Oh the democracy of it all. To listen to the members of the Rules and By-Laws panel at today's meeting of the Democratic National Committee, you'd believe that when it comes to respecting voters, their choices and election fairness, the Democrats are a stand-up bunch of rule makers: the very model of a modern democratic institution.
Oh how we forget. The year was 2007 – the same year that the Party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling set forth the rules now at the core of the delegate befuddle. The place was a courthouse in Washington DC. where independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader was suing the Democrats for blocking him from getting on the 2004 presidential election ballot in 18 states. Those being sued included Democratic nominees John Kerry and John Edwards, DNC officials and a group called the Ballot Project -- which, when it came to Nader's candidacy, might more accurately have been called the anti-ballot project.
"The lawsuit was to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and votes," said Nader last year. "Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices and a more open and competitive democracy."
Many of those established Dems who grouse today were grinning in 2004 when Nader's ballots were banished. So as you sow, so shall ye reap, some might say. And the panel members better hope no one was listening too carefully: after all the high-brow talk, the public may think that the Party stands up for all voters -- even the third party kind.
- Laura Flanders
I’m not trying to be trite when I say it’s not very democratic of the Democratic Party to be slamming the door in the faces of candidates the party bosses don’t approve. Even though I’m not a Nader-the-politician supporter, I agree more candidates and voices make for a better democracy.
By maggiesboy on June 1st, 2008 at 9:26 am
6/3/08
Thank you Laura Flanders!
While most (all?) other “progressive” media seem to be falling all over themselves in an attempt to establish Dems,, or at least Obama, as being the only legitimate bearer of progressive ideas, you at least have the courage to point out that a truly progressive stance would be to allow all, not merely the standard bearers of the “major” parties, not only into the “marketplace” of ideas, but onto the ballot where we could do more than just discuss them but actually VOTE for them.
I have been enormously frustrated with the so-called “progressive media” (PM). They go on and on about how bad the MSM are (with justification) but refuse to take a look in the mirror and engage in a little soul searching and critical self-examination. I have sent letters to them on this subject which they don’t print (”too long”) or if they do, do not address this issue. The fact of the matter is for all the explication of the terrible things wrong with the Rep., the major problems we as a people face, and a decent exploration of solutions, when it comes time to actually compare the stands of the various candidates, the only points generally mentioned are that Obama is better than McCain. Occasionally it is pointed out, as on your show of 6/2/08, that Obama’s war position is actually not what “we the people” seem to asking for; Mr. Cohen used the word “hope” with regard to getting an Obama administration to go further and Mr. Kim expressed the hope that progressives could “nudge” the Dem. platform in a more progressive direction. Good grief! Is that what the progressive movement has come to – hoping we can nudge Dems?
We don’t have time for nudging, we’ve been trying that for at least 15 years, and where did that get us? A candidate who asks us to keep hoping! I have worked in the healthcare field for over 20 years. We need more than hope. Obama’s healthcare plan is to insurance companies what Medicare Part D is to pharmaceutical firms – a huge subsidy! And it will NOT provide “universal healthcare”. Why won’t progressive media do more than mumble about this?
Much has been made about how 1/2 of Obama’s funding is coming from small donors on-line, but how about the other half? where is that coming from? Why hasn’t anyone pointed out that he espoused single payer in ‘03 (there’s a U-tube clip showing just that) but now backs away? Why can’t we point out the obvious – that Dems are more afraid of Harry and Louise than of Osama bin Laden, yet progressives think they can “nudge” them? With what? Pleas, marches, signs, even logic? Please, in what kind of real world can these over come big checkbooks? The only thing that will overcome the corporate influence that now controls both parties is a real challenge at the polls; they can have the biggest bank accounts on the planet but if they don’t have the votes they won’t win. Why can’t we have a real debate in progressive media about this? Why can’t we ask why the Dems tried to keep Nader off the ballot? Isn’t this a legitimate topic for discussion in the PM? If not, why not?
Why after all the brave, fearless talk in the PM about progressive issues do they nevertheless make every attempt to convince us that Obama’s Dem. platform is the best we can do, no matter how lousy it is?
The only way to do more than “nudge” the Dems is to make it clear that we will NOT vote for anyone who supports anything other than Medicare for all (single payer), who does not promise to get us out of Iraq, lock, stock(s) and barrel, who will not renounce NAFTA, WTO etc. with all the devastation these have wrought not only on American workers but on workers and farmers all over the planet. The Dems know that if there were an available candidate that supported these positions they would be in deep do-do. And that is why they will do there darnedest to make sure we do not have that choice. Look what they did to Kucinich – when he got the biggest cheers at the few debates he was allowed in, they silently “assented” to, if not engineered, his removal from further debate. If real choices were allowed the Dems would have to make a choice between corporate bucks and progressive values. By keeping those choices unavailable at the ballot box, they get to keep their corp. bucks, and our votes as a “default” position without ever earning them. And to me the real scandal for the progressive media is that the PM is actively assisting them in this endeavor!
You have come the closest of any I have seen in the PM so far to addressing this issue. I sincerely hope you will challenge your fellows in the PM as Donahue did in the MSM. Telling us that Obama is a “progressive” or that the Dems, as currently constituted, are the best we can do, is to my mind like telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction – a convenient fiction to advance a faulty political agenda when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
By Aquifer on June 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm