[-V-]

after engineering 2 illegitimate Presidential elections the GOP has the balls to demand a REVOTE for a Governor's race
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_el_gu/washington_governor

meanwhile the DNC had trouble getting 2 party signatures asking for a meeting on the Ohio irregularities:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote
Democratic leaders distanced themselves from the effort, which many in the party worried would make them look like sore losers.

They didn't learn their lesson from election 2000, 2002, 2004!
More examples in this thread:
http://progressivesonline.com/showthread.php?t=88&referrerid=1

It is time for new leadership under the name of the Progressive Party!

[mdbasement]

Politics is not winner take all.

In this country, triumph in an election allows the winner to set the direction of the country. It does not, however grant the privilege of deciding how far or how fast these moves are made. The minority party, often known as the losers, still gets to influence policy and can affect the speed with which the country is moved. Of course, if the losers decide to give up control of the country solely to the winners, they have also given up the right to complain. We cannot wait for the next election to fight for changes, we need to start today.

I hate speaking of winners and losers, but that’s the nomenclature used in public today. The concept of compromise is severely lacking in today’s political discussions, even discussion is an outdated notion. It’s all about conflict, and above all winning at all costs. This is not a noble objective. But that is an issue for another time.

The concept I’m talking about is known as dissent- to disagree or to reject the doctrines of an established authority. It’s the idea that you can resist changes even if you do not have the power to stop them. It is the right of the minority party to dissent by asking tough questions and demanding that those questions be answered. It’s not about accusations or condemnations, but about seeking the motivations behind political objectives so that they may be scrutinized by everybody, winners and losers alike.

The losers in the Senate need to ask Alberto Gonzales why he felt it was necessary to narrow the definition of torture for the president. Why is it beneficial, in his opinion, to weaken America’s commitment to articles such as the Geneva Convention which were developed to protect the human rights of solders taken prisoner during battle? His answers may not change his mind or the minds of most of the believers who helped the current administration win the election, but if it changes anyone’s mind, it adds strength to the power held by the losers. Power that can be used in the next election.


The administration needs to explain how and why prisoners can be held indefinitely in prisons, scattered around the globe which operate outside of the American legal system. Prisons that no one knows about, that no one besides the president oversees and which hold an unknown number of individuals. Why is this necessary? Who is in control? What safeguards are now in place to prevent the gruesome treatment shown to the world with the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Knowing amore about these “Ghost Prisoners” may not change many American minds, but it may change a few. A few is the start of many.

Ask Condoleezza Rice how she intends to build trust abroad when she participated in a deception, either intentional or not, regarding America’s case for war in Iraq. How does she plan to re-build her integrity as well as the integrity of the nation after basing our invasion on bad information and lies? Her answer many not affect her chances of being confirmed as secretary of state, but it may open the eyes of a few more Americans. Eyes that can be shown a better way by the progressive approach.

These are just the current issues that need to be addressed by the power of the losers. Bigger and bad-er battles are looming on the horizon. The privatization of Medicare, the appointment of Federal Judges, the potential appointment of Supreme Court Justices and, oh yeah, the conduction of the war in Iraq.

Let’s not forget the war, ever.

With Iraq, it is not a question of whether America will win or loose here, the war is already lost. The only question left is finding out; how will we end it? These are the questions the loser needs to be asking, everyday and at every opportunity. Not just four years from now.

This president was voted for by more people than any other president in history; this election had more winners than any other. He was also voted against by more people than any other president in history; this election had more losers than any other. It’s time for all of those losers to stand up and take what is rightfully theirs, the power of dissent.

Power in politics is the same as power everywhere, use it or loose it.

[JamesP]

Very well stated, MD, and absolutely correct.
It is very hard for most of us to accept what our country and countrymen have become, as affirmed by the 2004 election. For many of us, the sense of hopelessness comes from our complete astonishment that, in spite of the clear record of ineptness registered by the Bush administration, a small majority of Americans were persuade to vote for him.
Never has an opposition party had so much, of real substance and import, to work with in unseating an incumbent.

