Broken indeed

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the Democratic Party of the forties, fifties and sixties. Once the "big tent" party encompassed a number of political viewpoints, gave credence and voice to them all and arrived at consensus.

Then came Clinton......his DLC driven love affair with corporate monies has turned the Democrats into a hollow imitation of the GOP, no longer tolerating the influence of the black caucus, the progressive wing or any deviation that would endanger the flow of campaign checks from CEO's.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:15:06 AM
 

The "Big Tent" is Part of the Problem, Not the Solution

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but I just couldn't leave before answering you. So, the answer may not be perfectly written and it may be somewhat chronologically out of order, so please bear with me.

I am indeed old enough to remember. I campaigned for McCarthy, was a bit suspicious of Bobby Kennedy and supported McGovern, despite my disappointment in his mistreatment of Thomas Eagleton.

Let's face it, McGovern looked at the polls, just as Rove does today, and exhibited his professional politician side when he refused to support Eagleton's courage for seeking medical help when he needed it to solve a medical problem.

Don't forget, McCarthy had to step out of the Democratic Party in 1976 because, as I say, the Democratic Party is what it is.

Lyndon Johnson was a liar and his administration, though more transparent than The Regime, was not an administration of the people. Whatever domestic programs that were passed during his administration were negated by his insistence upon allowing more and more Americans to die in a war of choice based upon a lie (sound familiar?).

The nomination of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 made it obvious that the Democratic Party was a party of money. Humphrey was supported by maybe one of the most crooked politicians of my time, Richard Daley.

We shouldn't confuse Carter's being an unknown with a rags to riches story. He was wealthy before he was elected president, he was wealthy during his presidency and he's wealthy today.

I realize that Carter didn't visit the economic catastrophe upon the country that his detractors would have us think he did. Even Ford suffered from the economic fallout of Vietnam. Blaming Carter for that was unfair.

But Carter welcomed the Shah of Iran, a tyrant whose accomplishments at least equaled that of the Big Bad Wolf of Iraq.

I submit that money has been speaking for a very long time in determining successful members of both legs of the Corporacracy.

You bring up the "big tent" party and therein lies the problem. The view points of which you speak have never been negotiable. One was either for continuing to lose American lives in Vietnam or against it. How does one reconcile that difference?

To bring the picture more into focus, let's look at 2004. If you want to consider the Democratic Party the "big tent" party, then it hasn't changed, has it? How does one reconcile the views of Dennis Kucinich, who wants to extract Americans from Iraq and the sooner the better, with the views of John Kerry, who, until recently, when the polls convinced him differently, thought Iraq was a swell war, would have perpetuated it if elected but merely would have fought it differently. He would have sent in more troops to die! Kerry didn't make much of the fact that Iraq was a war of choice and not a war intended to keep us safe from terrorists during his 2004 campaign.

One last thing that we shouldn't forget is that The Republicans were somewhat of a "tent" party at one time, although their tent was a bit smaller. John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller considered themselves Republicans at one time. What Republicans have done, however, is to see which issues one can reconcile with the party platform and which can not be reconciled. They've tightened up and it's worked.

With the exception of 1972, an anomaly if there ever was one, to quote George Wallace's 1968 statement, "there ain't a dimes worth of difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party."

I was not a fan of George Wallace in 1968, although I admire the courage he showed to later in his life admit his views were wrong. Of course, when one takes a bullet, one may say just about anything. However, his statement is as true now as it was in 1968.

Instead of a "big tent" which contains irreconcilable differences, why not just walk away from the "tent". The Democratic Party is as much a party of the Corporacracy as is The Republican Party.

by Michael Bonanno (87 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 124 comments) on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 10:24:58 AM
 

well written you "old fart" ;-]

A very perceptive analysis of our two party system, and I would remind you if youve not encountered my posts before, that I am an ardent supporter of third party politics. The Green Party refuses all corporate contributions, a stance I admit is made much easier because they arent exactly lining up to give them any in the first place. Hopefully they will feel the same way when they have entered the halls of power and become targets for that money with strings attached.

