NationStates Jolt Archive

Enough of the D.C. Dems:

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.

2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.

3) Single-payer health insurance.

Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.

Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.

Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there’s nobody in Washington and we can’t find a Democratic governor, let’s run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma.

What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let’s get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has “all the money sewed up.”

I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.

We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain’t chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let’s go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side.

Molly Ivins writes in this space every month. Her latest book is “Who Let the Dogs In?”

http://www.progressive.org/mag_ivins0306

How provincial.

we dont have Provinces in the States:confused:

we dont have Provinces in the States:confused:
I'm pretty sure that's not what Fass was insinuating. He's quite smart enough to know that.

I would've been more inclined to read your whole post without getting bored with it, had you actually given it any personal input.

(I didnt want to disturb the posts Momentum)

I like the sentiment, but the lack of serious solutions is troublesome. It is the typical attitude, but that does not mean it is excusable. If you intend to whine about how a ruling class party is selling out the people it allegedly represents (wow, what a surprise!) then you should be at least thinking about how to change things.

The piece deals with this a little in the end, with the advocacy of "building a progressive moment," but if four years of Bush didn't do this, what will? The problem is not that there is no "progressive movement," there is, the problem is that the "progressives" are too restrained themselves. They refuse to understand that the Democratic Party is doing nothing else than performing its role - exactly as it would be expected to. They refuse to understand that this focus on some political leader to save us - a cornerstone of the Dean movement - is destructive and fallacious. They refuse to understand that if electoral politics are bought, as they correctly point out, you don't naively focus on them as if they weren't.

1).defeat the sellouts in a primary

2) get blood money outta politics with public financed campaigns

3)single payer health care

1).defeat the sellouts in a primary

Yeah, right, they tried that back in 2004. Who got nominated? Sell-out Kerry.

2) get blood money outta politics with public financed campaigns

And with Democratic sell-outs in Congress, that's going to happen how, exactly?

3)single payer health care

See my reply to (2).

And with Democratic sell-outs in Congress, that's going to happen how, exactly?
When hell freezes over! :D

The Mighty People shall arise with Fists Raised

The Mighty People shall arise with Fists Raised
As they stare down the Barrel of a Gun and think, "Eh, Maybe Tomorrow."

This thread is just dangerous....

*slowly backs away*Maybe if it wasn't so flippin wrong I would have read all of it.

They should go back to the Pre-Civil War Democratic Party, then we could have some fun.

theres a bad moon on the rise

Enough of the D.C. Dems:

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1) Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.

2) Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.

3) Single-payer health insurance.

Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.

Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.

Who are these idiots talking about Warner of Virginia? Being anodyne is not sufficient qualification for being President. And if there’s nobody in Washington and we can’t find a Democratic governor, let’s run Bill Moyers, or Oprah, or some university president with ethics and charisma.

What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let’s get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has “all the money sewed up.”

I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.

We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain’t chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let’s go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side.

Molly Ivins writes in this space every month. Her latest book is “Who Let the Dogs In?”

http://www.progressive.org/mag_ivins0306
Ehehehe. Amusing, really.

Furthermore, Romulan Os, your lack of input is equally amusing. Try thinking for yourself next time.

I like the sentiment, but the lack of serious solutions is troublesome. It is the typical attitude, but that does not mean it is excusable. If you intend to whine about how a ruling class party is selling out the people it allegedly represents (wow, what a surprise!) then you should be at least thinking about how to change things.

The piece deals with this a little in the end, with the advocacy of "building a progressive moment," but if four years of Bush didn't do this, what will? The problem is not that there is no "progressive movement," there is, the problem is that the "progressives" are too restrained themselves. They refuse to understand that the Democratic Party is doing nothing else than performing its role - exactly as it would be expected to. They refuse to understand that this focus on some political leader to save us - a cornerstone of the Dean movement - is destructive and fallacious. They refuse to understand that if electoral politics are bought, as they correctly point out, you don't naively focus on them as if they weren't.

I disagree, to a point anyway, about the necessity of a leader. We need one desperately, because it's what is required to bring cohesion to our ranks and give us something or someone to rally around. The simple fact is that if you ask 40 different liberals the same question about the Iraq war, you are likely going to find 50 different responses. The only organized part of the Democratic Party is the DLC, which is the same group that's been busy running the Democratic Party into the ground. That organization, however, is what makes them win the primary and convince the general primary voter to vote for the candidate with just enough votes to lose. If we had a leader, it would provide us with the cohesion, at least temporarily, to drive a stake into the DLC and pierce the "liberals-can't-win" mentality of the East Coast media.

