CAFTA Vote Outs "Bush Democrats"

The Central American Free Trade Agreement, which was such a high priority for the Bush administration that the president personally lobbied Congressional Republicans on the issue Wednesday, passed the House by two votes.

Those two votes came from members who can best be described as "Bush Democrats."

The final vote on CAFTA was 217-215 in favor of the deal, the closest margin possible -- as a tie vote would have prevented approval.

Of the 217 supporters of the bill, 202 were Republicans and 15 were Democrats.

Of the 215 opponents of the bill, 187 were Democrats, 27 were Republicans and one was an independent, Vermont's Bernie Sanders.

The Republicans who split with the president withstood immense pressure from the White House and corporate lobbyists in order to take a stand with the organized labor, environmental, farm and international human rights groups that opposed the agreement. They were so courageous and so consistent in their determination to block the president's agenda that, during the floor debate, Representative Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who led opposition to CAFTA, specifically praised Republicans such as Idaho's Butch Otter and North Carolina's Walter Jones for their efforts.

On the other hand, the Democrats who supported Bush's agenda faced little or no pressure from the White House. Nor did they show anything akin to courage or consistency. They simply voted with the White House because, either they agree with the president's misguided approach to global trade or they thought they could trade their votes for big contributions from the corporate interests that see the NAFTA/CAFTA model of free trade as an opportunity to improve business bottom lines at the expense of workers, the environment and communities in the U.S. and Latin America.

Let's give the Bush Democrats the benefit of the doubt and accept that they actually support the corporate model for trade that Bush backs. This puts them at odds with mainstream Democrats on what can only be described as the most fundamental of economic issues -- as trade deals get into the core questions of whether American workers will have jobs, whether communities can maintain their industrial bases, whether government has the power to protect the environment, and whether the U.S. government will be a willing co-conspirator in the exploitation of men, women and children in developing countries.

So, unless they are crooks who trade their votes for campaign checks, the Bush Democrats are supporters of a corporate agenda that Representative Robert Menendez -- a New Jersey Democrat who has a long history of involvement with Latin American affairs -- explained during the CAFTA debate would harm U.S. workers and farmers while plunging Central American countries deeper into poverty and causing more Latin Americans to migrate to the U.S.

At the least, this suggests that the Bush Democrats -- Melissa Bean of Illinois, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Norm Dicks of Washington, Ruben Hinojosa of Texas, William Jefferson of Louisiana, Jim Matheson of Utah, Gregory Meeks of New York, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Jim Moran of Virginia, Solomon Ortiz of Texas, Ike Skelton of Missouri, Vic Snyder of Arkansas, John Tanner of Tennessee, and Edolphus Towns of New York -- are on the wrong side of history, and of humanity.

But does this one vote, necessarily, make them Bush Democrats?

Let's look at where they lined up on other economic issues that matter to the Bush White House?

When the so-called "bankruptcy reform" bill came up earlier this year, the White House and Wall Street favored a "yes" vote to make it harder for working Americans who get hit with a medical emergency or some other form of crisis to get back on their feet financially. Twelve of the pro-CAFTA Democrats -- Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton and Tanner -- voted with the White House.

On the so-called "tort-reform" legislation that passed the House earlier this year, and which will make it dramatically harder for individuals who are wronged by corporations to hold them accountable, nine of pro-CAFTA Democrats voted with the White House and Wall Street: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner.

But what about other issues that are top White House priorities, such as the war in Iraq.

Of the pro-CAFTA Democrats, six backed the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war in Iraq: Dicks, Jefferson, Matheson, Moore, Skelton and Tanner, while another four were either not serving in the House or did not vote: Bean, Cooper, Cuellar and Ortiz.

When the House voted on California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's May, 2005 amendment that sought to begin taking steps to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, only Hinojosa, Jefferson, Meeks, Moran and Towns voted in favor of seeking an exit strategy. (On the question of whether to hand the Bush administration another $82 billion for the war, only Meeks and Towns voted for holding the White House accountable with regards to the war.)

So where does this leave us:

On fundamental economic issues, Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Hinojosa, Matheson, Meeks, Moore, Moran and Tanner are consistent Bush Democrats.

