give a darn?

    I don't see the mechanism for having any effect on anything.  We're just venting.

    Obviously, I personally value the opportunity to vent, but aren't we just kidding ourselves that it will make the tiniest bit of difference?  Are we hoping the very force of our arguments will make the politician reconsider his/her position?

    All the criticism/venting in the world has no impact if it's under a banner headline saying "We will vote for him anyway," IMHO.

    Good comment. (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by dk on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    For me, at least, I guess I'm skeptical of the idea that, as mere voters and private citizens, are choices are ALWAYS binary.  

    Yes, of course, in our system, the results of the elections are always binary.  But that's not the same thing as saying that our choices are always binary.

    I vote Democratic because in the vast majority of cases, I think the Democratic candidates that have run for election where I have lived have backed what I consider to be fundamental Democratic principles (even when I disagree with them from time to time on particular policies and issues).  

    But when a Democrat comes along who, I believe, does not share those values, my choice is not binary.  It can include not voting, voting for a third party candidate, etc.  Are there risks in doing so?  Sure, my good intentions may backfire in the short term.  But we take risks even with the Democrats we elect.

    Personally, in my almost 20 years voting, I have made this choice only twice, but I can certainly sleep at night when thinking about those choices.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it does have an effect (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    You think only withholding votes works.

    We just fundamentally disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    But what is the mechanism (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    for the effect you believe it has?  That's my core question.

    [ Parent ]
    Raising the profile of (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    the issues that are important to you - turning up the heat on them, educating people on them, moving them up in priority as compared to other issues, primarily the ones the politicians would rather focus on because they're noncontroversial or put them in a good light no matter what.

    I think withholding your vote is self-defeating, because the vote isn't just for the politician but for yourself and what you want that politician to do with the power you vote them. But avoiding saying you'll vote for them no matter what is fine, imo - ambiguity can be a good thing in that case.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    Did withholding votes achieve any positive results in 2000?  The message was sent - the Dems lost the election because too many people jumped ship.  Do you think that succeeded in moving the party in the right direction?

    [ Parent ]
    It's just not so easy as that this time around. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    People who withheld their votes (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    in 2000 were simply falling for Nader's line of bull. There was no reason not to vote for Gore - he was a good Democrat and had won the nomination without the DNC's thumb on the scales. I was happy to vote for him, and I wish with all my heart that just one person in the Senate had stood up for him and challenged the results of the Florida election.

    I am sure I will get deleted if I delineate the reasons why Obama is not acceptable to me, but suffice it to say, I have never NOT voted Democratic in a Presidential election. I am not a Republican or a bitter dead-ender or a racist or in love with Hillary Clinton. I was a yellow-dog Democrat until this year.

    Yet I cannot vote for Obama. And there are at least 2.5 million Democrats who feel the same way at the time I write this.

    Are we to pretend this phenomenon does not exist, or alternatively, simply blame it on Hillary or the Democratic voters who still support her?

    It seems so, and that does not reflect well on the so-called Netroots Nation.

    [ Parent ]

    You won't necessarily get deleted (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Jeralyn is quite tolerant of dissent, as long as it is on topic and not insulting. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary to provide reasons for not voting for Obama. Each of us who is taking this path has our own, although they often overlap. Nader's line was bull.  He said that Democrats were just like Republicans, which is so wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. Obama may be way more moderate than I like, but he is way to the left of McCain. If political positions were the only criterion, I would be voting for Obama. Gore was a qualified candidate in every way. This is not 2000. I hope we won't be trapped in that lie again. There is no reason to try to start another party - we simply need to give Dems an opportunity to move to the left - and the incentive to try.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    Everything you said about Gore could be contested by a Bradley supporter, since the DNC and the "establishment" was certainly not in Bradley's camp in terms of debates, etc. And the Nader analogy does hold-- it was meant as a way to "get through" to the Democratic Party, especially among "yellow-dog" "all my life" blah-blah-blah Democrats.

    The reason that the "accountability" charge falls so flat is that its a diffuse goal without sufficient organizational strategy. Most of what I read here is just bitterness that Hillary lost, not deep concern with how the DNC operated (you heard almost no objections when Florida and Michigan were known to be in for punishment and Hillary was ahead in December).

