I cancelled my Democracy Bond today - updated

I gladly helped in every way I could to get Democrats elected to Congress.

I wanted the Democrats to stop the Bush administration with the power derived from our Constitution, to stand up and be the voice of the majority of Americans.  

I wanted them to restore and protect our Constitution.

I wanted them to stop the environmental rampage that is ruining our children's futures, our health, and our economy.

I wanted them to stop the war in Iraq, stop the profit motive for being there.  

They have all of this and more within their power.

But they have done none of these things.

At the end of the day, I am still a Democrat.  I will still give to individual candidates, much like I did to Darcy Burner recently.

Magical September was my litmus test for continued monetary support of the party.

They have clearly failed my test.

However, I can do something about that:  my blank check to the Democratic party has now stopped.  They won't miss my $500 per year, but I will be happy to have it back.  As I find candidates worth supporting, I'll contribute to them instead of the Democratic party.

As part of a large group of small contribtors, I haven't seemingly been able to steer this party anywhere.  However, as a small group of potential donors to progressive candidates, maybe I can make more of a difference.

It's sad, because I believed in Howard Dean's promise.  But he is not leading the party, and it is going sideways in Congress.  So, I'm done.  

Probably the funniest part about it was they were completely easy about it, and didn't ask once why I was canceling.  I guess they have had a lot of others doing the same recently, and really, (just like most of the politicians in DC now) don't want to know why.

************************
Update1:  To be completely clear, this diary isn't about HRC, it's about the latest Congressional rollever, giving Bush yet another blank check for Iraq.  This is about spending what we don't have on a war we don't want killing people we don't know so that contractors can make a huge profit.  

•  End of Magical September

  with no action means:

  End of my financial support for the Democratic party.

  Good luck Democrats, you don't seem to need my money.  

  by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:49:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm sending all my contributions to Act Blue

    Democrats.  I've been focusing on some local races recently, including donating to Larry Kissell.

    by funluvn1 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:51:19 AM PDT

    •  The DC Dems Have Their K Street Strip Mine

      for all the cash they need. They don't need or want the grassroots for anything but a rubberstamp. That's why Stenny Hoyer is MAD at us!  

      They know the country is going to be whacking the Rethugs again, and they want to suck up corporate cash and stave off the base as long as they can.

      Let's face it... the corpocrocs give a few hundred million a year and get back a few hundred billion.

      Wouldn't you want that gravy train to go on as long as you could string it out?

      Well, probably not, the fact that you wrote this shows you have some kind of moral code beyond grasping for money and power.

      --Lefty!!!

      by LeftyLimblog on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:57:22 AM PDT

      •  The K Street "White House in exile"

        is eager to bring their corporatists to the WH.
        

        by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:14:36 AM PDT

•  $500 to ActBlue netroots candidates

  would be a good alternative!!

  by DaveV on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:49:49 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    I did want to (in a very small way) let the DC Democrats know that this is at least a small outcome of their inability to follow the will of the people.  I will consider it.

    by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:51:40 AM PDT

    •  I'm with you. DNC, DSCC, DCCC, get nothing...

      from me.  All through ActBlue.  I hope they get the message that the last year has been a miserable failure.

      by DaveV on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:59:21 AM PDT

•  My view on it

  Why the Dems turned on Democratic Voters

  by cskendrick on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:52:46 AM PDT

•  Don't blame Howard

  You know he's doing everything he can. His hands are tied as party chairman. I wish he'd quit and run for President himself.

  by elmo on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:55:52 AM PDT

  •  I don't blame anybody anymore

    I don't really care who is to blame so much.  I wanted, if nothing else a complete lack of action on the part of Congress:  Don't send anything for Bush to sign.

    That clearly wasn't in the cards.  Neither was standing up to Bush at all.

    I can't control them, but I can control my pocketbook.

    by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:58:13 AM PDT

  •  he made a promise not to

    And he's sticking to it.

    Funny, that.

    by kamarvt on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:41:46 AM PDT

•  Oh, I Don't Know

  Democracy Bond money goes to Howard Dean's organization at the DNC, not to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, for one thing.

  by bink on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:56:27 AM PDT

  •  It goes to party building

    and they have failed as far as I'm concerned as a party.  There aren't many others in Congress who would have led differently, and those who would have are likely unable to get leadership roles in the Congress.

    I'll give to candidates that want the insanity to stop, not to profit from it politically.  It makes them no better than the contractors who truly are profiting off of the death of the Iraqi state.

    by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:00:47 AM PDT

    •  Building the party

      means helping each and every state Democratic Party.  So by canceling your bond, you're undermining your state's party organization from Congress on down.  If you're okay with that, more power to you.

