Home » Blog » What are Democracy for America's values? Can anyone tell me...
Blog for America
What are Democracy for America's values? Can anyone tell me?
Linked to groups: What are Progressive Values? Study Group
I've started creating a list of Progressive Organizations and the values and/or principles that they support. It's part of an effort to get a sense of the values shared among the different Progressive Organizations. I'd like to interview representatives from these organizations as well for our What are Progressive Values? Documentary Project.
Some organizations have a dedicated web page where they clearly lay out either a list of values or a list of principles that they are working toward or support. Many others, just indirectly mention their values or principles scattered throughout the text of their website.
Now when I go to the DFA website, I don't get a clear sense of what are the values it supports. Are DFA's values the ones promoted by Howard Dean in his speech at the Take Back America conference? Howard Dean proposes;
Fairness
Equal rights (more of a principle?)
Health Care (not a value but and issue)
Strength and Toughness
Smartness
Fiscal Responsibility (more of a principle based on responsibility?)
Progressive Values? Howard Dean - Fairness, Responsibility, Strength http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDyxTntD3qg
From the DFA website democracyforamerica.com, on the heading image I see:
Social Progress
Fiscal Responsibility
Grassroots Activism
These are more principles than values.
In the democracyforamerica.com "About DFA" section , I see:
" Democracy for America is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government"
fiscally responsible (more of a principle)
socially progressive (more of a principle?)
"DFA supports socially progressive candidates"
but there's no mention of what socially progressive values are.
"DFA fights against the influence of the far right-wing and their radical, divisive policies and the selfish special interests that for too long have dominated our politics."
This is more about what DFA is against, selfishness, divisiveness
selfishness: "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. " So what would the opposite be or what would DFA be for?
divisiveness: "forming or expressing division or distribution. creating dissension or discord. " What would DFA be for? unity, community, harmony?
So, what are the official DFA values that I should put on my list of Progressive Organizations?
http://progressivespirit.com/Projects/OrganizationsValues
Also, let me know of any other progressive organizations I should add and their values.
thanks
Edwin
What are Progressive Values? Documentary Project & Study Group
ProgressiveSpirit.com
DFALink: What are Progressive Values? Study Group
Discussion Listserver on Yahoo Groups
Show: Expand All Reply
susan
that's great!!! go Dean. I say, expand on the failure.. hit em in the values gut, not on the policies.
I think my videos need more humor.. where can I find a snow man?
Values Voters: Have Conservative Values Failed?
let me try that agan, I say, expand on the values failure.
Values Voters: Have Conservative Values Failed?
actually, after seeing the GOP CNN debate last night, I told Joan, "I needed a flag and a gun rack in the background. Maybe then, they would have used my questions"..
Next time I'll use one of my old hunting photos.. I wonder which would be best ?
4. Interesting, I hear that a lot.. If I understand it correctly, there's some sort of a nostalgia for some bygone virtuous conservative era or values.
from my observation, definitions change over time.
looks to me like this administration and the Values Voters Summit people, are the new definition of Conservative values. Anyone in the conservative movement or who votes republican, has endorsed those values. Basically; authoritarianism, secrecy, indifference, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, selfishness, divisiveness, to name but a few of the values.
Edwin,
You're very funny. I love your hunting photos. I always liked to go rabbit hunting with my Father.
I'm going to think about your questions for awhile, then I'll be back. I need to go to the store. For now, I will say that DFA is a community of visionary grassroots and netroots political activists. Who want our country back. We believe in the restoration of people powered politics for America. And our principles are based in the preservation and protection of our democracy which are defined in the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America is a democratically elected representative government of, by and for the people. DFA members know that the presently used electoral political structures and practices have weaken our democracy. American political discourse has become polarized by the political clothes of the day through their usage of marginalization and triangularization. Those practices have eliminated America's true strength, the powerful diverse voices and the participation of all it's citizenry. DFA members are here to help reform and build anew those structures from the grassroots up. Our democracy needs fresh new ideas. I'm here to help, make friends and have some fun in the process.
Question. Are you defining a "value" as a virtue or as a belief?
Hi Susan
Talking about Taking Back Red California. The photos are on my families orchard, which is in Sutter County, not far from Marysville.
So, What are values? I'm seeing that question come up a lot. I'm realizing I'm going to have to do some work on defining terms. I'm going to start asking about that in my interviews. There's a whole series of related words that will need a definition. Such as; Values, Principles, Morals, Ethics, Virtues, Vices, Ideals. Here's a start:
Values
is a concept that describes the beliefs of an individual or culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values
the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy.
relative worth, merit, or importance:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=values
Principles
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=principles
Morals
morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
'I'd say the is values sorted by good and bad.'