    If we're serious about changing the DNC it has to start on multiple levels-- local and state levels are critical. But instead we just ramble on about Obama and Clinton as these superhuman figures without understanding the structures propping them up. I mean, do you think the DNC just magically transformed from 2004 to now? You think all the evil Deans and Brazilles just sprang up out of nowhere?

    If Clinton had had a better strategy for Iowa and Feb. 5  the FL and MI would have worked just as shadily through Ickes and co. and she would have won. The Kossacks would be screaming "accountability" just like you, but the same political naivete would be there, waiting to be duped in 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    If you think that no one here (none / 0) (#133)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    is angry about the DNC, then you have not read very many posts at TL, and certainly not mine.

    The rest of your post attributes motivations and qualities to me which I do not have.


    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    I am not comparing sitting out this election to a vote for Nader.  They are clearly two different elections.

    My question is simply based on the premise that some liberals refused to vote for Gore in 2000 because, rightly or wrongly, they felt he was not satisfactorily advancing their issues.  Did the result of the election cause the Democratic Party to do anything to reach out to those people, to make them feel like their issues were being addressed?

    [ Parent ]

    No, (none / 0) (#105)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    because they used the tool in the wrong situation.

    That doesn't mean that the tool is ineffective.

    If you use a vacuum cleaner to try to drill a hole, it will not work. However, that doesn't mean it won't vacuum your floors.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    What makes it the wrong situation?  Because Gore was, in fact, a good liberal?  One would think that if it's all a matter of perception, that would make it easier, not harder, to bring the disaffected voters back into the fold.  Yet I'm not aware that an effort was even made.

    Also, I don't think we should pretend that there was no room to Al Gore's left in terms of restraining corporate power, which was Nader's big issue.

    [ Parent ]

    I was not aware (none / 0) (#127)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    that Al Gore had used tactics unacceptable to Democrats to gain the nomination. This election cycle, that is what happened with Obama v. Clinton. That is the reason for the protests now.

    I cannot speak for everyone who means to withhold his/her vote or otherwise not accept Obama as the nominee, but I do think that my goal in doing what I'm doing is different from the Nader voters in 2000. I am protesting specific actions by the DNC, and I am hoping to give Hillary the fair shot she deserves at the Convention. This ad states my position quite well.

    If the Party refuses to do this, then the Party is no longer small d- democratic, and I will then use different tactics to try to move the Party back to the its roots in the electoral center, instead of continuously oozing rightward.

    [ Parent ]

    Al Gore most certainly (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    was accused by Bradley-backing Dems of using unacceptable tactics to best their St Bill.  Many of the same arguments heard today from certain qtrs wrt Obama were used then against Gore -- pandering to the Right, willing to do/say anything to win, ruthless, Liar!/can't be trusted, etc, ad nauseum.

    Historically, in other Dem primary cycles, there have been plenty of bad words exchanged, with all manner of accusations flying back and forth -- 1960, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1992 to name a few.  In the end -- excepting 68 and 80 where disaffected and petulant Ds stayed home or voted for the R by voting a 3d party and generally gave the rest of us vy undesirable results -- usually the Party unites and moves forward cohesively into the GE.

    I doubt if this yr we'll see a repeat of 2000 or 68 or 80 as I sense most of the HRC Ds will return to the fold by the fall -- or at least in sufficient numbers to mostly marginalize the remaining few (but noisy) holdouts ...  

    [ Parent ]

    Um, (none / 0) (#157)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    I don't remember the DNC holding their thumbs on the scales to nominate Gore. I don't remember Gore lying about Bradley or Bradley's record. I don't remember the DNC threatening not to hold an open ballot at the Convention.

    That's because those things didn't happen.

    And your impressions of the "few noisy holdouts" are completely wrong.

    I must say it is hilarious how people who have not bothered to do the slightest bit of research on the PUMA movement pretend they have some idea of what it's about and whether or not it will hold up.

    [ Parent ]

    I said nothing about the DNC (none / 0) (#178)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    unfairly aiding Gore in Bradley -- as if the incumbent VP needed such dubious assistance.

    I also didn't say Gore had lied about Bradley -- I did say Bradley and his camp complained about Al doing/saying anything to get the nomination.  They clearly went after Al and his alleged propensity to exaggerate -- character attacks, iow.

    That is how I noted the 2000 primary cycle parallels today's mostly bogus charges from certain dissatisfied quarters against Obama.