I was active in the Democratic Party for forty years and understand that which you wrote to be pretty accurate, though I might quibble here and there. The Shah was welcomed by Carter, as I recall, because he came seeking treatment for the cancer that ultimately killed him, but I concede that democrats are as guilty as republicans for alliances with horrific leaders who deny human rights, torture and kill. Though I would hope that you might conced that Jimmy Carter is our best and greatest elder statesman and his Carter Commission is a wonder.

Johnson's involvement with Viet Nam ended his career and caused him no end of pain but his achievements in the field of civil rights gives him a special place, as it should. I remember that party, of which I have not been a member since Clinton turned it into the GOP lite, was one in which the black caucus was consulted, the progressives also had a voice. I am not naieve enough to think it was free from the influence of the money that has ruined our politics and is destroying our democracy but once one could actually support what it stood for, once.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 6:39:36 PM
 

Nader- Gotta be kidding

You can lay eight years of Bush, the Iraq War, two extreme right wing Supreme Court Justices for the next thirty years, radical taxes for the filthy rich, no national health insurance program and a dozen other rediculous things such as a bankrupt nation at the feet of ego maniac Ralph Nader. Just a few more votes in Florida and Gore would have been president. The Green Party saw the tragedy they caused and will never admit it. They saw it to the extent the Green Party asked Nader not to run again in '04 and that extreme egotistical jerk ran any way when he knew the votes would be decided by just one state again. The better question is: What if the Green Party had put all their energies and money behind Gore in 2000. Just few hundred votes in FL would have changed the past six years radically. I was a Nader fan until then. No way. Never again. WHAT A MEGLOMANIAC!

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 968 comments) on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 3:16:45 PM
 

Perhaps on Tralfamagor

but on this planet Gore did not even carry his home state, which would have made Florida election results moot.

That Nader excercised his right to run for President escapes you as does the fact that he was never a Green and ran only the once on that ticket. The Greens did not act in the way you conjecture, or rather wildly speculate and I have never, ever heard any Green speak the way you fictionalise their doing.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but noone is entitled to make up "facts".....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 6:30:42 PM
 

PS

fair weather fan. I wonder what it was that attracted you to Nader. For me it was simply that Ralph spoke as the old Democratic Party used to and he still does in fact.

http://www.votenader.org/

Last Letter
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world – the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)

Ralph – you are being unreasonable.

How often did Ralph Nader hear this during the 2004 campaign?

Too many times to count.

But history will look back on Ralph Nader's 2004 campaign as an historic one – a groundbreaking effort to shake up the two corporate-dominated militaristic parties.

Ralph was against the Iraq war before it was fashionable to be against it.

Ralph was for taking on Wal-Mart before it was fashionable to take it on.

Ralph was for national health insurance before it was fashionable to be for it.

Ralph was for impeaching Bush/Cheney before it was fashionable to be for it.

Ralph coined the terms corporate crime and corporate welfare.

Then they too came into fashion.

Just go down the list.

Each of the injustices that the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans were wed to, Ralph stood against.

Ralph was unreasonable when it was fashionable to be reasonable.

You get the drift.

You always have.

You – our most persistent collaborators.

But now, more and more of our fellow citizens are catching on.

The polls are moving in our direction.

Since the 2004 election, we have been out on the hustings, meeting with you – raising consciousness and funds to retire the debt that Nader/Camejo incurred during Ralph's most recent period of unreasonableness.

The Corporate Democrats fought back dirty and drove our campaign into tens of thousands of debt.

But now it is time to close our doors.

Thanks to your generous help, we have retired the vast majority of our campaign expenses.

A bit remains.

As you probably know, an already acclaimed documentary movie about Ralph will be opening around the country soon.

It's called An Unreasonable Man.

The movie traces Ralph's history as public citizen.

In 1965, Ralph writes a book – Unsafe at Any Speed – questioned the safety of GM's Corvair.

General Motors responds by sending undercover agents to spy on Ralph.

The leggy blond in the supermarket says to Ralph – "want to come over to my place to discuss foreign affairs?"

"No thanks," Ralph responds.

GM tries to dig up dirt on Ralph.

They find nothing.