Ethics
analyzing right and wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
'I'd say the study of values.'
Virtues
'is values' valued as being good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue
Vices
'is values' considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice
Ideals
principles or values that one actively pursues as goals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideals
Difference between Values and Principles.
I was just looking at the website of the Commonweal Institute think tank
http://commonwealinstitute.org/philosophy.htm
They have a list of what they call Core Principles. The principles have this multi word explanation. Here are theirs
1. Commitment to Future Generations
2. Environmental Protection
4. Inclusiveness and Fairness
5. Separation of Church and State
6. Personal Choice and Privacy
7. Comprehensive National Security
Compare that to this list of 500 values, which are almost all single word "essences".
http://www.humanityquest.com
These would be values for example:
Caring
empathy
community
justice
responsibility
authoritarianism
secrecy
indifference
self-righteousness
hypocrisy
selfishness
more to come.
"Leave No Blogger Behind"
In that spirit, informed the previous thread that there's this new thread.
6.
WhatAre Progressive Values
Thu, 11/29/07
8:03 pm
.........
from my observation, definitions change over time.
------------
Great discovery..., lol.
Now we are ready to discover:
a) that term "definition" applicable within scientific framework only (e.g. within science).
b) that ANY science within class society IS USED with economical interests of the ruling class in mind, first and foremost.
The only value we need to move forward is EQUALITY.
Human equality is the essence of the American experiment. It's an experiment because not all people value the principle of equality. A value is what attracts us and is the opposite of what we find repulsive. I find the behavior of GWB repulsive and that's why I think he should be removed from office.
40.
...
Anyway, I think Americans could be proud to present Barack Obama as the face of America to the world. There are no Republicans in the field about whom that can be said.
...
+++
Monica -
Thanks for that comment.
11.
Monica Smith
Sun, 12/02/07
10:05 am
---------
not so simple either, imo.
equality in what?
In consumption as a reward for the contributed labor?
But we are all different and labor everyone contributes is different! Therefore it is justifiable that we CAN NOT BE rewarded EQUALLY for UN-EQUAL contribution of a labor.
The question however is WHO IS to measure to make UN-EQUALITY JUSTIFIABLE?!
13.
Monica Smith
Sun, 12/02/07
10:17 am
Human equality is the essence of the American experiment. It's an experiment because not all people value the principle of equality.
.........
-----------
That "essence" Monica is NOTHING else but is still DECLARATION only!
Declarations DO NOT work, sooner or later People are discovering that it is just a declaration which has little to do with REAL EQUALITY.
The last one, the "real equality" is not about nice declarations. It is about real CONDITIONS People LIVE EVERYDAY..., it is again, about health care, salary, dollar purchasing power, longevity of vacation time, children's education, etc., etc., And all of that together is about ECONOMY...., not about "values"..., lol.
36. Judy true, and Dodd is also the only one that could find the commitment that we would be out of Iraq before the end of his first term.
And, as Monica has pointed out, Dodd really does listen. You can tell by how he is running his campaign and he is doing a pretty smart job on that front.
...16....AND, I might was well add, the ONLY candidate who has NOT BASHED GOVERNOR DEAN!!! (besides Mike Gravel)
17...s/b might as well add...(still nursing my morning coffee)
Our mountain tops/ski areas have snow on them. Even the 2 days of snow from Thanksgiving Day melted almost immediately. Wonder how long this will last. Naaah, scratch that, lows in the teens now, but will be warming up in to the HIGH 50's as the week progresses. Not good for the environment.
and, while I'm on my rant for Chris Dodd....the only candidate who actively started campaigning for Ned Lamont after campaigning for Joe Lieberman in the Primary that JOE LOST AND OFFICIALLY WALKED AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY on.
AND...the only candidate proposing the Carbon TAX as AL GORE has stated as the proper means to help stop this Global Warming by co2 emmissions.
...OK, I'm done.
Amen to Monica's EQUALITY statement. Yes, indeed!
ok, I lied. There does seem to be that little thing we call strong character and integrity there. (I'm talking and typing while my brain wakes up with it's morning coffe jolt....as long as I'm here) .
Linda wrote "Dodd is also the only one that could find the commitment that we would be out of Iraq before the end of his first term."