If you look at most revolutions that happen in American politics, you'll find at their core a charismatic person giving voice to deeply-pent and widely voiced sentiment. The Progressive movement was driven by William Jennings Bryan rallying Westerners, farmers, the poor, and minorities against the Eastern robber barons, and while Bryan never won, TR and Woodrow Wilson would have found it impossible to win without taking up much of the Progressive cause. The New Deal was driven by a relatively moderate (people forget how many people in 1932 were advocating outright destruction of the Constitution in favor of a communist system) but charismatic FDR who rallied working people in huge numbers to drive Republicans from office. The modern Republican ideals were smashed in 64 with Goldwater, but in '80, they were practically embossed on the Presidential Seal by Reagan.

1).defeat the sellouts in a primary

2) get blood money outta politics with public financed campaigns

3)single payer health care
Unfortunately, the Dems are just as corrupt a bunch of sell-outs as the Republicans and they will not -- repeat, not -- tolerate any serious, let alone permanent, interruption of the gravy train. It will take many years of sustained pressure to get items 1 and 2 to happen. As for single payer health care, may it fly from your mouth to god's ear, my friend. I do not understand the American phobia towards this idea. I mean, I do understand it -- it's been carefully cultivated as political propaganda by the pharmaceutical industry, but when you compare the rhetoric to the all-too-obvious reality, the knee-jerk hostility of average Americans to this idea makes no sense at all. Plus, seeing as how paranoid Americans are these days, I think it would be a mistake to push single payer health care just now. Don't you realize that if the Dems run Hillary Clinton, her former support for that will be one of the top things the rightwingers use against her? And it will work, too, no matter how stupid it is.

The Dems are useless and untrustworthy, but I'll be voting for them anyway, because I see the situation thus: The Dems are playing the same old crooked game, but the Reps are not -- the Reps have been taken over by radicals who I think are extremely dangerous. They must be driven out of power as soon as possible by any means available, even if it means voting for crooks. The Dem crooks can be worked on later. The "Republican" idealogues can't be. Even though we'd all rather vote for something good, sometimes it is more urgent to vote against something that's very bad.

Meh, who cares? The Democrats AND Republicans are both a waste of office

Meh, who cares? The Democrats AND Republicans are both a waste of office
Aye. Where are the Liberal Conservatives and the Progressive Traditionalists?! I DEMAND MY PARTIES BE RECOGNIZED!

Russ Feingold would make a great president. He stood up to evil alone after 9/11. The Democrats should be against the war and everything else Republicans support that is polarizing. The Democrats should have one opinion and the Republicans another opposing one...or vice versa. I agree with you. I vote in the next presidential election, so someone good better be on the Dem ticket...or I might vote Socialist.

There's no hope in voting any more. Both parties are the same and third parties can never break in. There's one solution: revolution.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Spartacus_fight.JPG

Actually, the US economy's in pretty good shape.

Meh, who cares? The Democrats AND Republicans are both a waste of office
Anarchy looks more attractive by the day

Russ Feingold would make a great president. He stood up to evil alone after 9/11. The Democrats should be against the war and everything else Republicans support that is polarizing. The Democrats should have one opinion and the Republicans another opposing one...or vice versa. I agree with you. I vote in the next presidential election, so someone good better be on the Dem ticket...or I might vote Socialist.
Russ Feingold is like a Jewel stuck in a pigs snout known as our Congress

There's no hope in voting any more. Both parties are the same and third parties can never break in. There's one solution: revolution.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Spartacus_fight.JPG
clearly

Actually, the US economy's in pretty good shape.
...for less then 1% of the population who are never affected by economic flucuations no matter what anyway

If analyzing the pros/cons and pondering the consequences of foreign policy and unwarranted unilateral military action abroad makes me a gutless worm... than yes... I AM A GUTLESS WORM!

Putting this as stupidly as I can... Americans do the world a favour... vote for more democrat presidential candidates please. Its the only way you can be sure in the future that by voting Republican you won't end up with a neocon slave a la Bush.

Russ Feingold for President!

Russ Feingold for President!
Bernie Sanders is pretty good too and he has a good chance of winning a Senate seat this fall

He's great but personally I'd be happy with anything other than a right-wing neoconservative nut.

If you look at most revolutions that happen in American politics, you'll find at their core a charismatic person giving voice to deeply-pent and widely voiced sentiment. The Progressive movement was driven by William Jennings Bryan rallying Westerners, farmers, the poor, and minorities against the Eastern robber barons, and while Bryan never won, TR and Woodrow Wilson would have found it impossible to win without taking up much of the Progressive cause.

