Author's posts

kossacks are richer, more male, and white than us.

I just think this is interesting in light of their constant complaint, that we don’t understand the needs of uninsured and poor!



A progressive coffee party! Let’s do it!

The drupal software used to create their website is opensource.  

We just need some webspace, and some people willing to do promotion on the other blogs like metamars does only in a less condescending way.  We also need someone to start a youtube and facebook group for us.

I thought the green tea party would be a good name. No you don’t have to be a green, or a democrat.  You just have to be a progressive.   Our goal will be results on things like government supported universal healthcare, ending the wars, and civil rights.   We don’t  advocate violence, but our main concern is not civility, either.  Our slogan would be something  like “real change!” or “results not hope!”  I don’t think the ofaers  or the kossacks could coopt something like that.

Let’s work together on this.  Many people here have different talents.   I have already created one drupal website  for my linux disto u-lite. .  I don’t have the time to write though, and I know nothing about making youtube videos.

Lord knows I’m not village party shill, so it would be real grassroots, unlike the tea or coffee parties!

Oh, I guess in order to get attention on this blog one needs a music video!


Interesting proposal to congressional progressives to form a new party!

   By Bill Willers

   Dear Representatives Kucinich et al.:

   There has never been a better time for the emergence of a strong third party as a permanent entity. Objective critics of the “system” have now understood that it is rotten beyond repair. Corporate “persons” rule in this two-party setup. “Reforms” are hopelessly inadequate. It should not be necessary to elaborate. What is necessary is revolutionary transformation rather than “change” as a mere campaign buzzword.

   As it is, truly progressive members of Congress who identify themselves as democrats are eclipsed – virtual nonentities really – by the Democratic Leadership Council which long ago took its place beside the GOP in the corporate sphere. Simply consider the media effort to “disappear” presidential candidate Kucinich following his unexpected strong showing in the first ABC “debate”, going so far as to cut him out of a widely-distributed photograph of the democratic presidential hopefuls, and then barring him from a future ABC “debate”. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are allowed exposure primarily to the extent that they appear more “centrist” and “bipartisan”.

   Past efforts at anything “independent” or third party (e.g. the Green Party) have been grassroots efforts and failures for that reason. The only way for progressives to have a voice that can be heard throughout the country would be through a recognized Progressive Party, and that would have to emerge from within Congress – from within the Progressive Caucus, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus the values of which are so similar to that of the progressives.

   If a contingent of true progressives – that might include such representatives as Kucinich, Grijalva, Lee, Conyers, Baldwin – were to hold a press conference and announce the formation of a Progressive Party with platform to match, the earth would move. There would be a rush of support from progressives, the Green Party, unions, democrats who understand the betrayal from the DLC stranglehold, minority groups, independents seeking change and even from some “moderate” Republicans. And there would surely be renewed interest from the millions who have long since turned off in disgust over the systemic rot that has by now become utterly transparent…….


I fundamentally agree, that recent efforts to form new parties have been a failure is because they were grass roots. The republicans gained prominence more quickly because they cannibalized the disintigrating whig party for candidates. Abe Lincoln was a former Whig.

Put pressure on the progressives to quit the party. Then we will get more leverage on them and they will quit dismissing us. The party will already have elected members, so they can’t claim we are fringe.

I don’t believe a grassroots movement is possible with blogs like kos, anyway. I don’t think kos is grass roots. Kos is a partisan operative and a major player. Most of that blog is dominated by professional wonks, very closely aligned to known candidates. They are netwonks not netroots.

Ralph Nader was right!

While it is true that our system has a winner take all voting system, which means the candidate with the most votes wins irrespective of whether they have even 50% of the vote, and it is true that by voting 3rd party the candidate you least like might win, it doesn’t mean you are not having any effect. You can still use your third party vote to purify the major party of a corrupt candidates, which can make a difference in the long run. Also if enough people vote for the third party it can replace one of the two major parties which is what happened in the 1850’s with the republicans replacing the whigs. Third parties can also win. Look at Jessie Ventura.

It is true that you can agitate to change the voting system, but you must go through politicians that were successful with the old way to get something new. Not a likely prospect in my view.

It is true that you can technically run primary challenges, and get some changes, but if those are so easy to run, why hasn’t anyone run them on a mass scale, that I believe is needed to get reall changes? In reality there are tremendous structural barriers to runnng any kind of primary fight, otherwise people would do more than talk and threaten them. This talk of running primaries has been happening for ten years, and nobody in the final analysis does them.

The people who voted Nader in 2000 may not have helped but they didn’t hurt anything either. The war probably would have happened either way. Lieberman was Al Gore’s pick for vp. Martin Peretz was Al Gore’s mentor. Many dlcers like Gore voted for the Iraq war resolution including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards. Obama claimed he would have voted against the resolution, but Obama has claimed to be for, or against many things, that didn’t pan out in reality, because of his commitment to dlc policies. For instance, during the campaign, Obama claimed to be against mandates and excise taxes on cadillac plans. How did that work out in reality. He claimed to be against fisa but voted for it. He claimed to oppose corporate lobbying, and the revolving door, but hired a bunch of Goldman Sachs employees to serve him in his administration. He also claimed to be against the Iraq war, but never missed an opportunity to vote for war funding.

Nader voting changed nothing, in my view, but it did offer and opportunity to vote for someone who told the truth. I so wish I hadn’t bought the lesser evil bs and wasted my vote on Gore, than Kerry and now Obama. The democrats have mislead people for far too long. Obama proves Nader was completely correct, and those of us who sympathized with Nader literally wasted 8-9 years working our butts off for democrats who hate us, and think we are idiots.

While it is true that Lieberman is a leader of these bad dems, it is not true, that lessor dems like Coakley who take money from the insurance companies, and who support mandates bare no responsibility. By only targeting the big sharks, you let little sharks like her off the hook and they continue to vote for the wrong things. You partisans claim that not giving them a 60th seat will be permission to move to the right, but they are already moving to the right so it looks like the mere act of putting right leaning dems in office is permission enough. You claim we don’t vote for Coakley we wont’ have another shot at reform for a generation, yet we are suppose to believe you will come back and improve the bill later on? Come on! We aren’t self-defeating. We are beaten down by corruption! Beating us more won’t help!

reposted from my blog

What to do? Let’s use the spoiler affect against corporate democrats.

This is partially a response to John Emerson’s “What is populism? III”…

Let’s side step the issue of populism

since the groups that dislike it aren’t going to change by knowing more about it, and since, by your own admission, they have an interest in maintaining their hatred of it.  I just would like the country to be governed in everyone’s best interests and not just the interest of business.  Do the tea baggers offer this.  Nope. They are dogmatic free market fundamentalists in most cases so I am not interested in them.

I know third parties cannot do anything more than spoil, but the spoiler affect can be used strategically against bad democrats.  If the 10 percent nader affect were utilized against the worst corporatists,in 5 years, the corporatists will be exercised from the democratic party.  Let’s start something like a “strategic liberalism party” and use the spoiler affect to purge the democrats of corporatist candidates.  The problem with the greens is that they ran even against good dems like Paul Wellstone!  A “strategic liberalism party” or a “real democratic party” wouldn’t make that mistake.