    So you seem to have misunderstood my post.

    As for going forward into the GE, I merely give my best sense of how it's likely to turn out.  Most of the current HRC backer-holdouts are probably coming back into the tent for Nov.  Not all, but likely the vast majority.  

    Sorry to upset your dreams of a fatally divided party.

     

    [ Parent ]

    What you're proposing (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    is called "learned helplessness". It didn't work last time so let's never try it again.

    Maybe it takes a couple of elections to make change.  Anything worth doing is worth patience.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    What I'm proposing is looking at empirical evidence.

    If applying a particular lever of influence doesn't work, you can either keep applying it by insisting that, in theory, it ought to be working, or else you can look for a different lever of influence to apply.

    From an empirical standpoint, it's hard to think of a better piece of evidence we could obtain than what happened in 2000.  A relatively small number of liberals really did manage to affect the outcome of a national election by casting a protest vote, something that isn't easy to repeat.  And the consequences were particularly dire and should, by all rights, have made the Democratic Party say "this is a desperate situation, we need to get those people back into the fold at all costs!"

    So if the party did not, in fact, have that reaction, it's worth thinking about the reasons why before we determine to simply try the exact same thing over again.

    [ Parent ]

    You might want to take a look at this (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    The link is to Open Left. It might shed a little light on the dilemma posed by Obama's candidacy for some of us. This is not a site that requires a litterbox so I think it's OK for me to link to it?

    Perfectly Logical Caculations and Why They're Actually Not

    [ Parent ]

    That is a fine diary (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    The discussion in the comments was, as I expected, not so fine.

    Where I think my point diverges from the sort of argument Melissa is complaining about is that my argument does not end with "...therefore, you must vote for Obama."  I am not trying to tell anyone that voting for Obama is the best way to accomplish their goals.  What I am saying is that denying your vote to the Democratic candidate in order to "send a message" doesn't appear to result in reform of the party, as an empirical matter.  It doesn't mean there are no good reasons to do it.

    [ Parent ]

    And, especially, when nothing (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:41:06 PM EST
    else seems to work to get anyone's attention, and, when you think dirty politics became even dirtier and dishonest, then your only alternative as "we the people have" is to withhold our vote, instead of holding our noses. I thought Gore was a good candidate, but I think most wanted something new after BC. Voting for Nadar was one way to protest then, now, not voting top of ticket is another way to protest.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually SteveM if I follow your logic (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    I would have to assume that the Democratic Party is beyond help.  That they will never learn the lessons they need to learn in order to make ours a better nation.  I long ago gave up on the Republican Party I hope I can at least have the hope of the Democratic Party being the equalizer of social disparity and constitutional liberty.  

    [ Parent ]
    If not voting for the party (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    does not result in its reform, and voting for the party more deeply entrenches what I despise most about the party, then I am left with doing what feels right to me. And rather than "sour grapes", I think this is what is causing the rift in the Democratic Party. But few in the blogs or in the MSM media "get it" so we get "wooed", "grief counseled", told to "get over it" and asked where our checkbooks are. I don't expect much from the Dems anymore. If I decide to vote for a third party candidate, it would be because I actually wanted what he or she was selling. Unfortunately, those choices aren't great either. I think we will see a lot of "top of the ticket left blank" votes in November.

    [ Parent ]
    You seem to discount the effect of (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    Bush v. Gore.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    It's clear the election wouldn't have been close in the first place if not for the defections.  You're never going to have a situation so perfect that you can say "one and only one factor caused this election result," but 2000 is as close to a textbook example as you'll find.

    The argument looks good on paper - "if we deny them our votes, they'll be forced to address our issues" - but it just doesn't seem like it works that way in practice.  I wish it did.

    [ Parent ]

    That is only a single example (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    and it's very dangerous to dismiss a whole strategy based on one example.

    The fact that the DNC did not learn their lesson in this one situation, or not the right lesson is not dispositive.  Just because 2000 is the closest or only example does make it representative.

    If you were trying to train your dog to stay off the couch, would you give up after just one try because it didn't work the first time?

    The DNC clearly got the message that something had to change.  What they choose was the wrong kind, imo (sacrificing the base).