The combination of a fearful, gullible public, a media that fails to challenge power, a ruthless republican propoganda machine playing to the most base instincts of the populace and a weak and leaderless opposition party all come together to diminish the will to fight on.
The opposition needs leaders. There are none in sight.
The democratic party seem best at rolling over and playing dead. Most of us feellike fools for giving so much time, energy and money only to have Kerry & the Democrats capitulate so easily and completely on both the election and the issues of the day. If they've learned anything from the success of the Repubs it should be to attack...often, loudly and repeatedly...and, above all. keep it simple... Failing to heed your advice and use the power of dissent, the democrats are quickly losing what little power they had left.

How, for example, can we fail to capitalize on the political opportunity presented by the Ohio voter irregularities and the selection, for attorney general, of the author of the policies that led America to international shame, endangered our service people around the world and sowed so much hostility toward America? The Democrats are either complicit with the Bush administration or completely impotent (for reasons difficult to discern).

[Coven]

Remember Fahrenheit 911 when no senator would object to the certification of the Florida vote? Not this year. Sen. Barbara Boxer joined the objection to voting irregularities in Ohio and the new Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada stood with her. This forced the House and Senate to hold two hours of debate on the integrity of voting in our country -- hopefully beginning some real reform.

Thousands of people are sending thank you letters to Sen. Boxer and Sen.
Reid. Join me in signing the thank you letter at:

http://www.moveonpac.org/boxer_reid/

Its not much but a least its something. Somethings got to give and somethings got to change, We have to make ourselves heard somehow.

[mdbasement]

Thanks for your kind words and I know we are all in pain and shock. But something you said in the first paragraph of your post drives the point home. We, progressives, liberals and our ilk, focused on "unseating an incumbent" rather than getting the right person elected. We all stand around wondering how Bush got re-elected and not wondering how John Kerry did not get elected. It's subtle, but it's why we lost. We need to stand as a real alternative, not the lesser of two evils.

The next four years will provide, unfortunately, a plethora of opportunities to stand up and fight. In those battles, the people and the issues that matter most will reveal themselves. We need to keep plugging and keep digging while building support for alternative solutions to today’s and tomorrow’s problems.

Again, thanks for listening and providing your comments

[mdbasement]

“No Blood for Oil” is not a political strategy.

It makes a great bumper sticker and a snazzy t-shirt, but it provides little information that can be used to help stop the war in Iraq. This sentiment, while productive for raising awareness about what’s wrong with this country, provides no workable solutions. What progressive politicians need to do, and do real soon, is cobble together a cohesive program for solving the country’s problems that people can be made to believe and more importantly, believe in. Let me tell you a little story…

Mr. and Mrs. Middleamerica awaken one fine day to learn that their political views and opinions need to be updated and made more modern. They learn this important fact from the most authoritative force in their lives, namely cable TV. “When cable TV tells you that it’s time for a ‘Political ideology make over’, then it’s time to change.” Said Mr. Middleamerica, “Even though I never knew I had a political ideology, now’s the time to go out and get a new one.”

The reason these fine people and many more like them, need new political views is because their old views are no longer appropriate in the “post 9/11 world.” What they need, according to cable TV, is a more modern set of values based primarily on the Old Testament.

So with a commitment to finding a new way to think, talk and act regarding politics, Mr. and Mrs. Middleamerica head off to the one place where they know they can find enlightenment, peace of mind and complete fulfillment:

The Mall.

Upon entering the dream filled, climate controlled, spectacular shopping space, they spy a store just tailor made for them, called Political Ideologies “R” Us. As they enter, they find the store split into two halves; a “Right” and a “Left”. The middle aisle has been removed as part of a post 9/11 merchandising update on the part of the establishment.