The Progressive Movement predated Bryan; he was not its source, he was its result. That is the way these things work; leaders do not create movements, they merely lead them. Since that was the case, it is possible that the Progressive Movement would have succeeded the way it did without Bryan.

The New Deal was driven by a relatively moderate (people forget how many people in 1932 were advocating outright destruction of the Constitution in favor of a communist system) but charismatic FDR who rallied working people in huge numbers to drive Republicans from office.

The New Deal was driven by immense working-class unrest. If there had been no FDR, it is quite possible there would have been a revolution. That is why FDR was able to accomplish what he was able to accomplish.

That is the pattern - the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolitionist Movement, the Labor Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and so on. The popular movements predate the leaders; the people who "make" change in our elitist political system are by necessity individuals, but the reason they can do what they do, the reason they exist in the first place, is the popular anger that put them there.

The idolatry of people like Dean inteferes with this. We shouldn't be worshipping politicians; we should be forcibly bringing them into line.

...for less then 1% of the population who are never affected by economic flucuations no matter what anyway

No, overall it's not that bad. Real wages are slightly up, unemployment is falling, jobs are being created, and all of the labor indicators are starting to improve. This doesn't even include the housing market, which has proven itself not to be a bubble since it's cooling rather than crashing. GDP growth is solid, and inflation is coming under control.

There are problems, but no expansion is perfect; given the amount of damage inflicted to the economy over the past 5 years, it's amazing how well it has held up and how well it continues to power on. In fact, 2006 appears to be stronger than 2005 was even before the hurricanes.

Bernie Sanders is pretty good too and he has a good chance of winning a Senate seat this fall

The US voting public will never elect someone who calls himself a socialist, even if he is in fact nothing of the sort. Take all the insults towards "elitist New England liberals" like Kerry and multiply them by about ten million.

The US voting public will never elect someone who calls himself a socialist, even if he is in fact nothing of the sort. Take all the insults towards "elitist New England liberals" like Kerry and multiply them by about ten million.

Actually people are becoming very aware that an elitist New England Liberal is a socialist, attempting to hide what he really is. Whether or not it is true is irrevelant as they both get their marching orders from the same ticket.

No, overall it's not that bad. Real wages are slightly up, unemployment is falling, jobs are being created, and all of the labor indicators are starting to improve. This doesn't even include the housing market, which has proven itself not to be a bubble since it's cooling rather than crashing. GDP growth is solid, and inflation is coming under control.

There are problems, but no expansion is perfect; given the amount of damage inflicted to the economy over the past 5 years, it's amazing how well it has held up and how well it continues to power on. In fact, 2006 appears to be stronger than 2005 was even before the hurricanes.
the jobs being created are total shit walmart level jobs, benefits and pensions are being cut people are under-employed and the middle class is shrinking while poverty rates climb annually

The US voting public will never elect someone who calls himself a socialist, even if he is in fact nothing of the sort. Take all the insults towards "elitist New England liberals" like Kerry and multiply them by about ten million.
hes popular in Vermont

Actually people are becoming very aware that an elitist New England Liberal is a socialist, attempting to hide what he really is. Whether or not it is true is irrevelant as they both get their marching orders from the same ticket.
but what more people need to be made aware of is that republicans are socialists for the rich but only capitalist when it comes to working people

the jobs being created are total shit walmart level jobs, benefits and pensions are being cut people are under-employed and the middle class is shrinking while poverty rates climb annually

Poverty is up 1.6%, that is true. However, at the same time real household income is up as well; the notion that the middle class is disappearing has no real basis in fact, since the data doesn't confirm it.

Most of the jobs created are quite good:
Professional/Business Services (Includes computer engineering): +785,000
Financial Services: +212,000
Trade/Transportation: +638,000
Construction: +512,000
Health Care/Education: +312,000

All of these sectors pay more than manufacturing, and all of them require an education. Within manufacturing, it is the highest-paying, highest education sectors that are growing, while the low education/low skill sectors are disappearing. The jobs we lost are being replaced increasingly by better ones; it's not all as well as it was during the bubble, but these jobs are far from entry level and they all require an education, which is an excellent thing and a sign of economic vitality.

if the economy is showing some resiliency despite Bushs warped priorties and destructive spending sprees then Im sure its some kind of anamoly

if the economy is showing some resiliency despite Bushs warped priorties and destructive spending sprees then Im sure its some kind of anamoly

The economy is doing well because Bush has kept his hands off of it; however, if he doesn't bring spending in line there's going to be some inflation down the line and that is obviously terrible. However, he only has so much control over the economy...the best he can realistically do is minimize damage.