Scandal results.

At an historic Senate hearing, the president of General Motors apologizes to Ralph Nader for hiring a private detective to track Ralph – to get some dirt on him.

The private detective gets nothing.

Ralph becomes a national hero.

The modern consumer movement is launched.

Seat belts.

Air bags.

Food safety.

Clean air.

Clean water.

Worker safety.

No nukes.

Even the free ticket you get after being bumped on an overbooked flight.

Thank the unreasonable man – Ralph Nader.

The movie also looks at Ralph's most recent campaigns against the two-party duopoly – and asks:

Who stood with Ralph?

Who bailed out?

And why?

Already, the movie – which has shown at select film festivals – has garnered laudatory reviews and is trying to be considered for review for the Academy Awards Documentaries category.

Fortunately for us, the movie is playing over the next month in select theaters around the country – before opening in theatres early next year.

http://anunreasonableman.com/

We urge you to see this movie.

And we make one last plea on behalf of the unreasonable one.

For a final donation of $200 to our exemplary campaign, we will send you what we call The Set of Unreasonableness – five classic books, each autographed by Ralph Nader:

- Unsafe At Any Speed (40th Anniversary Edition)

- The Ralph Nader Reader

- The Good Fight : Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap

- In Pursuit of Justice Collected Writings 2000–2003

- Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President


All by Ralph Nader.

Together, an historic set for young and old alike.

Even if you have copies of some or all of these books, consider buying one or more sets – so that we may close our campaign in the black.

To give to a friend in need – of political direction, hope, and vision.

That's five books by Ralph for one last donation of $200 to our campaign.

Again, our last plea.

On behalf of the unreasonable man of the century.

Who has made such a difference in all of our lives.

Thank you all for all of your good work and support.

Please be as generous as you can be – one last time.

Consider it a contribution toward unreasonableness.

And consider giving the package as a year-end holiday gift to those you love.

In solidarity.

Theresa Amato

Peter Camejo

Greg Kafoury

Jan Pierce

...Please note (if you are still with me here) that the signees are notable Greens and give the lie to your opinion of their opinion....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 6:38:45 PM
 

Nader? You Gotta be kidding!

What attracted me to Nader you ask. I was attracted to Nader when he went against the corporations back in the sixties. I admired him. If he had joined the Democrat Party back then I would have voted for him. I vote for the Party because I know what the Party stand for. I never know what lying politicians stand for, Democrat, Republican, Liberterian, Green, Dixiecrats or whatever. I know what their parties stand for.

Anyone going into the election of '00 and '04 knew they would be decided by a hair breath. If Gore had been more right wing as Liberman, he would have carried Tennessee, but he has more principles than to play that game. Tennessee is part of the Old South and I can use Old South if B and C can use Old Europe.

The Greens and Nader knew that it would come down to one state. They knew that the next president would probably make four appointment to the Supreme Court which may affect this country more in the long run than Iraq and the bankrupcy we face. I could almost forgive the ignorance of Nader/Greens in '00, but when the Greens begged him not run and if he did they would oppose him in '04 and he still ran, it made me wonder just how deep in the pockets he is inside the Republican machine. Anyone who opposes any Democrat in this national election is a Republican in disguise no matter what they mouth.

If you wish to change the political landscape, you have to do it just like the Republicans did with the loss of the '64 elections; you must get involved at the most basic cell level. I remember in the seventies and eighties when the Republicans were in every Gibsons, K-Mart and Wall Mart working to sign up people to vote and sign petitions on hot button issues. If you attend a Republican local meeting, it is packed out. If you attend a Democrat local meeting, it will be you, little Sally down the street. The real middle class, less than $150,000 salary per yr., which is the heart of the Democrat Party became lazy allowing the unions to do all the oraganzing and the work. When Reagan killed the unions with the Comptroller's strike, the Democrats lost their work horse and their cash cow. Now the working stiff must find some way to get time to learn the issues and the time to work the precint. The internet is our salvation until the corporations take it over, too, and they will.