On the “Left” side of the store, there are two sections, one called “problems” and another called “solutions”. The “problems” section runs nearly the length of the store and it is jammed packed with offerings. It is categorized into problems having to do with the environment, women’s issues, racial issues, children’s issues, etc. Within each of these categories are further subdivisions such as global warming, drilling in national parks, arsenic in your water, you name it. Each problem category has a multitude of separate problems areas all with detailed analysis documented in huge, wordy volumes. It’s incredibly overcrowded and very intimidating.

At the end of the “problems” section, way in the back far corner of the store is the much smaller “solutions” section. None of the offerings in the “solutions” section seem to match up with the issues in the “problems” section. A quick look at any solution shows that it may not be compatible with certain problems and that it may not function correctly when combined with other solutions offered by the same manufacturer. Needless to say, the whole left side of the store is messy, crowded and not very inviting. All of the solutions require that purchasers make significant changes to how they live their lives to accommodate the ideology behind the solutions. No more SUV’s, no more shopping at Wal-Mart and probably no tax cuts. The price for most of the solutions is clearly marked on each label and in most cases it is extremely high.

By contrast the “Right” side of the store is warmly lit and inviting. The “problems” section is much smaller and all of the issues are neatly arrayed under the single category heading: “Homeland Security”. There are no confusing subdivisions and no long list of issues, just a simple, easily digested book filled with lots and lots of pictures.

Immediately following the diminutive “problems” section are the “solutions”. Here too, the section is neat and orderly with only one product on the shelf: “The War on Terror”. Helpful salesmen are located near the shelves to help in navigating the section. “I don’t really know how to go about finding a new politically ideology?” Mr. Middleamerica says to one of the salesmen. “Just go with you gut” he says smiling. The salesmen tell each customer that the solutions will allow them to continue living their lives exactly as they have. Mrs. Middleamerica notices that the prices of the solutions are not on the packages. “What’s it cost?” asks Mrs. Middleamerica. “Don’t worry,” she’s assured by a salesman, “any costs will simply be paid for by future generations.”

Mr. Middleamerica looks back over to the “Left” side of the store and wonders if it can really be this easy to get a new political outlook. Something about the slick sales guys on the “Right” side of the store is a little unnerving, but with no alternative but to wade alone through the myriad of problems and difficult solutions presented by the “Left”, it’s no surprise which ideology Mr. and Mrs. Middleamerica chose. Sadly, we all know how this story ends.

I’m not in anyway advocating that progressives should adopt simplistic solutions, or that we should turn our backs on the difficult problems this country faces. We need to find ways to make the most important issues more digestible. We need to find solutions that people can easily comprehend with minimal effort and have those presented by leaders that people can believe in.

I don’t need any more links to stupid things said by the President. I don’t need one more example of how wrong the current administration is. What I do need is to know what our plan is for moving away from an oil based economy? What is the plan for getting out of the war in Iraq as viewed by the progressive cause and what can I do to help it gain acceptance among a wider range of people?

Please respond to this post or drop me an e-mail with any ideas you have. I’d love to write again with a listing of things people can do to build a strong workable political alternative.

[Coven]

MD I loved your article. You put it perfectly. The left side is truly daunting especially when your coming at it from and intellectual and moral aspect. The right apparently has God on their side and thats a big selling point. After the election I felt angry and frustrated, now I'm actually really scared for us and our planet. Please do post that listing of things we can do, any suggestions would be most welcome.

[Michael DeM]

I agree with you 100%, MD. Everything you said was right and put very eloquently. I look forward to seeing more posts written by you.

[mdbasement]

A call for true “Activism”[U]

I protest against the war in Iraq.

I send letters to my representatives regarding policy development in Washington and Annapolis.

I give financial support to causes I believe in and to those fighting against issues I can’t agree to.

I attend local council meetings regarding development issues, environmental issues and education issues.

I participate in activism and believe in its importance, both as a method for achieving social and political objectives and as a basic human right. But, and here I go again, activism, in its traditional form, simply isn’t enough anymore.