but what more people need to be made aware of is that republicans are socialists for the rich but only capitalist when it comes to working people

Interesting way to phrase it and to a degree there is merit to that point of view, however, the democrats chose to alienate the core of their party in favor of catering to numerous special interest goups which are contrary to the beliefs held by the average middle class citizen. They failed to recognize that the average american citizen will without hesitation support the countrys national defense, and general well being over their own personal gain everytime. They also failed to realize that there would be a very definate backlash for promising all these small groups everything while delivering them nothing. Case in point here is the loss of support from 7 million AFL-CIO members, after years and years of taking their money. How were these people rewarded? With democratic support for bullshit like NAFTA and "The Right to Work" scam. The democrats have made it almost impossible for the republicans to lose no matter how hard they try.

The economy is doing well because Bush has kept his hands off of it; however, if he doesn't bring spending in line there's going to be some inflation down the line and that is obviously terrible. However, he only has so much control over the economy...the best he can realistically do is minimize damage.
well he does wreak havoc with whatever he does get his scummy hands on I agree-- fortunately he was thwarted from screwing up SS the way he totally messed up medicare

Interesting way to phrase it and to a degree there is merit to that point of view, however, the democrats chose to alienate the core of their party in favor of catering to numerous special interest goups which are contrary to the beliefs held by the average middle class citizen.

What particular "special interest groups" has the Democratic Party been "catering to"?

Interesting way to phrase it and to a degree there is merit to that point of view, however, the democrats chose to alienate the core of their party in favor of catering to numerous special interest goups which are contrary to the beliefs held by the average middle class citizen. They failed to recognize that the average american citizen will without hesitation support the countrys national defense, and general well being over their own personal gain everytime. They also failed to realize that there would be a very definate backlash for promising all these small groups everything while delivering them nothing. Case in point here is the loss of support from 7 million AFL-CIO members, after years and years of taking their money. How were these people rewarded? With democratic support for bullshit like NAFTA and "The Right to Work" scam. The democrats have made it almost impossible for the republicans to lose no matter how hard they try.
thats entirely true however the people are also learning the hard way that republicans have been a disaster for our National Defense and basically on every other issue as well--and whereas too many dems are sellouts on NAFTA and Right to Be Exploited laws let us also not forget that NAFTA and Right to be Exploited laws started as REPUBLICAN ideas

What particular "special interest groups" has the Democratic Party been "catering to"?

Unions. I don't mean the rank-and-file workers or the local heads but the Hoffa types who are corrupt to the core and will sell out the people they represent for status, money, and influence in Congress.

thats entirely true however the people are also learning the hard way that republicans have been a disaster for our National Defense and basically on every other issue as well--and whereas too many dems are sellouts on NAFTA and Right to Be Exploited laws let us also not forget that NAFTA and Right to be Exploited laws started as REPUBLICAN ideas

But NAFTA has actually worked pretty well, and Right to Work laws do have some justification in a personal freedom sense.

What particular "special interest groups" has the Democratic Party been "catering to"?
Hes right there ARE too many sellout dems but a FAR FAR higher percentage of republicans are total special interest whores and outright crooks with the entire GOP leadership being invesitgated and theyre total monopoly of power these past 6 years in which America has been consistently heading in the wrong direction on the path to ruin I think the GOP has far worse image in voters minds at this time then Dems do

Unions. I don't mean the rank-and-file workers or the local heads but the Hoffa types who are corrupt to the core and will sell out the people they represent for status, money, and influence in Congress.

Considering the Democratic refusal to advocate eliminating Taft-Hartley, its support for NAFTA, and its at best half-hearted stance against outsourcing, I don't see the Democratic catering towards unions.

I think you have at least one point of agreement with Trotskyists; they speak of organized labor in the same way. :)

Unions. I don't mean the rank-and-file workers or the local heads but the Hoffa types who are corrupt to the core and will sell out the people they represent for status, money, and influence in Congress.
Unions are a dwindingly influence these days--the far greater problem comes from Corporate special intertests who are infinitely more corrupt then even the most mafia plagued union (whose corruption would be a very localized experience at best)--whereas Corporations wreak havoc on a Global scale

But NAFTA has actually worked pretty well, and Right to Work laws do have some justification in a personal freedom sense.
NAFTA worked very well at accelerating the rate of jobs being outsourced and Right to be Exploited laws have resulted in nothing but giving the people to personal freedom to earn less

NAFTA has been an extraordinary benefit for all nations involved. Now if only the US can learn to abide by its rules...