If he hadn't been one of a lengthy list of Democratic candidates who disastrously approved the invasion of Iraq in the first place, it wouldn't be necessary for him to make unconditional commitments about leaving now. Do you give this pledge more credibility than his statements in July 2005 that "we need to complete this job, which I support, by the way," or in February 2006 that "I’m opposed to deadlines"?
"While [Secretary of State of California] Bowen has been putting tough restrictions and new security requirements on the use of the touch screen machines, she admitted having doubts as to whether the electronic voting systems will ever meet the standards she believes are needed in California.
"It's a real challenge," she said at a San Francisco airport conference on voting and elections. "I don't rule out the ingenuity of some computer science student now in the eighth grade," but what's available now isn't as transparent or auditable as the paper ballot systems they replaced."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
...just received this.
The GOP must be getting desperate on fund raising.
I just got a form letter from Karl Rove begging for money. He claims
that the average Republican donor gives $41 to the RNC, and has the usual tired diatribe about "leftist billionaire George Soros", without mentioning Republican oil billionaires and the Walton family.
...man, are they digging in to their old boxes for tricks.
Edwin, Thanks for a great Sunday morning topic. Integrity is the big one. The lack of innner conflict and an appreciation for the efforts and sacrifices of our predecessors out of love and dedication to our constitution and national ideals, leads normal citizens to become actively engaged in guiding neighbors, locally and nationally, to participate in Democracy. The major aimis to influence and inspire others to participatein their own lives. This is a p-poor spectator sport, but a hell of a good avocation.
n.y.times Editorial
Campaign for Sale
Published: December 2, 2007
The sticker price for next year’s presidential and Congressional elections is rocketing toward $5 billion, shocking even political professionals who figure the ante in the opening Iowa round may cost out at $300 per caucusgoer. When you consider that the votes taken at those caucuses actually have no direct effect on who is nominated by either party, the cost should be ludicrous by the laws of economics, never mind politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinio...
...anyone paying attention to the money (some of ) the Front Runners have been SPENDING IN A PRIMARY??????????
two quarters at 21.5 MILLION DOLLARS EACH QUARTER.............21.5 MILLION DOLLARS.....WHERE THE HECK IS HE THROWING THAT MONEY SO CARELESSLY??????
20. Presumptuous as it may seem, I am going to assume that Chris Dodd has made inquiries of the DoD since the first time we sat around a kitchen table and I told him the bases in Iraq are untenable in the long run and he has confirmed with the military people that, indeed, Russia and China are not going to put up with U.S. military installations in Iraq, now that the U.S. trustworthiness has been so totally discredited.
You see, China and Russia were already suspicious about the bases the U.S. set up in Uzbekistan (which has since thrown them out) and other countries in the region (including Afghanistan) under the guise of the WOT. Does it seem reasonable that Putin has sent his strategic bombers aloft because of missile bases in Poland in three to six years' time? Not likely. More likely, they have seen, with their satellites, what the U.S. has installed in Iraq and they don't like it. Can the bases be taken out by missiles from Iran? Most likely. Will that ignite a nuclear retaliation? Probably. Do we want to risk that?
Yes, the U.S. has had bases on South Korea and Taiwan. But, the credibility that the facilities would not be used offensively has been shot by Bush/Cheney. U.S. credibility is down the tubes.
Considering that Americans spend billions on lotteries and gaming tables, the political process is cheap at whatever price.
I do not, however, appreciate all the dead trees it cost to produce glossy brochures that arrive on a daily basis and I have to discard in the trash.
Haven't got one yet from Dodd.
15. Essence is essence. It's not "in" or "of" Essence is being. It is the appleness of the apple; the humanness of the human. It is not incidental that there is only one species of human; it is essential. We are all equal, regardless of how many differences people try to identify. Our differences are what make us unique and human.
How can something be different and yet the same? Think of the Trinity. One God in three persons. It's a mystery. Have you ever had the same thought at the same time as someone else? Two as one.
Just saw that Dodd is scheduled to be on CNN-Late Edition. We don't have cable. LOL
What???
When the Pres. raises his hand and swears to tell the truth, and doesn't, then that is something to be taken up by the Congress of the U.S. .....Henry Hyde
Does that mean that old right wing Henry was more democratic than our Dems?
Katrina from "Nation", (easier than sp her name)
said that if Huckabee is elected, it will make the WH seem to have been almost "Godless" this last 8 years.
What is funnier and scarier than the next act of the play that presents itself to us
every morning?