    [ Parent ]

    maybe that's because most (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    of them believe Gore actually won in 2000.  Even with Nader's defections Gore still won FL.  Pat Buchanan as much as admitted the THOUSANDS of votes he got in FL were actually intended for Gore but were counted for him because of the butterfly ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm wondering if denying the $$ (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    would be more effective.  Probably not, though, given how many $$ Obama campaign is raking in monthly.

    [ Parent ]
    Money will always talk (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    Believe me, if enough of the DNC's biggest fundraisers decided that the war in Iraq was a dealbreaker, we'd have the troops home tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    The 2000 election was too complex (none / 0) (#151)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    The people who voted for Nader did so to protest ... what? The similarities between Dems and Republicans? That was a Nader myth. The association between Dems and corporations? That's not going to go away - politicians MUST work with corporations if they want to successfully accomplish goals. We can't have an energy policy that will work if politicians don't listen to energy companies. The trick is for them to not only listen to energy companies, but to also listen to environmental activists and unbiased analysts. Dems can't appease Nader voter's because the Nader voter's weren't asking for anything reasonable that they could provide. FISA was different. Progressives had specific concerns, and Dems didn't even bother to explain how (or if) those concerns were addressed. They could have, but they didn't.

    [ Parent ]
    This Nader voter.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    in 2000 would have settled for a couple bones from the Dems.

    Ending the war on drugs and rethinking foreign policy would have been enough to get me to vote for Gore.

    The similarities between Dems and Repubs are no myth my friend...both support the war on drugs and agressive foreign policy 110%.  Those are 2 of my dealbreakers...and until the Dems part with the Repubs I will never vote for either again.  For the benefit of my own conscience.

    [ Parent ]

    Ending the war on drugs? (none / 0) (#167)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    That's not a bone, it's a pipe dream. How do you end a war that doesn't actually exist except in talking points but is nonetheless supported by the vast majority of Americans? The "War on Drugs" isn't going anywhere anytime soon, although it may be possible to win tiny battles, like legalizeing marijuana for medicinal purposes or changing unjust sentencing guidelines.

    Rethinking foreign policy is another abstract cause. We weren't particularly aggressive during the Clinton administration, unless you opposed the Bosnia intervention (I didn't). You'll have to provide specifics.

    But you make my point: Naderite demands were not concrete enough to achieve a response from Democrats. You can't achieve specific changes without specific demands. You, essentially, wanted Dems to move to the left. The movement failed because Dems decided that there was no way to please you and decided to reach for voter's from the center instead. At least they know what the center wants.

    [ Parent ]

    I think legalizing (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    marijuana for any purpose is doable. Maybe not next week, but in time for kdog to light up legally before he's too old to get to the polls to vote. It isn't my vice of choice, but I think that it's not much different than my thinking that "dinner without wine is lunch". You legalize it, restrict its use to adults, and tax it to "high heaven". If it were presented as a revenue source instead of one of the cardinal sins, I think it might fly with enough people to begin to make the idea start to seem less libertarian and more mainstream.

    [ Parent ]
    This is one of the things we have to work on (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    The right wing has created an entire mythology around marijuana - that it is a "gateway" drug that causes birth defects and brain damage and has no medicinal value. But people, especially those under 60 or so, have enough familiarity with it to be willing to hear arguments in favor of legalization. At the very least, we should consider increased reliance on hemp as a fiber source and increased research into legal uses of cannabis as a medicine - at the very, very least stop prosecuting people in states which have legalized it's use for sick people. There are cracks in that wall. But legalizing marijuana is not the same as unregulated use of stronger drugs.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't mean to imply unregulated.... (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    I'm ok with min. age for sale, licensed sellers...just like cigs and alcohol.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Concrete Demands.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    1)Prosecute no one for possesing/selling a drug under federal law.

    2)Bring troops stationed on foreign soil home.

    What's not concrete about those demands?

    You're probably right that most Americans support prosecuting people over substances and support stationing men and women with guns in 100-odd countries...but there certainly are Americans who don't, and you can't blame us for voting for the candidate most likely to make our demands a reality.  In 2000, that was Ralph Nader, not Al Gore.  

    I'm not buying that 3rd party left-leaning voters cannmot be brought into the Democratic fold...the fact is the Democrats don't want us because they get big money from interests with a different agenda, and figure they can win a similar number of votes by moving to the right.