NAFTA worked very well at accelerating the rate of jobs being outsourced and Right to be Exploited laws have resulted in nothing but giving the people to personal freedom to earn less

Following NAFTA, the US had not only the strongest growth in exports in decades but also its strongest growth in employment, lowest unemployment in 30 years, fastest wage growth since the 60's and strongest GDP growth in 15 years. Not coincidentally, the strongest growth prior to it occured in the 1960's which coincided with the implementation of GATT and the creation of the European Common Market.

Right-to-work laws protect the Constitutional freedom of association. There is absolutely no reason why a person equally qualified or more qualified than a union worker should be denied equal opportunity in their field simply because they refuse to join a union.

NAFTA worked very well at accelerating the rate of jobs being outsourced and Right to be Exploited laws have resulted in nothing but giving the people to personal freedom to earn less

Your incredible ability to spout super-crazy-left wing rhetoric makes me NOT want to support Russ Feingold just based on the fact that I'd be on the same side as you.

You don't seem to want to give the Bush administration credit for -anything- at all. They haven't screwed up completely. There is the occasional, you know, reasonable thing they do.

Your incredible ability to spout super-crazy-left wing rhetoric makes me NOT want to support Russ Feingold just based on the fact that I'd be on the same side as you.That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You don't seem to want to give the Bush administration credit for -anything- at all. They haven't screwed up completely. There is the occasional, you know, reasonable thing they do.
Which does not subtract anything from what they have failed to accomplish or the problems they have created. Generaly republicans since Nixon do nothing to solve domestic problems. Republican administrations produce atrocious foreign policies, and domestic policies that implement whatever it is they feel like doing, while solving no real problems. War, deficits and increases in the gap between rich and poor.

Following NAFTA, the US had not only the strongest growth in exports in decades but also its strongest growth in employment, lowest unemployment in 30 years, fastest wage growth since the 60's and strongest GDP growth in 15 years. Not coincidentally, the strongest growth prior to it occured in the 1960's which coincided with the implementation of GATT and the creation of the European Common Market.

Right-to-work laws protect the Constitutional freedom of association. There is absolutely no reason why a person equally qualified or more qualified than a union worker should be denied equal opportunity in their field simply because they refuse to join a union.
I'm sorry, but this remark is nothing but propaganda.

I have been a non-union hourly wage worker in both a right-to-work state and a non-right-to-work state. The difference in wages and job stability is shocking -- I have seen wages for the same jobs up to 50% lower in a right-to-work state. I have actually seen jobs paying less than the federal minimum wage. Also, job stability is non-existent -- hours can be changed, slashed or expanded without warning and the worker's only recourse is to quit if he doesn't like it. The job description he agreed to when hired means nothing. I have taken jobs that were advertised as full time at 40 hours, only to be told on my first day of work that in fact they have only 20 hours and that this might change someday but they can't make any promises -- despite the promise they made when they offered me the job.

I was so shocked at this situation that I researched it by talking to other workers, employers and the Department of Labor and Employment of the state. I asked why is there this difference between these two states (Vermont and New York)? Everyone, including three different state officials, gave me the same answer:

Right to work laws prevent the state from defining what is a legal job and what isn't. People who support such laws say this stops unions from claiming that any non-union job is illegal and so are non-union workers. But in application, it also stops the state government from enforcing minimum wages and fair practices. They can't even force employers to deliver paychecks on schedule. Workers have no rights at all because there is no way to enforce rights. The only option is to wait until the employer goes so far over the line that the worker can bring a private civil suit against him or until he gets so cocky he actually does break a law and then the state can shut him down.

Result: A state in which the majority of people work at least two jobs, and many work three or four per week, up to 18 hours a day, 6 or 7 days per week, and still barely make ends meet (this was Vermont; my friends in other right to work states like Viriginia report identical conditions). Also a state in which it is common for workers to sue employers and in which the state government is constantly auditing and spot-inspecting companies, offices and plants in search of infractions they can take action on. (One company I worked for turned out to be on the state's hit-list for persistent, egregious under-payment of wages, which translates to loss of tax revenue for the state, btw; there was much rejoicing when they got caught writing illegal contracts -- slam! massive fines.) All those audits, inspections and fines, btw, are designed to hurt the companies financially, and they do.

And the result of all this: A poverty stricken state in which companies are not profitable, families can't get off food stamps even when both parents have multiple jobs, the local economy is unstable except where supported by an illegal blackmarket in drugs, smuggled cigarettes and liquor, and unreported barter trade, and where there is no sense of social cohesion because the various parts of society (workers, employers, state) are constantly at war with each other.