On a broader array of issues, Hinojosa, Meeks and Moran move off the list.

But it is safe to say that, whether the issue is peace or prosperity, Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Matheson, Moore and Tanner take the side of a White House that has consistently been at odds with both those goals.

Progressives in the labor, environmental, human rights, consumer and peace movements will have to decide where to draw the line -- either by withdrawing active support or by aggressively promoting Democratic primary or third-party general election challenges -- with regards to the Bush Democrats. Some will decide, as key unions already have, to withhold backing of the 15 House Democrats who backed CAFTA.

Others will focus their anger on the nine who, using measures suggested by activist and writer David Sirota, are the most consistent backers of Bush's corporations-first economic agenda.

It is notable that, of the six members who are with Bush when it comes to the economy and the war, Bean, Matheson and Moore come from swing districts where they are likely to be extremely vulnerable in the fall of 2006. Cooper, Cuellar and Tanner come from more decidedly Democratic districts where they might well be more vulnerable to Democratic primary challenges.

Of the rest of the pro-CAFTA 15, Dicks, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Meeks, Moran, Ortiz, Skelton, Snyder and Towns come from districts that trend Democratic -- although Skelton's Missouri district and Snyder's Arkansas district, could be swing turf.

By most measures, however, Dicks, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Meeks, Moran, Ortiz and Towns represent districts where an economic populist challenge in a Democrat primary could be significant.

The safe bet is that, in the next Congress, most of these members will still be present. But if even one or two Bush Democrats fall, either because of their CAFTA vote or because of a broader pattern of backing the White House on economic and foreign affairs issues, the president will have to look deeper into his own Republican caucus for support. He won't be able to rely on the Bush Democrats, as was the case with CAFTA.

Comments (116)

1. Yes a 3rd party is a wonderful idea. Split...Divide...Breakoff.. 1!st its the Unions..Now the NUTTY LIBS....

   God Bless America, Land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America, My home sweet home.

   Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 2:19pm

2. I'm a bit disappointed that Mr. Nichols mentioned only labor's "failing to support" and, at most, primary challenges to the CAFTA 15. I take this to mean the third party challenge promoted by some of us here remains off the table for organized labor.

   Where is the Labor Party now that we need it? Will Stern's occcassional pronouncements in support of independent labor politics find expression in anything concrete?

   It strikes me that this is a perfect opportunity for new ideas along these lines to see the light of day.

   Posted by john.halle at 07/28/2005 @ 2:27pm

3. As I have said before, Norm Dicks represents all that is wrong with the Democratic Party. He is fat (figuratively and literally) from money from the military-industrial complex (Boeing, etc.) He always votes with big corporations, and they reward him well. His district is full of military dependents and redneck loggers. Democrats like him convince me that the Democratic Party is doomed. A progressive labor party is needed.

   Posted by philbq at 07/28/2005 @ 2:53pm

4. PHILBQ - Either these guys are replaced by those who represent the economic interests of regular people or the Democratic party is DOOMED. Why should people vote for Democrats when they can get the same economic policies from the GOP but without all of the uncomfortable social baggage on abortion, prayer, guns, gays etc. It's as if the Democrats have had a death wish, or have been bought off/infiltrated, for the past 35 years. Amazing.

   Posted by wgilwood at 07/28/2005 @ 3:16pm

5. Abortion, prayer, guns, gays etc. - Bait used by the GOP to snag working class voters; cyanide for the Democratic party. It seems as if the Democrats are committing assisted suicide, cooperating with the GOP, by hammering these issues.

   Posted by wgilwood at 07/28/2005 @ 3:21pm

6. WIGLWOOD has hit on something important: the Republicans have used the social issues(gays,abortion, guns, etc.) to trick working people into voting against their own economic interests. I find this amazing and depressing. Every union worker who voted for Bush is guilty. And the Norm Dicks types in Congress vote with Bush on many issues: war, defense budget, international trade agreements that benefit transnational corporations. This is the cabal that is ruining this country.

   Posted by philbq at 07/28/2005 @ 3:31pm

7. " This is the cabal that is ruining this country."