      But he is not leading the party, and it is going sideways in Congress.

      There are two different thoughts here:

      1. Howard Dean is the DNC Chair and a leader of the party.

      2. Howard Dean isn't in Congress.  So while he confers with Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi, his influence on the Hill doesn't extend to deciding what Democrats do in Congress.  Harry & Nancy do.

      by mini mum on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:59:03 AM PDT

      •  A Hillary prez will affect down ticket Dems

        by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:18:02 AM PDT

        •  And this is based on what?

          Not this nonsense, I hope, since it was pretty well debunked.

          by mini mum on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:33:50 AM PDT

          •  Well - Obama won't be the nominee -

            but there were other articles, prior to this Biden/Lake survey, indicating Hillary will affect down ticket Dems and state Dems are concerned. The Clintons have been locking up support from state and federal Dems for years to combat it.
            Here's a recent LAT - but there are other earlier articles.

            by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:54:12 AM PDT

      •  There are other ways than through

        the central party.

        In fact, ways that emphasize important parts of the party.  Howard Dean isn't in office, and therefore has to be careful about using his bullhorn too much.  The current state of things in Congress is not acceptable to me, and I will give to my party locally.

        I am usually not a litmus test sort of person, but the complete rollover on the war by congressional democrats over this entire year has given me a new perspective on giving money.  There are some litmus tests that I have, and I will not bend on them any more.

        by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:52:44 AM PDT

        •  If the beef is with Democrats in Congress,

          then your beef is with DCCC and DSCC, not the Democratic National Committee.

          by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:59:21 AM PDT

•  It's good business to be "easy about it."

  Would it have been more satisfying if they weren't?

  by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:08:08 AM PDT

  •  No,

    I just thought they would at least ask why I was cancelling.  That's all.  I wasn't looking for a fight, I just wanted someone to ask why.

    It's not like they were going to "change course" anyway, so...

    by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:32:17 AM PDT

    •  "May I ask why?" can be a provocative question.

      Why provoke? Thank the customer for his business and wish him well. The very last thing you want to do is risk insulting the customer on his way out the door, in case he has second thoughts.

      If we say we want the Democrats to be the party of respect for individuals, then what's the objection?

      by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:35:34 AM PDT

    •  I am more disgusted than Prof Dave

      I received a call from the Democratic Party and one of the first things the guy said was "You know there really is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party."  I never thought I would receive a call like that.  I told him I was disgusted with the Democratic Party.  I am more disgusted with the party than Prof because I think people have been trying to reform the party from within and from without with no success at all.  If anything it has gotten worse.

      by realtime on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:44:43 AM PDT

      •  Tell us more about the call. Who made it,

        and what was the reason for the call?

        by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:57:23 AM PDT

        •  I think it was the Democratic Party

          or related institution like the DCCC.  I donated to Dean and worked for him when he ran so they have a record.  I live in California and used to belong to the West LA Dem club.  I do not know exactly who it was and I have gotten calls before. I gave a small amount to Edwards twice.

          by realtime on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:20:55 AM PDT

          •  Well, thanks for the follow-up. n/t

            by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:39:18 AM PDT

•  But they promise to do better

  ...just wait until after the 2013 elections...you'll see.

  by born socialist on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:12:38 AM PDT

•  I cancelled my Democracy Bond

  Interesting - so did I - but for another reason. The DNC, that's the Democratic National Committee, scheduled trainings across the country for Democrats to become more effective. That's the good news. They scheduled them for the afternoon of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish religious year.

  How could this happen? Well, let's see. No one had a calendar so they didn't know. Yes, that's quite possible. People had calendars and no one gave a damn. Yes, that's also quite possible. They didn't have calendars and no one in that damned office had any sensitivity to the issue - that's what I think. But you know what? They crossed the line, for me, and I have pulled my financial support.

  I love Howard Dean and his 50 State strategy is the only way to go and he has had the guts to stick to it. That's the good news. But this issue of respect crossed a very important line for me. And yes, it is interesting that no one, NO ONE at the National Party is trying to find out why people are pulling their contributions from the DNC.

  by skilfor on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:27:07 AM PDT

  •  And that was the only such training? n/t

    by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:31:49 AM PDT

•  I have done likewise

  and got the same treatment....cancelled...no questions asked.  This is not a party which has even the remotest interest in what you think.  

  Can you imagine any organization which has lost your support not asking you why you are calling a halt?

  Nancy Pelosi seems to have disappeared, except for occasional brief appearances to whine about why she and the Party have no power to do anything.

  ....and yet they seem perfectly capable to doing things....approving FISA gutting, approving more money for the war, approving resolutions condemning MoveOn.