Yet the rich in Vermont, Virginia and other such places, persistently resist efforts to repeal right to work laws, always conjuring up the bogeyman of unions and socialism undermining precious Constitutional rights. But all they're really afraid of is losing their power to dictate how others will work for them. They fight for this even at the expense of losing their own profits. It isn't even capitalism, much less a rights issue.

Right to work laws protect nothing but an elitist class system that is nearly plantation-like or even feudal in attitude.

By the way, I currently live in Massachusetts, which is also a right to work state, but is nothing like Vermont or Viriginia. This is because the "elitist liberals" of Massachusetts, over the course of the 20th century, just imposed laws to protect wages, hours and workers rights, and the state enforces those laws vigorously. But they never did repeal the right to work laws, probably because the local Brahmins (rich capitalists) didn't bother to fight over the competing laws. But if the Romney-style rightwing continues to gain ground, a fight over these laws could happen.

The Progressive Movement predated Bryan; he was not its source, he was its result. That is the way these things work; leaders do not create movements, they merely lead them. Since that was the case, it is possible that the Progressive Movement would have succeeded the way it did without Bryan.



The New Deal was driven by immense working-class unrest. If there had been no FDR, it is quite possible there would have been a revolution. That is why FDR was able to accomplish what he was able to accomplish.

That is the pattern - the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolitionist Movement, the Labor Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and so on. The popular movements predate the leaders; the people who "make" change in our elitist political system are by necessity individuals, but the reason they can do what they do, the reason they exist in the first place, is the popular anger that put them there.

The idolatry of people like Dean inteferes with this. We shouldn't be worshipping politicians; we should be forcibly bringing them into line.
Hear hear.

We doom ourselves to failure by waiting for a "leader" who will promise to do what we want. We are Americans. We don't need "leaders." We should just be telling our politicians what we want them to do and punishing them when they fail to deliver.

The radical rightwing is doing that and succeeding so well that they are claiming to be an actual majority even though they are not. But what's to prove they are not the majority, when they are the only voice being heard? The radical rightwing didn't change Republican leadership. They barked good and loud and backed up their barks with bite, and the Republican party fell into line like the sheep they are. We need to start herding our sheep too.

Right to work laws prevent the state from defining what is a legal job and what isn't. People who support such laws say this stops unions from claiming that any non-union job is illegal and so are non-union workers. But in application, it also stops the state government from enforcing minimum wages and fair practices. They can't even force employers to deliver paychecks on schedule. Workers have no rights at all because there is no way to enforce rights. The only option is to wait until the employer goes so far over the line that the worker can bring a private civil suit against him or until he gets so cocky he actually does break a law and then the state can shut him down.

Ah, so they are defining what is and what isn't a job rather than simply prohibiting the closed shop...that's way beyond anything I'd support. That is as equally discriminatory as allowing unions the control they had before the law. I only support right-to-work when it outlaws the closed shop, nothing more and nothing less.

I only support right-to-work when it outlaws the closed shop, nothing more and nothing less.

Taft-Hartley outlawed the closed shop; right-to-work laws outlaw union shops.

Neither violate freedom of association; they're conditions of employment, "voluntary exchanges" and all that.

I think I do need to remind the progressives within the Dem Party just how close they came to victory - yet lost it! - for the Party allowed itself to be cowed into being liberal. MoveOn inflicted the kind of damage that Swifties for Truth have wet dreams about.

The Victory is to be obtained in the centre, and no where else.

If you remain under the impression that you can actually WIN with anything to the left of Clinton, than all I can say is:


So long, and thanks for all the fish.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

M'kay. You're entitled to your opinion.


Which does not subtract anything from what they have failed to accomplish or the problems they have created. Generaly republicans since Nixon do nothing to solve domestic problems. Republican administrations produce atrocious foreign policies, and domestic policies that implement whatever it is they feel like doing, while solving no real problems. War, deficits and increases in the gap between rich and poor.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that even things that have been proven fairly well to be effective, you refuse to give any credit for. I don't particularly like the Republican party, but you people are like a bunch of wolves or some shit that develop rabies at the sight of the word "Republican".

Neither violate freedom of association; they're conditions of employment, "voluntary exchanges" and all that.

but such conditions of employment are evil. unlike, you know, the firings for engaging in political speech outside the workplace and whatnot, which are good and just.

What particular "special interest groups" has the Democratic Party been "catering to"?


Is there one they don't?

So long, and thanks for all the fish.



> :)

Russ Feingold would make a great president. He stood up to evil alone after 9/11. The Democrats should be against the war and everything else Republicans support that is polarizing. The Democrats should have one opinion and the Republicans another opposing one...or vice versa. I agree with you. I vote in the next presidential election, so someone good better be on the Dem ticket...or I might vote Socialist.


