Wishes

I was merely noting what I wished for in terms of shaking up the current two party system.

As they say, wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. -- Intercooler

Did you bother to read the rest of what I wrote about the political parties?

Again. My wish that the left-libertarian elements of the Democratic party would break away to join the Greens or form their own party is only that: a wish. I think it would be a great statement in the fight against the authoritarians who currently rule. Nothing more. Also, this wish of mine has nothing to do with what I think we as citizens should be doing to stem the tide of the authoritarianism (does the bold help?). That is a separate issue.

I am fairly certain that our misunderstanding on this issue derives from the fact that you believe we will accomplish substantive change through current party politics and that is why you are so being so derisive. Let me state this one more time. I do not believe, no matter who is ruling us.. be they Republicans, Democrats or yes even Greens, that that, in and of itself, will bring about substantive change. In fact, I know that it will not.

In short, vote for who you like. By all means vote for who you think is "more progressive." It will not bring about substantive change. The problem is systemic. Until we act to force them to do away with the corruption within the system and alter some of the system itself, not even my preferred candidate Kucinich (who I see as a true anti-authoritarian, populist candidate) would make the least bit of difference, whether he be Democrat, Green or other.

The "more and better" plan is simply an unachievable fantasy. Those that follow that plan are the ones without hope. What is "hopeful" about continuing on an unachievable course? The only thing that will bring about substantive change is us demanding it.

mrkcohen Friday, June 20, 2008 07:58

Amen.

Welcome to the Unity Pony...

this is the "unity" that the fauxgressive blogosphere was praising in their blind support for Barack Obama.

Instead of an actual leader like Hillary Clinton, you all went with someone who clearly made promises to the pelosis and rockefellers that he wouldn't interfere with what they felt like doing. -- paul_lukasiak(?)

I ask this in all sincereity: Are you nuts?

You cannot possibly be trying to argue that the establishment queen of moderate/centrist, free-trade corporatism would have been a better choice... you are not trying to make that argument are you? Cause if that is the case you are seriously delusional.

The Betrayal Runs So Deep

What makes the betrayal today so complete is looking at the number of "progressive" members of Congress voting Yea. Folks that the netroots supported so aggressively in 2006. One that especially galls me, because she has been held up even in just the last few days for her courage in standing up to this bullshit is Nancy Boyda. Some of the others are unsurprising, but still depressing as Freshman elected in 2006 to fight Bush, and others (Udall) seeking higher office on the same premise - Altmire, Arcuri, Bean, Sestak, Shuler, Carney, Cazayoux, Gillibrand, McNerney, P. Murphy, Sestak, Shuler, Space, Udall, Yarmuth. -- Greenlabormike

You don't understand Mike. More and better democrats is our only hope. Just quit your crying and get on board. It's one step forward and two steps back but we are making progress. Just keep on dancing! If you don't like it you can always go live somewhere else.

I don't know how long I can stay in a party, or vote for it, or donate to it, with gutless idiots like Pelosi in charge--have you listened to her lately? She seems as addled as Bush himself.

Its enough to make you dispair for the future of our country.

-- Bushfatigue

Come on now...you can't be serious. Rein the sniveling in already. More and better democrats is the plan of the future. It has never been tried before. And anyway, Pelosi and Hoyer et al. aren't so bad. We can make them change with the TV ads and stuff. Its a slow incremental process that can only be won if we take one step forward and two steps back.

Question: Would a Constitutional convention be deemed a threat to national security? -- djmagaro

It would indeed but that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that it is unserious. The only serious response to this is to elect more and better democrats. Electing more and better democrats can be achieved, unlike silly notions such as a constitutional convention or impeaching the lawless or direct action campaigns. That stuff is for losers. No we just need to stay the course and everything will turn out great in the end.

That said, "one step forward, two steps back" would result in a loss of ground.

Of course, the way the current batch of "Democratic Leadership" is working, yours may be more accurate. -- EMStoveken

Hey there is no reason to get nasty. The Dem leadership is just representing us. We put them there. And, no, I am sorry to say you are incorrect. It is, in fact, one step forward and two steps back. If you would like confirmation just read any of the "letters" from our resident expert on the subject of more and better democrats. He goes by the moniker LWM. Check him out sometime. His revolutionary logic (and math) will rock your world.

More, and better, Democrats...

...because it's working so well, so far... -- Strangely Enough

Who says it isn't? Are you calling me a liar?? Look if you can't understand what we must do it isn't my fault. Vote for whoever you want. You have my blessing. But those of us that know what's best, we will be taking one step forward and two steps back. We will finish the dance.