   No its the last remnents of a once grand & great party. Where are the Scoop jacksons, the liebermans..even JFK was more of realist than the LOONIES that have hijacked this party to the dust heap of history...Can you say "WIGG PARTY"

   Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 3:38pm

8. If you want to do something constructive, then go to Paul Hackett's web site and offer support.

   Paul is a Veteran of the Iraq War and he is running for Congress, as a Democrat, in Ohio. This is a special election with voting to take place on Aug 1, 2005.

   Web site link: www.hackettforcongress.com

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/28/2005 @ 3:46pm

9. Excerpt from a MFSO post:

   We knew it was coming. A Republican posted a blog questioning whether Hackett had seen combat. Sound familiar?

   Luckily, Hackett struck back fast: Commanding a convoy under attack certainly counts as combat.

   (Hackett also pointed out that the veteran who made the Republican attack had NOT seen combat.)

   For the news clip, see: http://www.wkrc.com/mediacenter/?videoId=5521

   Go Hackett! http://www.hackettforcongress.com/

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/28/2005 @ 3:50pm

10. Have you fixed the "suspect" voter machines yet???I bet if this clown wins we wont hear a peep outta you LIBS about this election...So Typical

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 3:53pm

11. oraibi1952 wrote: "If you want to do something constructive, then go to Paul Hackett's web site and offer support.

    Paul is a Veteran of the Iraq War and he is running for Congress, as a Democrat, in Ohio. This is a special election with voting to take place on Aug 1, 2005.

    Web site link: www.hackettforcongress.com

    I saw this coming when hackett first hit the media a week or 2 ago. Let me say as a vet, I am proud of his service; my disagreemt (I'm not the suggested GOP protestor mentioned)is and should be with his politics. He was a admitted moderate liberal before being activated in the Reserves and remains so. My call to Ohio voters is to respect and admire his service but vote up or down based upon whether you agree with his political positions. His military service is what I have always said, the duty of every American male.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/28/2005 @ 3:58pm

12. ORAIBI1952: I concur! Go Hackett! If anyone wants to throw some last minute money into the Hackett fund go to Act Blue [actblue.com]!

    Posted by gearmonkey at 07/28/2005 @ 4:02pm

13. Posted by ALUDRA 07/28/2005 @ 3:53pm Have you fixed the "suspect" voter machines yet???I bet if this clown wins we wont hear a peep outta you LIBS about this election...So Typical

    Its my pleasure to say that you are a small person, carrying around a small mind and its always fun to see you try your mightiest to reach for the stars. "LOL"

    Posted by Jazzee at 07/28/2005 @ 4:11pm

14. Aren't you intellectuals "SMART" enough to answer the point instead of insulting???

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 4:13pm

15. http://www.blackboxvoter.org

    Posted by gearmonkey at 07/28/2005 @ 4:23pm

16. Aludra,

    Than why don't you say something intelligent. Make a statement. Don't just go ranting. When you refer to the "LIBS," it is incredibly funny. It's like one of my high schoolers calling someone a "dork." Isn't there a sorority function you need to get to?

    Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/28/2005 @ 4:38pm

17. Still Scared 0 ???

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 4:41pm

18. Sorry Zero, I just don't hear from someone so juvenile very often. It's like the little bully (or baby) in the back of the room!

    Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/28/2005 @ 4:42pm

19. What a complete cry-baby...thank GOD none of your ilk run this country!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 4:58pm

20. Aldura, amybe we could get some of your actual worldviews rather than rants to see "where you live." What is your view on environmental protection? Or on the use of child labor in 3rd world countries? Do you believe in evolution or are you a creationist?

    Fact of the matter is, we (meaning all us Americans) let this administration in either by voting for Dubya, or by not voting against him (scandals in some few swing states aside). So we just gotta tuff it out for now and maybe we can learn from this grand mistake.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/28/2005 @ 5:08pm

21. Left, I'd like to accomodate you, but I have to ask permission from the Likes of "Zero,eFFINgrits and the other marxists on this blog.

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 5:14pm

22. Posted by ALUDRA: than the LOONIES that have hijacked this party I bet if this clown wins we wont hear a peep outta you LIBS about this election...So Typical Aren't you intellectuals "SMART" enough to answer the point instead of insulting???

