I am becoming extremely disenchanted with the Democratic Party. This feeling of uneasiness is not new, but has become consistent with each and every act of indifference to matters which I take quite seriously. Let me state right up front that being disenchanted does not necessarily mean that I will vote outside the Democratic Party. However, it does mean that I need to begin focusing on solutions that will not only impede the progress of neo-conservative madness, but also will demonstrate respect for myself, as well as for other progressives who feel marginalized.
We progressives expect to be marginalized by the wing nuts and conservative pundits whose perspective on life, love and compassion differs so dramatically from my own. However, to have come to a day and age where not only the media slants, blurs and outright lies about my opinion and motives, but to also have the Democratic leadership be so out of touch with my view of courage, righteousness and mutual respect is more than I seem to be able to bear.
The purpose of this diary is not to necessarily lash out at our present Democratic leadership, but to hopefully have some posters help me to identify what can be done to stop this downward spiral into the destruction of everything for which this country stands. How is it possible to get our leadership in Washington to actually consider our opinions above those of Bill O’Reilly?
The beginning of my disenchantment happened in San Francisco in 2003, although I could consider the lame protection of my voting rights since at least the 2000 election to be the tipping point. This was the year that Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, was elected mayor of San Francisco. Even though this is not necessarily a bad thing, the way he achieved this office disturbs me to this day.
His opponent during this election was Matt Gonzalez, a Green Party candidate. He lost to Mayor Newsom in a 52%- 48% vote. Though the vast majority of progressives were behind Gonzalez, the Democratic establishment wasn’t. Why would a Democratic candidate in a predominantly Democratic city require the help of Bill Clinton?
Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi: Democrats in the last few weeks have gone all out to elect Newsom and defeat the Green Gonzalez.
And yet it was the Republican vote, not the Democratic vote that sent Newsom to the mayor’s office.
And indeed, if you look at the totals, it's likely the Republicans, not the Democrats, put Newsom over the top. There are about 58,000 registered Republicans in San Francisco, and Chris Bowman, a GOP political analyst, estimates that about 34,000 of them voted. Of those, he told the Bay Guardian, probably 80 percent supported Newsom. That amounts to 27,200 votes – or a differential in the Republican vote of 20,400 – and Newsom won the election by just 15,000 votes.
So the Democratic leaders worked on satisfying the San Francisco Republican voter at the expense of the majority of Democrats.
I know many will claim that it is party politics and they needed to rally behind Newsom and yada, yada, yada. However, this defense of their actions does not relieve the upset by the majority of Democratic voters in that city.
Then, when they should have come to the rescue of a Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont, they fell silent.
Sure, Hillary's offered Lamont her perfunctory "following the will of the people" support and a check for 5 grand, but her actions seem to validate the behind-the-scenes rumblings I'm hearing that she'd much rather see Lieberman win. Could it be that she thinks a Lieberman win will diffuse the hits she'll inevitably take in 2008 for having, like Joe, been a bellicose backer of the war in Iraq? It's as if she's wishing that she could put the war repudiation genie back in the bottle. She's not raising money for Lamont and she's not yet scheduled any campaign appearances with him either. It's not by accident that their meeting is in Chappaqua, not Connecticut. The mountain/Mohammad casting is clear. Compare her actions with those of John Kerry and John Edwards who are doing all they can to help Lamont.
Not every Democrat betrayed the will of Democratic voters.
John Edwards said this:
"I do not think Lieberman should be running. I do not believe he should be running as an Independent. I mean, if he ran as a Democrat, he asked Democratic voters to vote for him, they chose someone else, you know, we have to show respect for the people who voted in the primary. So, I would go further than just being for Lamont. I do not think that Lieberman should be running."
Even though Connecticut Democrats chose Ned Lamont to represent them, the Democratic establishment refused to represent their decision.
Abandonment of the Democratic nominee by the Democratic Party: The story of the national Democratic Party’s abandonment of Lamont will likely be written more fully in the coming weeks, with explanations of both how this happened and even more importantly, why. But the broad strokes are obvious: Almost every major figure in national Democratic politics save John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Wes Clark and John Edwards refused to seriously help the Lamont campaign.
So, once again the Democratic establishment has appeased the will of Republican voters, while ignoring that of those they represent.
In this latest survey, Lieberman leads Lamont 73 - 6 percent among likely Republican voters, with 19 percent for Schlesinger, and 51 - 36 - 6 percent among independent voters, while likely Democratic voters back Lamont 56 - 37 percent.
We are all well aware of the capitulation on the Iraq war funding bill, as well as impeachment being off the table. Apparently, they know that we progressives have no where to go, so they, like Bush, seem to do as they please at the expense of those they represent. Letters, protests and polls, don’t appear to mean anything. Even when the public is behind them.
- Since the Iraq war began, do you think Congress has been assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration's conduct of the war, or has not been assertive enough?
Assertive enough Total(27%) Rep (54%) Dem (8%) Ind (27%)
Not assertive enough (64%) (31%) (87%) (69%)
Don't know/refused (9%) (15%) (5%) (4%)
- At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?
Yes, wish it was over Total(58%) Rep(21%) Dem(86%) Ind(27%)
No,do not (37%) (75%) (12%) (36%)
Don't know/Refused (5%) (4%) (2%) (5%)
Though I have only sighted a few examples, I am left to wonder whether the Democratic leadership defies these poll numbers because they know Democrats are included in the majority. I think our opinions should matter, but see no way of punishing those who defy them. Any suggestions?