When I got this DCCC email yesterday, I thought who on God's green earth is advising Van Hollen these days? FAUX news, Karl Rove, they've got to be kidding. Van Hollen debating Rove on FAUX News? Good grief! Who's bright idea was that? The Democrats have just got find a better strategist. Rove is Trader, period. He should have been indicted. AND, He should be spending his time these days behind bars in a federal prison waiting for his criminal trial attorney to call instead of appearing on FAUX News. Debating Rove on FAUX is THE WORST idea that the DCCC has come up with to date. All they did was give creditability to that lair Rove and FAUX News.
btw, I watched this show. It was as I thought and a humiliating embarrassment. Van Hollen got his butt kicked, made the Democrats in Congress look weak again which gave Rove, the Republicans and Faux News major credibility. Van Hollen also needs to find a better make up artists. The guy looked like a ghost. Talk about values. What value, if any, was to be gained by this insane idea coming out of the DCCC.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Wolff, DCCC
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Sunday's Showdown with Karl Rove
Showdown with Karl Rove Chris Van Hollen squares off tomorrow, Sunday, December 2, on Fox News. Check your local listings.
====
This Sunday, Karl Rove's desperate attempts to rewrite history will come to an abrupt end -- and we can all watch it happen.
On Sunday, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen will square off with Karl Rove on FOX News Sunday to confront Rove directly on his outright lies about George Bush's war in Iraq.
Lately Karl Rove has been going around town, blaming Congress for starting the failed war in Iraq. That's right -- he is actually trying to make people forget that President Bush started this disastrous war in a ludicrous attempt to rewrite the history books.
Even former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card confirmed that what Rove said was simply not true. He tried to explain Rove's spin. When asked if it was true, Card said, "no." He then explained Rove's lie by saying "Well, Karl is very smart. He's -- sometimes his brain gets ahead of his mouth. And sometimes his mouth gets ahead of his brain."
Tomorrow, Chairman Van Hollen will call him on it.
But we can also use your help to set the record straight.
Write a letter-to-the-editor
Send a letter directly to Karl Rove himself
Most of all, don't forget to watch tomorrow on Fox News. Times will vary, so check your local listings. I can't wait to see it.
Sincerely,
Brian Wolff
Executive Director
audrey wrote "Does that mean that old right wing Henry was more democratic than our Dems?"
It's means that for strictly political reasons, conscienceless Republicans were able to set a perjury trap for a President, who cheated on his marriage, that he couldn't wiggle out of. Hyde was a pompous hypocrite who had the good fortune of never being asked under oath if he ever laid pipe in extramarital circumstances.
Audrey, only when there is a Dem Pres he wants to impeach, not when there's a Repub he wants to protect.
If anyone wants to see some pics of a pretty view, these are from my yards (front and side)
rae hart
Sat, 12/01/07
10:33 pm
Reply to this
Who's Afraid of Barack Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
+++
rae hart -
Thanks for posting that Frank Rich piece about Obama.
Tom.....
We know what Hyde was. What most of the Dems are is willing to use tricks for doing the wrong thing also, like prolonging the war till election time, instead of impeaching now and taking the chance it might backfire on their elecion chances, or so they believe.
audrey wrote “We know what Hyde was. What most of the Dems are willing to use tricks for doing the wrong thing also, like prolonging the war till election time, instead of impeaching now and taking the chance it might backfire on their election chances, or so they believe.”
The reason I made a point of emphasizing the hypocrisy of the views on impeachment of a gross pig like Rep. Hyde is to help illustrate the bind Democrats are in. Besides being a costly waste of time and effort, impeachment proceedings would be a gift to Bush and Republicans roughly equivalent to finding a suitcase full of money while walking down the sidewalk.
Impeachment hearings by a Democratically controlled House on the bases of Bush’s duplicity in attacking Iraq and undermining Constitutional protections for Americans will suffer from a crippling handicap, namely, that the war took place following an authorization vote joined by Democratic House and Senate members and the wiretap programs began following briefing to the Gang of Eight. The hypocrisy implicit in these hearings will be amply highlighted in one boring speech after another by Republican partisans on TV, droning on for days on end during the political high season.
Bush is one of the most unpopular sitting presidents since the time such polling began. Even most Republican pundits will acknowledge to some degree that Republican prospects in next year’s elections are miserable. I don’t think that Democrats should risk relearning what Republicans did during Clinton’s impeachment, which is that such proceedings are viewed as undisguised political attacks, and can help to buoy the sagging spirits of the even the worst executive, let alone a relatively good one. I’d prefer to see Bush sink under the waves from his own ballast.