Russ has all the presidential promise as Howard Dean.

Actually people are becoming very aware that an elitist New England Liberal is a socialist, attempting to hide what he really is. Whether or not it is true is irrevelant as they both get their marching orders from the same ticket.
What is a socialist in your eyes? Someone who wants to expand government programmes? The Republicans do that too.

I can't believe that so few Americans see that both parties are virtually the same. The differences between them are mostly exaggerated or imagined.

They failed to recognize that the average american citizen will without hesitation support the countrys national defense, and general well being over their own personal gain everytime.
Untrue. If Americans put the general well being over their own personal gain every time, then why is America not a democratic socialist state?

Ah, so they are defining what is and what isn't a job rather than simply prohibiting the closed shop...that's way beyond anything I'd support. That is as equally discriminatory as allowing unions the control they had before the law. I only support right-to-work when it outlaws the closed shop, nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks to Taft-Hartley, there is no such thing as a "closed shop" anymore. If you study your history, you will see clearly that "right to work" laws never had anything to do with closed shops. They were always promoted politically and financially (lobby money) by capitalist business owners and corporate interests, not by any movement of non-union workers. One of my great-grandfathers worked in a coal mine during the 19-oughts (during the post-WWI depression). He reported conditions similar to the non-union working conditions current in today's right to work states: Refusal to stick to a consistent wage scale; arbitrary and capricious changes in job rules like work schedule and delivery of payment; constant threats to fire workers for the slightest disobedience or resistance; and a tacit practice of "blackballing" so that employers could prevent workers they didn't like from getting hired by any other companies in the same region.

"Right to work" has always been a bitterly ironic propaganda name of a political program to prevent workers from protecting or exercising their Constitutional rights.

M'kay. You're entitled to your opinion.




I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that even things that have been proven fairly well to be effective, you refuse to give any credit for. I don't particularly like the Republican party, but you people are like a bunch of wolves or some shit that develop rabies at the sight of the word "Republican".
Well, do you think it's possible that we don't think any of their programs have been effective -- I mean, in ways that aren't actually harmful? Maybe that's why we don't give them credit for doing good things?

"Right to work" has always been a bitterly ironic propaganda name of a political program to prevent workers from protecting or exercising their Constitutional rights.

Well, then right to work laws are pretty much bullshit. I'm no fan of unions, but I'd never support government taking away their right to organize or to protect themselves.

Well, then right to work laws are pretty much bullshit.
Glad to help clear that up. :D

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that even things that have been proven fairly well to be effective, you refuse to give any credit for. I don't particularly like the Republican party, but you people are like a bunch of wolves or some shit that develop rabies at the sight of the word "Republican".
Its called partisan political activism.

Enough of the D.C. Dems: <snip>

I came in this topic expecting a right-winger ranting on and on about all Democrats, but I find the opposite. And I agree. Feingold in '08!

Is there one they don't?

Are you paying attention?

Labor unions? NAFTA.

Women's rights? Cultural reactionaries like Bob Casey.

Gay rights? "Marriage is between a man and a woman" from all the cowards in the leadership.

Environmentalist groups? No to Kyoto.

Anti-war groups? Support for the war, at best half-hearted opposition to certain aspects of the occupation.

The poor? Welfare "reform."

Civil libertarians? The capitulation on PATRIOT and the support for the war on drugs.

I wish they were catering to special interests; we call that "democracy." Unfortunately, the truth is otherwise.

Your incredible ability to spout super-crazy-left wing rhetoric makes me NOT want to support Russ Feingold just based on the fact that I'd be on the same side as you.
you should never be ashamed if occasionally you find yourself on the same side as the morally correct

You don't seem to want to give the Bush administration credit for -anything- at all. They haven't screwed up completely. There is the occasional, you know, reasonable thing they do.
such as?

Following NAFTA, the US had not only the strongest growth in exports in decades but also its strongest growth in employment, lowest unemployment in 30 years, fastest wage growth since the 60's and strongest GDP growth in 15 years. Not coincidentally, the strongest growth prior to it occured in the 1960's which coincided with the implementation of GATT and the creation of the European Common Market.
the economy under Bush is not exactly Booming and wages are raising at a glacial pace after decades of rancid stagnation and people are losing their health care and their pension funds are being raided and our deficit is in the trillions--for the average worker its all like a race to the bottom

Right-to-work laws protect the Constitutional freedom of association. There is absolutely no reason why a person equally qualified or more qualified than a union worker should be denied equal opportunity in their field simply because they refuse to join a union.
Union workers are the ones who rights are being violated in this equation because the fools who choose to work for less by not joining a union are endangering the job security and leverage of those workers who have self respect and believe they deserve the benefits they EARNED

such as?