    [ Parent ]

    If those are your demands... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    ...then I agree with the Democrats for not wanting to meet them. Most Americans would. Even people who want to legalize drugs don't usually simply want to overturn all drug sale laws. Unregulated but legal drug sales would be as much a disaster as the war on drugs. And I'm not willing to remove our troops from Bosnia or South Korea or Sudan (do we even have troops there? If not, we should). War is never good, but it's sometimes necessary, and having troops in the right place can often prevent tensions from escalating.

    I've discussed issues with a lot of far left people (mostly back when Daily Kos was still a place where you could discuss issues). I've come to the conclusion that the only way we're going to win back power is to move the center back to the left. There is no way to meet the demands of the far left, and unless the world changes dramatically, there never will be.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough.... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    I laid out some concrete demands that the Democrats will not meet.

    Your views seem more aligned with the Democrat platform so they are a good fit for your vote...I'm more aligned with Nader or the Libertarians, so that's where my vote is gonna go. Let democracy ring, whoever gets the most votes (err electoral votes) wins.

    Curious...if a future Democratic nominee proposed the repeal of drug prohibition and a less aggressive foreign policy, while the remainder of the platform was the same, would you vote Republican?


    [ Parent ]

    Dems won't do that (none / 0) (#191)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    Well, not in my lifetime, anyway. They might work to lessen drug laws, if we can convince enough people that this won't lead to chaos. They certainly will have a less aggressive foreign policy than the right, but it's very unlikely that the U.S. will ever be completely non-interventionist. I don't think I'll ever have to worry about voting Republican. Even now, although I'm no longer a registered Democrat, I have no urge to vote for any Republican. I'll probably vote Democratic for anybody but Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    So if none of those people had voted for Nader, the result would have been... what?  The same, because all the Buchanan voters would have voted for Bush?  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#117)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    I'm not trying to persuade anyone to vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    It was a chaotic system (none / 0) (#176)
    by dianem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    If any one of a number of things hadn't happened, then we would have won. The Nader voter's were one of the factors. They hold just as much responsibility as the Supreme Court or the butterfly ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    That is your view (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    I do not agree with it.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree the a candidate's (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    "feet should be held to the fire." I have yet to see how that is accomplished if he knows he has your vote no matter what he does or says. By writing it and having us comment on your subject is just our opinions and opinings. Unless the "candidate" states (or his campaign)that we "get the message the blogosphere is sending," or even acknowledge some of them (i.e. DailyKos or Huffington Post, etc), then how do you know you've held him accountable. If the accountability means a dem in the white house no matter what, then he has been accountable under that definition. I have learned much here, I admire your opinions and opinings, I wish Obama would acknowledge the same.

    [ Parent ]
    indeed, take the venting up a notch or three or .. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Nettle on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    Ronnie Cummins did it for me this morning.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, let's not confuse a communication tool (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST
    with actual use of the tool to motivate people to get off their a**es and take action.  As your link says:

    Either we mobilize a revitalized Movement to take to the streets and the suites of the corporations and the politicians or we're going over the cliff. Move over, MoveOn.

    The much-vaunted millions who sit in front of their computers and talk about action have accomplished next to nothing, really.  If anything, frankly, I think it has allowed us to be lulled into thinking it equates with action.

    The internet is a communication tool that has turned users into tools.

    [ Parent ]

    Naomi Klein said much as you do (none / 0) (#57)
    by Nettle on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM EST
    in the, hmm, Brave Nation, I think it was, conversation with Tom Hayden.  Where are the bodies, in other words, or are we just bytes? Tom Hayden talked about Tom Hayden as he loves to do.  He seems to finally be coming around a bit after shilling for MoveOn and the whole Hildebrand Tewes faux progressives groups for way too long now.  That was foolish.  

    [ Parent ]
    Is it not possible to make the tent too big? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by halstoon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    When one wing of the party is pushing for true liberal positions like full gay rights, an end to the drug war, and no restrictions on women's choice while the other wing rejects gay rights, is full of drug warriors, and rejects privacy not only in abortion but in several areas, does that not send a sort of schizophrenic message to those indy voters?

    If Vernon Jones and Russ Feingold are both Democrats, what are we saying? That you don't really have to believe in anything other than partisanship to be part of our party?

    This multipersonality disorder is the reason why things like the FISA bill gets through. The Democrats don't really share enough principles to truly drive a liberal agenda, which kinda negates their majority in Congress.<