For months, the Democratic leadership has held off on a confrontation with the White House over the U.S. attorneys scandal. A ruling today may signal that they're returning to the offensive.
Nick Baumann
Is this the return of the summer showdowns between Capitol Hill Democrats and the White House?
The Senate Judiciary Committee moved a big step closer to contempt citations against top Bush administration officials today. Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) ruled that White House claims of executive privilege "are not legally valid." A Senate aide tells Mother Jones the committee could begin contempt proceedings as early as next Thursday if current and former administration officials do not comply immediately with the subpoenas.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/11/contempt-leahy-summer-showdowns.html
Progressive
I am not a hunting enthusiast but the pics are great! True Red Neck stuff:)) You wouldn't want to use those though if you were running for election because so many people like myself don't warm up to it.
~~~~~~~~~
Excellent piece by one of my favorites, Frank Rich. Some excerpts:
Now that the Beltway establishment, jolted by the Iowa polls, is frantically revising its premature blueprints for a Clinton coronation and declaring, as Time’s inevitable cliché would have it, that Mr. Obama has “found his voice,” it’s worth looking at some campaign story lines that have been ignored so far. They tell us more than the hyped scenarios that have fallen apart. Indeed, they flip the standard narrative of Campaign 2008 on its head: Were Mr. Obama to best Mrs. Clinton for the Democratic nomination, he may prove harder for the Republicans to rally against and defeat than the all-powerful, battle-tested Clinton machine.
The unspoken truth is that the Clinton machine is not being battle-tested at all by the Democratic primary process. When Mrs. Clinton accused John Edwards of “throwing mud” and “personally” attacking her in a sharp policy exchange in one debate, the press didn’t challenge the absurd hyperbole of her claim. In reality, neither Mr. Edwards nor any other Democratic competitor will ever hit her with the real, personal mud being stockpiled by the right. But if she’s getting a bye now, she will not from the Republican standard-bearer, whoever he may be. Clinton-bashing is the last shared article of faith (and last area of indisputable G.O.P. competence) that could yet unite the fractured and dispirited conservative electorate.
The Republicans know this and are so psychologically invested in refighting the Clinton wars that they’re giddy. Karl Rove’s first column for Newsweek last week, “How to Beat Hillary (Next) November,” proceeded from the premise that her nomination was a done deal. In the G.O.P. debates through last Thursday, the candidates mentioned the Clintons some 65 times. Barack Obama’s name has not been said once.
But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era.
Part of the Republicans’ difficulty in countering Mr. Obama, should they have to, is their own cynical racial politics. For the most part, race has been the dog that hasn’t barked in this campaign despite the (largely) white press’s endless fretting about whether the Illinois senator is too white for black voters and too black for white voters. Most Americans aren’t racist, most Republicans included. (Those who are won’t vote for the Democratic presidential candidate even if it’s not Mr. Obama.) But the G.O.P., by its own doing, is nonetheless saddled with a history that most recently includes “macaca” and Katrina, Mr. Bush’s appearance at Bob Jones University in 2000 and the nonexistent black population of its Congressional delegation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
In the context of universal health care, Tom wrote:
"I hope to point out that there may be legitimate reasons for policies that fall short of supporters' expectations. "
That's either really naiive or disingenuous Tom. A quick look at campaign donations will show a strong correlation between the amount of money received from the health-care industry and the degree of subservience to that lobby.
Dennis receives no money from them and he is the only candidate advocating universal, tax-funded, single-payer health care.
Dean's argument that it would amount to a huge inefficient government program is destroyed by looking at Medicare, which is a large, very efficient, very effective government program. Extrapolating Medicare by a factor of between 2 and 3 would provide single-payer coverage for all Americans!
And I'll say it again:
HEALTH CARE IS AN ENTITLEMENT!
US Pursuing New Spy Satellite Program
The Associated Press
Washington - The U.S. is pursuing a multibillion-dollar program to develop the next generation of spy satellites, the first major effort of its kind since the Pentagon canceled the ambitious and costly Future Imagery Architecture system two years ago, The Associated Press has learned.
The new system, known as BASIC, would be launched by 2011 and is expected to cost $2 billion to $4 billion, according to U.S. officials familiar with the program. They discussed details on condition of anonymity because the information is classified.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/30/tech/main3561086.shtml
John wrote "That's either really naiive or disingenuous Tom."
I can understand how you might think so, but I have no idea how you could possibly be qualified to know that.
David Leppard
AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.