It's difficult, but:

1. Not buying into the economic nationalism of anti-immigration sentiment (and to a lesser extent anti-outsourcing, but the issue is more complex there);
2. The Dubai Ports World thing (the Muslims are not out to get us);
3. Not adhering strictly to balanced budgets during a recession, though I would have much preferred stimulus packages directed at non-rich people.

That's pretty much all that comes to mind.

I think I do need to remind the progressives within the Dem Party just how close they came to victory - yet lost it! - for the Party allowed itself to be cowed into being liberal. MoveOn inflicted the kind of damage that Swifties for Truth have wet dreams about.

The Victory is to be obtained in the centre, and no where else.

If you remain under the impression that you can actually WIN with anything to the left of Clinton, than all I can say is:


So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Screw the Centre--Dems can only win by taking Forceful Bold Stands and STICKING TO THEM

Union workers are the ones who rights are being violated in this equation because the fools who choose to work for less by not joining a union are endangering the job security and leverage of those workers who have self respect and believe they deserve the benefits they EARNED

Fools? They're no more foolish than the prisoner who chooses to betray his associate in the Prisoner's Dilemma; it's exactly the same principle.

Either the union will be viable, or it won't be viable.

If the union is viable, all the workers, union and non-union, benefit; the non-union worker benefits more, because he doesn't have to pay dues.

If the union is not viable, all the workers, union and non-union, lose out; the non-union worker loses out less, because he doesn't have to pay dues.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that even things that have been proven fairly well to be effective, you refuse to give any credit for. I don't particularly like the Republican party, but you people are like a bunch of wolves or some shit that develop rabies at the sight of the word "Republican".
:D Its my natural response to Evil

Russ has all the presidential promise as Howard Dean.
who Also woulda won had the Biased Beast Media not sidelined his campaign

:D Its my natural response to Evil

This is why I don't take you seriously.

I came in this topic expecting a right-winger ranting on and on about all Democrats, but I find the opposite. And I agree. Feingold in '08!
the Dems need a major asswhooping from the Left

It's difficult, but:

1. Not buying into the economic nationalism of anti-immigration sentiment (and to a lesser extent anti-outsourcing, but the issue is more complex there);
2. The Dubai Ports World thing (the Muslims are not out to get us);
3. Not adhering strictly to balanced budgets during a recession, though I would have much preferred stimulus packages directed at non-rich people.

That's pretty much all that comes to mind.
I disagree with #2 --Dubai was/is a terrorist supporting country and they recognized the Taliban Govt in Afghanistan and they should NOT in any way be in charge of any western ports but those other 2 examples are reasonable
now if you were to list all the NEGATIVE things Bush has done it would fill 500 billion pages :D

Fools? They're no more foolish than the prisoner who chooses to betray his associate in the Prisoner's Dilemma; it's exactly the same principle.

Either the union will be viable, or it won't be viable.

If the union is viable, all the workers, union and non-union, benefit; the non-union worker benefits more, because he doesn't have to pay dues.

If the union is not viable, all the workers, union and non-union, lose out; the non-union worker loses out less, because he doesn't have to pay dues.
you misunderstood me--I was calling the workers who DIDNT want to join unions fools

This is why I don't take you seriously.
you shouldnt take anything seriously--its just not worth it

you misunderstood me--I was calling the workers who DIDNT want to join unions fools

No, I understood you perfectly. What's foolish about their course of action?

No, I understood you perfectly. What's foolish about their course of action?
because they diminish their own power

because they diminish their own power

As a class, yes. But they aren't pursuing their class interest, they're pursuing their own interest.

As a class, yes. But they aren't pursuing their class interest, they're pursuing their own interest.
which isnt separate from their class interest

which isnt separate from their class interest

Their short-term gain, at least, most definitely is.

I explained my reasoning in my initial reply to you:

Either the union will be viable, or it won't be viable.

If the union is viable, all the workers, union and non-union, benefit; the non-union worker benefits more, because he doesn't have to pay dues.

If the union is not viable, all the workers, union and non-union, lose out; the non-union worker loses out less, because he doesn't have to pay dues.

Their short-term gain, at least, most definitely is.

I explained my reasoning in my initial reply to you:
dues are such a nominal fee--they should be seen more as investments anyway

who Also woulda won had the Biased Beast Media not sidelined his campaign

That's so funny I just had to quote it.

Thanks!