I do not work for the Democrat Party. I am a liberal in most things, and I am an evangelical Christian. But so are the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, the Huguenots, and the Quakers and the old time Baptist.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 968 comments) on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 11:53:55 PM
 

what you are, sadly, is confused

The unions are alive and well, they support the Democrats while their rank and file does not so much anymore. The air controllers, if that is what you meant, were working with a no strike clause in their union agreement thus were vulnerable to action by Reagan, and they knew it. I myself belong to a local with such a clause, working as I do for a major public utility. I am also a member of a large and powerful national union so I understand the intricacies that your postings largely do not.

You seem not even to understand that Tennesee elected Gore to national office before, raving on about some "old south " nonsense to try and defend a ridiculous stance. Just as you put words in the mouths of Greens and actions you attribute to Nader, a man you simply havent a clue about.

Ralph Nader believes, as do I, that the differences between the GOP and the Democrats are minor at best. He chose to run for office to publicly make that point and he did so. It was his constitutional right and he has my total support for what he did in '04. Votes are not expected they are earned. The Democrats seldom earn my votes these days, though some do. It is the height of political Pogoism to think we vote mindlessly and despite the way Democrats betray the left. "I have seen the enemy and it is us". Walt Kelly was quite inciteful when he drew that cartoon and your cartoonish poltics makes that statement still as vibrant as ever.

Should you ever wish to learn you might reread the Constitution and bone up on what this nation stood for once and should again. You should ponder the nature of a democracy and stop trying to make crap up to win a point that, in the end, is simply wrong. My vote is mine to cast and theirs to earn.......

I do not believe that Mennonites and Amish are categorised as evangelicals. They do not baptise children for example, thus their original title of "Anabaptists", believing baptism is only for the adult. This would put them in opposition to the evangelical christian I believe though I am far from a scholar on the subject....you either I suspect.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, November 6, 2006 at 6:15:49 PM
 

Ain't A Dime's Worth Of Difference

If there are several candidates running for president and they include a Democrat, a Republican and a progressive, if progressives don't vote for the progressive, does that make them pseudo progressives or just plain Democratic Party apologists?

I also made a mistake. I thought Barbara "I'm proud to be a Democrat" Boxer and Dennis Kucinich were progressives. Each supported Kerry who stood for almost everything those two abhor, including the war in Iraq. Not one of those people in congress is a progressive. If they were, they wouldn't have been elected.

I won't make an exception for Bernie Sanders, but I must say he puts on the best "I'm a progressive" act of any of them.

If he, indeed, is a progressive, he won't make a dime's worth of difference in the senate.

Michael Bonanno

by Michael Bonanno (87 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 124 comments) on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 3:39:48 PM
 

Democrat Party

Two more observations which do not deal directly with the article. The Bush crowd is on high panic mode. They are scared to death that Pelosi and her committees in the House are going to have subpoena power. The people are so fed up with the war, especially the military, there is going to be celebration has Haliburton with Chaney are drug before Congress for the world to see the rottenness throughout the Administration.

The second thing is with death of Sadaam who is going to be the counter weight for Iran in the Muslim world. Sadaam was since the banishment of the Shah. There is going to be great vacuum in the whole area when the US pulls out. I would not bet against Iran rushing in to fill that vacuum.

And one more thing. MichaelBN, if you see no difference between John Kerry and George Bush you are blind or an idiot. You surely are not a progressive. If you are to the left of Dennis Kucinich, you are weird and not even close to the spectrum of any American politics.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 968 comments) on Sunday, November 5, 2006 at 12:08:33 AM
 

Its Democratic party

Odd that you use Rove talking points and the neoconservative misstating of the party name...odd that you call yourself a democrat yet cant use the proper name....or not so odd perhaps..

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 7:30:14 AM
 

Really?

Are you kidding me? Did Peter Camejo really give his consent to put his name on your response? Cool!

Hi, Peter. I'll be voting for you tomorrow and all of the Greens on the ballot.

¡Buena suerte!

Nope, not blind nor an idiot. Good try though.

And I thought that the Republicans had cornered the market on name calling.

Michael Bonanno

by Michael Bonanno (87 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 124 comments) on Monday, November 6, 2006 at 7:37:23 PM