  In the entire time I gave to the Party, I never received a single message from anyone telling me what they were doing with my support.  Very bad marketing.  Very bad.

  From now on, contributions only to candidates who support what I believe in.  The Democrats need to get out of DC and move their headquarters into Worldwide Pants.

  by dweb8231 on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:27:26 AM PDT

  •  You're disappointed that they were decent

    and respectful? What's that about?

    by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:32:47 AM PDT

    •  Clearly

      you don't get that not asking why someone is stopping their financial support of an organization is a form of disrespect:  they don't care enough to ask.

      Just because they were politely not interested doesn't mean much.  Certainly better than being rude, but to not even ask?  Usually, when someone stops their support, there is a reason.

      by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:34:59 AM PDT

      •  "Clearly" means you lose. Because if it IS clear,

        you don't need to beg the question.

        by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:36:27 AM PDT

•  I don't blame you,

  although I would like to see HD's efforts at DNC continue [cancelling his funding just provides fodder for the DLC types--Carville & Begala] as long as they can.

  I'm too discouraged for words. Yet, I'll continue.... The 2006 election was supposed to be a turning point.  One of my cousins said, a few days after the elections, that it was the best election in 20 years [and I agreed].  

  Think about that-- 20 years.  For 20 years we have been hoping for dems to be dems and quit cowering to the repubs and allowing them to define the debate.  Now that the dems are in the majority, what happens?  Sure, some of you younger people will say to have patience.  But you haven't been involved for 20 years.

  After [me] being completely deflated by Adam's diary on public financing, I don't see HRC losing the primary.

  If HRC takes the presidency, we'll be in the dark for at least 8 years.  Unless she moves left to the extent that gwb moved right, that's it for Dean.  That's it for the "people-powered" influence or a government for the people.  That's it for crashing any gates.  And it's business as usual.

   

  by dfarrah on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:53:39 AM PDT

  •  More eloquently said

    than I possibly could.

    This resonates with me. I feel like we fought with the party to enlighten its soul, and lost.  

    I don't know what else to do, than just be extremely picky with my support and stop reading blogs and newspapers much.

    by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:56:10 AM PDT

    •  "Enlighten its soul"? They're not Purity Bonds,

      they're Democracy Bonds.

      by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:58:37 AM PDT

      •  i don't think appealing to reasonableness...

        ...is going to work here.

        fine. these people have taken their toys and gone home, for a variety of reasons. i still have my democracy bond. i support the 50 state strategy. i support dr dean and individual candidates. i don't support the DSCC and the DCCC for a variety of reasons related to the last election cycle, but i do contribute to individual senate and congressional candidates. let's just say rahm and chuck and i differ on which candidates best embody democratic principles. the point is, though, that i give, just to different candidates. i don't pout and withhold support.

        by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:08:50 AM PDT

        •  How long have you been

          politically involved?

          by dfarrah on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:18:31 AM PDT

          •  i campaigned for eugene mccarthy in 1968.

            not much before that, though. i supported johnson over goldwater, but was just a kid back then.

            by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

            •  Clean for Gene! ;) n/t

              by Caldonia on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:06:32 AM PDT

              •  i was a dirty hippie.

                i cut a swath going door to door in those nice florida suburbs. most of them had never seen a longhair in person before. they gazed at me, mezmerized.

                by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

        •  Camp - great comment -

          but this is negated -

          let's just say rahm and chuck and i differ on which candidates best embody democratic principles

          by your support for a DLC candidate. Do you not see the contradiction?

          by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:23:33 AM PDT

          •  heh.

            here is a link to a membership list for the New Democratic Movement, which was founded by the DLC, and is composed of members of two chamber-specific DLC organizations, the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997) and the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000).

            there are the clintons in the "c"s, but if you keep looking further down the list, in the "e"s...

            oh dear.

            by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:40:05 AM PDT

            •  Oh puleeeeze!

              Although he was invited many times to join, John Edwards was never a member of the DLC but was elected in 98 along with other reps from red states as a "New Democrat."
              Obviously, Edwards was more interested in representing The People - not the corporatists - evidenced by his speech to the DLC in 2002.
              Bill Clinton was President of the DLC in 1992 - and was elected POTUS.
              Hillary is Leader of the DLC in 2007 - and hopes to be elected POTUS.

              by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:03:15 AM PDT

              •  He was a member.

                Accept it.

                by Caldonia on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:08:03 AM PDT

                •  usually annefrank TRs me...