The type of activism we have been most familiar with lately should more accurately be called “Re-activism”. We, meaning progressives, liberals, and such have been fighting wrongs, supporting unpopular causes and speaking out non-stop for perhaps 10 years. Unfortunately, as this last election shows, it has not been enough.

Not that it has been bad, I don’t think traditional activism should be stopped or limited, but I think it needs to be called what it is, a reactive posture to what we see as wrong. The powers that be take action or propose taking action and then we rise up to rail against it in the form of demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, boycotts, petition signings and protests. This is what I call “re-activism”.

The time has come for the progressives in this country (by whatever name they choose to take) to develop real alternatives that people can understand, identify with and support. The republicans, conservatives and “neo-cons” have framed the debate, controlled the agenda and altered the reality in such a way as to constantly have the other side on the defensive. We can’t fight from the ropes any longer, too much is at stake and too much has been lost already.

I do not believe that the results of Bush’s re-election mean that most of America supports his policies and agree to his plans. I simply think that too many Americans were left with no viable alternative except to vote for him rather than vote against him.

The progressive cause in this country has massive appeal and unrealized resources. We need to stop fighting against the “privatization of Social Security” and start fighting for the “Protection of Social Security”. We need to change the debate from one of “why not privatize it?” to one of “Why dismantle it and remove the safeguard that it represents?” “No child Left Behind” needs to be re-framed as “Making every Child Count”.

We then need to develop alternatives to the very well known and very public agenda presented by this administration and get them before the American public. Once developed and defined, these alternatives need to be supported with the same vigor and energy we traditionally spend on “re-activism”. Only by actively fighting for “US” with all the energy we traditionally have put behind fighting against “THEM”, will we ever have anything worth fighting for.

Again, I put out my call for information about where we can find viable alternatives to the current political agenda and direction as to how we can help make these efforts stronger.

[-V-]

It is indeed time to act instead of "re-act". Though I don't think there was enough reaction the past 4 years given the magnitude of corruption in this administration, and I believe we should still be reacting to election fraud until we're blue in the face or someone is in jail, I agree that the focus needs be precisely as you suggest -- ideas, marketed well, and put into action.

Unfortunately, we have no one in the White House and not enough in Congress to get things moving. The first step requires that we do what it takes to get more voices in Congress in 2 years.

[JamesP]

MD....regarding:

"The republicans, conservatives and “neo-cons” have framed the debate, controlled the agenda and altered the reality in such a way as to constantly have the other side on the defensive. We can’t fight from the ropes any longer, too much is at stake and too much has been lost already.

I do not believe that the results of Bush’s re-election mean that most of America supports his policies and agree to his plans. I simply think that too many Americans were left with no viable alternative except to vote for him rather than vote against him."


I don't agree that Kerry was not a viable alternative to Bush. I think he was a good candidate, vastly more intelligent, capable, qualified, experienced and mature than the "adolescent, simpleton: Bush".

Our problem is the American people: fearful, gullible, greedy, violent, unprincipled and unsophisticated. We've shown them too much respect in the past in our approach to campaigning. We simply need to get better at selling our ideas to really dumb people. We have a better product: we just don't know how to sell it to the unsophisticated. We have to come down from the towers of academia and learn to hard sell in the used car lot of modern American politics.

[mdbasement]

You know, you are right. Kerry was an acceptable candidate; I think what I mean is that his message was not acceptable because people tend to vote with other parts of their bodies and not their brains. For some it’s the heart, others the soul and then there are those that vote with parts of their bodies that are much lower.

I don’t agree that the American public is dumb, I’d rather think of them as simple. They want simple problems presented to them with simple answers. If you listen to people who voted for Bush, they talk not about ideas or statistics but about beliefs and feelings. “I just felt Bush was the better candidate.” “I believed that Bush was the better candidate.” The irony is that while many people believed Kerry more than Bush, not enough people believed in him.