A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece
I guess the values that matter to me (I guess they are progressive) are:
Civil liberties
Upholding of the US Constitution
Government by the People as opposed to by the Corporations
DLC DINO'S SPENDING WADS OF MONEY TO INSTALL DINO CANDIDATES
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_071201_what_the_hell_are_de.htm
Why is the DSCC spending hundreds of thousands of dollars funding democratic picks in primaries? This is beyond stupid. These arrogant, antidemocratic leaders-- Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary (you better believe Hillary has her hands in the decision making) are pissing away money dem supporters have contributed to beat right wingers-- on internecine fights between Democrats.
Of course the reason is that these DLC right wing barely Democrat Democrats are wasting all this money on primaries is they are supporting machine politicians-- the guys who are going to play along with politics as usual. One good example of this was Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth. Rahm Emanuel had the DCCC spend a ton of money and good will supporting Duckwort, so she could beat Christine Cegelis, who had, without DCCC or Dem leadership support, come very close to beating Henry Hyde in the previous election. Duckworth failed to win, running against the candidate the RNC chose to replace Hyde, who'd retired. This was a big failure for the DLC Dem leadership and a good lesson, that, apparently, the Dem leaders have not learned.
This happened in many other locales throughout the US.
The fact is, Schumer, Emanuel and the rest of their ilk don't give a damn about democracy. In fact, it's an inconvenience for them. It's said they would prefer to "select" the candidates who will run in the elections, rather than allow THE PEOPLE to vote on and choose them.
The Democrats have a solid financial lead on the Republicans now. How stupid can they be? Stupid enough to throw the lead away trying to get their loser right winger DLC Dem picks elected.
The public is thoroughly disgusted with this congress, as they should be. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Hoyer-- these leaders have not failed. Suggesting that they'd failed would indicate belief that they'd tried. No. These Dem leaders have betrayed the voters who gave them the leadership of the congress. They deserve zero support, in terms of providing them with funding or contributions. If you are a progressive, if you are disgusted with the 110 congress's choice to refuse to impeach, refusal to end the war, refusal to revoke the offensive bankruptcy laws... then don't even think about giving money to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC. Give the money to ACT Blue, EMily's list or better, to the progressive candidates who will be facing right wing democrats that the likes of Schumer and Emanuel are funding.
31.
Monica Smith
Sun, 12/02/07
11:39 am
15. Essence is essence. It's not "in" or "of" Essence is being. It is the appleness of the apple; the humanness of the human....
We are all equal, regardless of how many differences people try to identify. Our differences are what make us unique and human.
How can something be different and yet the same? Think of the Trinity. One God in three persons. It's a mystery....
-----------
I don't mind about "essence" Monica, I mind about "We are all equal regardless of...differences...”
There might be some theological sense about "equality" you have in mind; however there is nothing mysterious about equality in real life...., as well as about non-equality.
Tell homeless person on a street about "equality" he won't understand you.
Tell some "Buffet" or "Gates" about un-equality - they won't understand you either and each might insist they are/were equal to very same homeless who should blame themselves for "not working hard enough" to achieve similar success!
In reality there is no abstract human equality....
Been equal, by definition, applies in relation to another being, and that relation, that comparison tells us true story about un-equality rather then about equality.
In prospective, the problem is not with un-equality per-se but rather with "unjust" one.
Clinton's impeachment was viewed as a political attack because the reason was superficial and silly, and everyone knew the lie was a trick.
This is a much different situation. Most of the people want impeachment, evidence is abundant. You touched on the real reason that I believe the Dems won't impeach, and that is their own guilt and complicity. It's pretty useless to try to sue someone for burglarising and trashing your home if you turn on the lights, unlock the door and point out all of the valuables.
Those who opened the door for Bush to take us to war are either too stupid, or lack the judgement to remain in Congress, let alone be running for Pres. If their hands were not dirty, they could impeach. What are we if we can't even defend the Constitution?
John highligted the following excerpt of Rob Kall's article in Op Ed News "if you are disgusted with the 110 congress's choice to refuse to impeach, refusal to end the war, refusal to revoke the offensive bankruptcy laws... then don't even think about giving money to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC. Give the money to ACT Blue, EMily's list or better, to the progressive candidates who will be facing right wing democrats that the likes of Schumer and Emanuel are funding."
We're going to need better sources for advice on political contributions. Emily's List issued its endorsement of Clinton's presidential bid almost as soon as the senator announced.
-
By Susan Rowe on Nov 29, 2007 7:16 PM ESTDNC Chair, Gov. Howard Dean is first!