    Insulting? Looks like you started it with all your nasty posts on this list (see above). So you set the tone of the comments. You know, you get on these pages and make the expected hateful, republican comments that do nothing but further divide this nation. You have no answer and you pose nothing but double standards and hypocrisy. Actually I think we should drop the machines and do it the old fashioned way, but that would mean Democrats would win more elections, wouldn't it? If a Dem won, you can damn well bet you Repugs will shout to high heaven about it. Just look at the still disputed race in WA where the Repugs won't give up, despite the recounts and look who forced the 2000 recounts (check your info and you will find it wasn't Gore, but the Bushies).

    What I cannot fathom is that we live with a Repub Administration, Repub House, Senate and Supreme Court and you still complain and get on a site like this and continue the usual "blame the liberals". That is just laughable. What in the world possesses you people to be so mean all the time? Are you so driven by hate and greed? I have more to do with my time than lurk on opposing party sites and make ugly comments. Get a life and practice your so-called "family values".

    Posted by jillm at 07/28/2005 @ 5:15pm

23. "What I cannot fathom is that we live with a Repub Administration, Repub House, Senate and Supreme Court and you still complain and get on a site like this and continue the usual "blame the liberals". That is just laughable."

    Sorry it takes a few years to UNDO LIBERAL DAMAGE that has been inflicted on this country for the past 40 years

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 5:19pm

24. I think this comment section was put here to talk about CAFTA and now we are into personal attacks and off topic. I agree with Zero and often times I stay away from these comment pages because there is always a lurker who spews out the personal attack comments.

    If you lurk here, at least comment on CAFTA and the people who voted for or against it.

    Posted by jillm at 07/28/2005 @ 5:20pm

25. UNDO LIBERAL DAMAGE that has been inflicted on this country for the past 40 years

    Ok, so you are saying that Reagan, Nixon, Bush Sr. and all the Republicans who have been in office in the past 40 years and so forth were Liberals doing damage? Wow, I didn't know they were "LIBS". Did anyone else know that? Gosh, I am out of touch apparently. I could have sworn they were part of the Republican party. Ah, I guess that means Watergate was all "LIBERAL DAMAGE".

    But we digress....

    Posted by jillm at 07/28/2005 @ 5:24pm

26. I've stayed too long. Sorry I will miss the insulting comebacks, but I have small children to raise and teach to love, not hate and hopefully make sound, ethical decisions when they grow up. I am sad that the time I wasted here was not spent learning more about the ins and outs of CAFTA, but rather how I fear this ugly world we are leaving for our children.

    Posted by jillm at 07/28/2005 @ 5:26pm

27. Sorry....just wanted to see if Aldura would sling anything other than epithets and excrement. Point in fact, many of the social reforms in the US arose from liberal beginnings. At one point Liberal referred to "progressive" and Conservative "status quo" agendas. Now both are free-formed into insults which is unwarranted on both sides.

    For the record, it was a R-Pres (Ron Reagan) that spent well beyond anything reasonable, into national debts that only Dubya has managed to exceed - although he HAS done it faster. (Clinton actually balanced the budget...remember. Talk about confusion between conservative and liberal values.)

    CAFTA is just another ill-founded bill that will do our nation no good and potentially harm in the med. to long term.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/28/2005 @ 5:33pm

28. ...argument with spam produces spam squared...

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/28/2005 @ 5:41pm

29. Zero, I disagree; the arguments are often as tedious and off topic as the provocations.

    Question on 3rd parties, something I think about often - are they to be used as ends in themselves or as a prod to force the democrats in a certain direction? This is a debate I wish had started in 2000 - maybe fewer Nader voters would have redirected their votes to Gore at the last minute. It is one thing to barely cost someone an election (a big maybe in that case anyway), but if Nader votes had decisively spoiled it then the democrats would have HAD to deal. With very small numbers of third party voters (microscopic by 2004) they are easy to smear, castigate, abuse, ignore.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/28/2005 @ 6:33pm

30. Why dont you move to CUBA....I bet you would like the politics there

    Posted by aludra at 07/28/2005 @ 6:45pm

31. Well the main problem in 2004 wasn't burning Nader, it was burning Dean. And it can't all be blamed on the press either - the problem is regular everyday democrats who think they know what constitutes "electability". Most polls showed that people voted for Kerry because they thought he could win, not because they liked him best. Voters think they are being sophisticated and stifle themselves instead.