Somehow people were able to trust in Bush even if they didn’t trust him. I like your used car lot analogy. If you have ever been in sales, you know that you can’t change anyone’s mind, not really. People walk onto a used car lot; salesmen don’t drag them there against their will. When people walk in, they know that they are going to be lied to about something; they just try to figure out how much they are being lied to and about what. When the customer finds a car they like, it’s the salesman’s job to tell them they are right, and to reduce any fears they may have about making a decision that they have already pretty much made.

Politics is much the same way, people already know what they believe in, and it’s up to the politicians to tell them that their beliefs are right. Progressives spend a great deal of time telling people what they should believe and then defending these arguments with facts and figures, which is all higher level brain function stuff. We need to use what we know about what people already believe, which is mostly in line with Progressive politics, a clean environment, more personal liberty, a just society and good schools. Then we need to show them how what they already believe in is supported and furthered by the Progressive cause.

It’s time to talk about values, religious freedom and equal rights. We need to frame the right wing agenda as taking things away rather than improving things. Taking away equal rights (marriage amendment), taking away Social Security (partial privatization), taking away good schools (tax breaks for the rich), and taking away personal freedom (the Patriot act and other abuses done in the name of “homeland security”). People are more motivated by showing them what they stand to loose by voting for the right wing, not by showing them what they have to gain by voting Progressive Its sad, but true. I’d love to hear if this long tirade rings any bells?

[mdbasement]

Is Dean the answer for the DNC? Please read and respond:
http://www.alternet.org/story/21043/

Thanks, MD

[-V-]

I say yes to Dean. I've had it with the status quo. He did not make the best Presidential candidate (and never will), and that article raises a lot of questions, but it is time for someone who is strong and LOUD to help lead the party in a new direction!

[JamesP]

Quote from article re the former lead-runner for the head of the DNC:

"But Roemer has been effectively torpedoed by a bizarre alliance – a double-whammy, slash-and-burn lobbying campaign by two of the party's most influential interests: the women's groups and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The women's groups, led by NARAL Pro-Choice America and the political fund-raising champs at EMILY's List, have targeted Roemer's extensive anti-abortion voting record, and his declarations that the party should show more "tolerance" for abortion foes and needs to eliminate its "moral blind spot" on late-term abortions. (This record has many in the party, including a lot of House members facing re-election, privately questioning Pelosi's judgment in endorsing him.)

AIPAC – the powerful, treasury-rich pro-Israeli lobby, now embroiled in accusations that it was at the center of a spy ring within the Pentagon on Israel's behalf – has been brandishing a list of what it claims are 22 "anti-Israel" congressional votes by Roemer, who's been a critic of the $6 billion plus in U.S. aid to Ariel Sharon and his "Wall of Shame." Many of the party's Jewish big contributors have become even more knee-jerk supporters of Israel's no-compromise conservative government since 9/11. "The DNC's biggest source of large-donor money is from fat-cat Jews," says a veteran Democratic fund-raiser, "and AIPAC's threat – elect Roemer and we'll shut down your Jewish big money – has been incredibly effective."

I like Roemer on abortion:
As discussed in another thread, the Democratic party must capture the middle on the abortion issue. The middle on thhis issue is winning political ground that nobody holds right now. They can not go on handing the Repubs the "baby killers" label that they pedal so effectively in the church communities.

I also like his position on at least questioning support and aid for extremist factions in Israel. Bush & Sharon are two of a kind: brutal, simple, violent, vulgar, "kill your way to security" types. In a better world, our financial support for Israel should not be automatic, but linked to humane and sane policies leading to peace.

This one worries me a bit, though.
The Repubs have used "faux moral values" to dupe the poor and working class, for which they have no regard, into voting against their interests.
Scaring American Jews, for which they have no regard, away from the Democrats using the "blind support of Israel wedge" will be right up their dark alley. For them, Israel is just another pretense to justify their oil-driven policy of aggression in the middle-east.