                  ...when i trap him/her into a position s/he can't wiggle out of. i have quite a collection ;-)

                  by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:09:44 AM PDT

                •  Edwards was never a member - but Hillary still is

                  by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:14:58 AM PDT

                  •  sure. why should we believe our lying eyes?

                    by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

                    •  COL n/t

                      by Caldonia on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:31:49 AM PDT

                    •  Yes - Hillary is a Corporate Democrat

                      She's STILL leading the DLC - after all these years of FAILED Centrism. But it hasn't failed for the Clinton$ - just the Dem Party and The People.

                      by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 10:15:08 AM PDT

                      •  and Edwards is a DLC member.

                        by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:20:51 PM PDT

              •  so he didn't join...

                ...but was elected. i'm sure there's some distinction there, but i'm not following. did the dlc kidnap him, hold him hostage, and force him to address their annual meeting? was it a patty hearst type thing? did they rename him "tanya"?

                by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:08:22 AM PDT

                •  "tanya" lmao n/t

                  by Caldonia on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:09:11 AM PDT

          •  wtf?

            So do you.  Don't you see the contradiction?  Never mind, I already know the answer.

            by Caldonia on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:07:29 AM PDT

        •  You just don't understand, do you?

          What Dean stood for is the opposite of what HRC stands for, even if she has a liberal voting record.  It's great that you support Dean. The Clintons don't like Dean or what he stood for.

          Again, HRC's liberal voting record aside [without getting into her right wing tendancies], the dlc wing of the party has been nothing but contemptuous of us.

          by dfarrah on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:26:43 AM PDT

          •  so you're calling on all hillary supporters...

            ..to cancel their democracy bonds and resign from the party? lemme check with dr dean first, if you don't mind.

            by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:32:35 AM PDT

            •  Is what you accuse me of anywhere in my comments?

              All I did was express an understanding of the diarist's point of view.

              As long as Dean is in charge of growing the party, I'll give to the DNC.  I expect that he, as well the entire progressive movement, will be entirely eclipsed if HRC is pres.

              by dfarrah on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:47:03 AM PDT

              •  you mean if he leaves office when his term is up.

                so that's hillary's fault too? i'm having a hard time keeping track of all the damage she's doing. you guys keep expanding the list at such an alarming rate ;-)

                by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:53:31 AM PDT

                •  He's not term limited, you know.

                  Recall that HRC had absolutely nothing to do with the movement that accompanied Dean.  Recall that HRC was behind Clark's entry into the race; the DLC types feared a huge loss if Dean were to succeed.

                  Who was attracting people to the dem party during 2002-2004?  It certainly wasn't HRC.  She was part and parcel of the group of dems that Dean blasted at the dem convention.

                  Like I said, IMO, progressives will not have much influence on an HRC White House.  

                  We'll just have to start all over again after 8 years of HRC, like when Dean ran for pres---start convincing people that the dems aren't the same as the repubs, start convincing people that their vote and voice can make a difference, etc.

                  [and, now that the dems are in a majority, do you realize how difficult it will be?  At least previously, dem supporters could say, oh wait until we get the majority, then things will change]

                  What fun it will be, starting at zero [or zero + 1/2], all over again.

                  by dfarrah on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 09:50:01 AM PDT

        •  Did you read what I wrote?

          I said that I would be giving to indiviudal candidates, which puts me in line with what you are doing (for a variety of reasons).

          If I am pouting and withholding support, we seem to be doing it together.

          by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:40:00 AM PDT

          •  i'm doing both.

            i keep my democracy bond- it's needed for party development and the 50 state strategy. i also give to individula candidates, like you. see, you didn't read what i wrote.

            by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

            •  just a matter of degree

              I can support the kind of party I want by supporting individual candidates.

              If you are fine with generic party members and no voice or ability to change what they are doing, giving to the DNC is fine.  I just don't agree with that anymore, and have put my money where my mouth is, as I had been previously.  No tears, just a change in course.

              by Prof Dave on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:45:45 AM PDT

              •  Straw man. Time out, professor. n/t

                by ticket punch on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

                •  now, you know it's best to ignore tantrums.

                  let them cry it out.

                  by campskunk on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:51:17 AM PDT

•  ok

  have a nice day.

  Peace,

  Andrew

  by Andrew C White on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:05:29 AM PDT

•  I cancel mine if hillary is the nominee

  I also will leave the Party, for we will have become our enemy.

  by Zacapoet on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:11:56 AM PDT

  •  There are MANY congressional Dems

    like DLC Emanuel, who prefer another DLC Clinton president - and continuance of the pay-to-play lobbyist game. I'm a lifelong Democrat and worked in both Clinton campaigns - but will not vote for Hillary.

    by annefrank on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:30:51 AM PDT