    I won't cast protest votes in the dark. Unless voters who feel like we do organize and make some coherent demands - make it very clear and public what we will and will not vote for - then it will be incredibly easy to write us off.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/28/2005 @ 7:44pm

32. Sometimes, when one cannot debate, usually due to a lack of any knowledge, one slurs, cuts, rips and pretends to have guts by uusing rough speech. But, the great majority of Americans, and I am sure, bloggers here, can debate right or left. And, many of us are truly tough and have proved it, in service to our country or in other activities that require intestinal fortitude. A gentle person would not use one's name in a slur, not to the face of the name holder. That would take courage the ripper surely does not have.

    Cafta is a mistake that we will soon see in the movement of Ameerican businesses to Central America.

    Posted by potomac at 07/28/2005 @ 8:39pm

33. First of all, thanks to Vic for the serious, pointed and intellgent questions about third parties. His are precisely the sorts of questions which need to be discussed here since for the most part they will not be discussed in the Nation.

    I agree with Zero that, if they are exercised strategically, third party challenges can serve as an end in themselves as well as a weapon to force concessions from the major party candidates.

    An excellent example was the Matt Gonzalez Green Party campaign for mayor of San Francisco which came very close to succeeding. Newsom, the Democrat, acquired his small margin of victory not by Democratic votes-in fact a majority of registered Dems voted for Gonzalez, but rather registered Republicans who were almost unanimously in support of him to head off Gonzalez. You can imagine something very similar happening if a serious third party candidate emerged on a national level. You would see an alignment of establishment Democratic hacks-some of whom are participating in this discussion-and right wingers of various stripes who recognize that that a collapse of the corporate wing of the Democrats would be disatrous for their objective interests. They would be likely to desert the Republican if the corporate Dem appeared to be the more viable candidate to head off the anti-corporate insurgency. (Something a little bit like this began to happen in the recent election in Great Brittain where the tories almost completely collapsed due to the right defecting to Blair)

    In any case, after his election, in order to re-establish his credibility with progressives, Newson had to do something dramatic, and that's when the gay marriage initiative was acted on. It never would have happened had not there been serious pressure from Gonzalez. Of course, Newsom's pro business agenda remained intact but he recognized that a big concesssion on the "social" front was necessary and, while it had the effect of permanently destroying any chance Newsom has for higher office, it is what the Green Party challenge forced him into.

    On a related subject, everyone should read John Nichols excellent piece on Bernie Sanders-the third party congressman who, it appears, will walk into the U.S. Senate in 2006.

    I wish that Nichols had spent a little bit more time going over Sanders upward trajectory-from local, to state, to national office. I mention this because, from what I can tell there is no good reason why we could not have 25 or 30 Bernie Sanders who followed the same trajectory into the house. The (bad) reason why there is not, it seems to me, is that, as a rule, the left is suspicious and sometimes even contemptuous of electoral politics, and greatly underestimates its potential. "If the people lead, the leaders will follow" is an commonly heard slogan. It is also completely wrong-as we saw after the huge anti-war demonstrations, the people led, and the leaders (the elected officials) ran in the opposite direction. Politics, as I said in a previous posting, is not about protest, it is about exercising power. This is something the left fails to understand at its peril.

    I also wish that Nichols had asked some pointed questions about why Sanders has not himself put energy into developing a broader third party movement which would have the capacity to support his initiaves-almost none of which have moved forward in the Congress. (My memory is that he has sponsored almost no legislation which has passed into law). I have heard some rather cynical explanations as to why Sanders has not invested himself in the enterprise of encouraging and supporting other third party and independent progressive candidates, though perhaps the explanation is that he has tried and he simply has not found that the ground is fertile-that he is, more or less, the only game in town for the reason just mentioned.

    I should mention that, for what its worth, was my own experience. After having been twice elected as a Green Party Alderman in New Haven, I didn't find that a critical mass was emerging which would have the potentional to build up a broader third party insurgency. In short, I found I was pretty much (with a few notable exceptions) alone. Its no fun being a voice in a wilderness, so I decided not to keep doing it.

    But perhaps the tide on this will turn.

    Let's hope so.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/28/2005 @ 9:32pm

34. That is very interesting information, John. A Green Party Alderman - is there anything on the web about your time?

    And I will definitely look into the article on Sanders you mention. Glad I hung around long enough for the tip.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/28/2005 @ 10:15pm

35. I hate to mention this, but after Jesse Ventura was elected to office in MN during the mid 90's (?), I was hoping that a third-party uprising would occur. That obviously has not happened, and any third party candidate on the ballot (minus Ross Perot) has been statistically ineffective.

    I like Sander's stance on the Patriot Act. As an independent, I see him playing less games then people on either side of the aisle. I wish there were more like him - ballsy!

    Posted by Daniel Rubin at 07/28/2005 @ 10:24pm

36. My name is Bill Scheurer, and I ran against Melissa Bean (one of the worst of the "Bush Democrats") in the 2004 primary, as a peace candidate. We want to run a third-party campaign in 2006, but it will take $15,000-20,000 just to get on the ballot. (Illinois is one of those states that require new parties to get 20x the number of signatures as the two established parties.) Someone, please set up a coalition or clearinghouse to get support and life into those campaigns that will challenge these incumbents. Do not let this go away with a few angry comments posted on a blog!

    Thank you,

    Bill Scheurer, Editor The PeaceMajority Report

    www.PeaceMajority.org

    Posted by Bill Scheurer at 07/28/2005 @ 10:27pm

37. In 2002 I was in Ireland at the time that they were installing their most recently elected government. There must have been 6 or 7 parties with significant representation, most of them some form of liberal party (labor, green, etc.). I wondered if any of you is familiar with how such a wide array of parties has come to exist in Ireland and other Western countries.

    I looked into the Green Party organization within my, sadly, red state and found a pathetic group of new agey hippies. I admire the National Green Party platform and would love to participate, but I know my limitations--I'm no organizer. I have only to look at my desk.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2005 @ 10:40pm

38. Bush Democrats are supporters of a corporate agenda that ... would harm U.S. workers and farmers while plunging Central American countries deeper into poverty and causing more Latin Americans to migrate to the U.S.

    I don't understand why so many progressives oppose immigration to the USA - despite our politics being controlled by the right wing machine for years now, this is a much better place to live than most anywhere in central america. Just for the sake of making the poor of the world better off, why shouldn't we fight for increased immigration? Just because they're not American doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to make them better off.

    Posted by strook at 07/28/2005 @ 11:03pm

39. To the oceans, white with foam Oh, dear--I see Aludra is foaming at the mouth again...

    Posted by slb at 07/28/2005 @ 11:19pm

40. The Democrats NEED to lose elections, more elections

    Well, Zero, you got your wish in 2000 and 2004, and look where it's gotten us: massive deficits, an unwinnable war that is bleeding our military dry, greater frequency of terrorist attacks worldwide, loss of liberty at home...

    The fact is that Democrats aren't going to lose elections to prograssive candidates; they're going to lose them to extremist Republicans if you insist on splitting the party. Look, I don't like the Lieberman wing of the party any more than you do, but you're not doing anyone but the Republicans any favors by sowing dissention within the Democratic party.

    Here's the formula: vote with your heart in the primaries, but vote with your head in the general election.

    Posted by slb at 07/28/2005 @ 11:48pm

41. John Halle:

    Not much of a resounding vote for 3rd parties. You argue for them, but you admit defeat in your own post. You write: "I agree with Zero that, if they are exercised strategically, third party challenges can serve as an end in themselves as well as a weapon to force concessions from the major party candidates." You cite as an example the mayor of S.F., Newson, was forced to change his social agenda, although you admit his ecoonomic agenda was unchanged. So, he illegally allowed gay marriage. Guess what, they've all been overturned in court. You also admit that your own experience with 3rd party politics has not been successful, and you have not seen much success local to you. You also admit that Bernie Sanders probably hasn't pursued expanding 3rd party nationally because he doesn't see much "fertile ground", as was you explanation for your poor experience.

    You also posted: "Politics, as I said in a previous posting, is not about protest, it is about exercising power. This is something the left fails to understand at its peril."

    So, a 3rd party, according to that statement, should not be about "protest", because that would be perilous. A 3rd party needs to be founded on it's own ideas. My question is: what are the ideas of the 3rd party you ran on, and what are ideas of the 3rd party you envision taking over 25 or 30 house seats? Do you see a 3rd party being able to take over the current two?

    If not, is it enough to simply be able to affect another major party, the way Newson was affected in S.F. to allow gay marriage? If that is enough, then isn't your statement that "politics... is not about protest, it is about exercising power" actually not completely true? Wouldn't protest actually have vitue? I believe yes, and I'll give a simple metaphor: basketball coaches harass referees all game long about tic-tac b.s. they don't really expect to have go their way, all in the hopes of wearing the refs down so they get the more important calls later on in the game. I point to the republian machine of sticking together and constantly protesting democrats' ideas as proof that over time people will be convinced. Why do you think Bush repeats the same things over and over and over? It's simple. The power of suggestion works. The Democrats don't get their message out coherently and cohesively, that's their problem. And the perfect microcosm of the Democratic party is John Kerry's run for president last year. He was labeled a flip flopper, and he did nothing to show American voters that that caricature of him was wrong.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2005 @ 03:12am

42. Quite a few progressives oppose immigration in its current form because it has the affect of driving down labor prices, which an hurt unionised workers. In particular, this notion is formed by readers of The Nation who view this as a 'bad thing'. This is true, of course, even of the high skilled workers that come to the US on visas, same effect. It has a more direct relationship with wage rates because they have entered an internal market not subject to duties, tariffs, or basically, they are in a free trade zone. I know, uttely abhorrent. Right.

    Bush pushed CAFTA because he needed the win - he never imagined it would be so difficult. It is actually a rather minor trade deal, in the scheme of things, and is a prelude to kickstarting the doha trade rounds, or really to keep them from dying. They are far more ambitious, and something The Nation is much more likely to object to when they see the final document.

    CAFTA does marginally increase the amount of sugar able to be imported in the US, which is at least proof that the sugar lobby isn't what it was. IMHO the sugar market in the US is one of the most economically distoring things that exist and those that benefit are extremely wealthy modern day plantation owners. Thank you corn syrup for keeping the price of coke low.

    'Labor' seems to be some sort of massive addiction. There is certainly a goal conflict when you purport to represent both sides, ie workers in BOTH countries. In this case, the poor will marginally benefit in the developing CAFTA countries and the poor (labor) in the US will marginally be hurt. It is, however, rather disproportionate - the low end benefits will flow in a greater proportion to the CAFTA countries while the high end (high price) benefits will, of course, go to the more capital intensive banks and the like. Which is a 'good thing' as that capital can be injected into CAFTA countries to make production more productive, products more available, and to generally add to the stock of the factors of production.

    Posted by semivoid at 07/29/2005 @ 06:56am

43. Mr Nichols, I think I can give you a GREAT reason the pro-CAFTA Dems voted the way they did, with little fear of reprisal.

    Who is one of the most popular Presidents of the last century? Who is THE most popular Democratic Presidents still living? Who's wife is lead candidate for 2008?

    and didn't he sign (and promote) NAFTA, GATT, the WTO...with little "reprisal" from labor or workers' rights groups in 1996? nor his Vice-President in 2000?

    So, WHY should those CAFTA-Dems worry much?

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2005 @ 07:10am

44. PS Yes I know Ralph Nader got some votes (and potentially lost 2000 for Gore), partially based on trade treaties....

    But it certainly wasn't a "mass revolt" and given that, after 2000, all a Democrat has to do is say "You want 'another Nader election' and 'get another Bush'" to frighten the Left....again, don't think they worry much about "reprisals".

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2005 @ 07:12am

45. CAFTA Vote Outs Nichols' "Journalism"

    John Nichols has given this blog two pieces about CAFTA. Each discussed the politics of the matter.

    This one denounces the Democrats who voted for the bill. Nichols calls them effectively, renegades and hacks.

    The preceding July 26 piece, Labor Gets Tough on CAFTA, denounced a vote for CAFTA as: against labor, environment , farmers, consumers and human rights. It then proceeded to discuss the motivations and scurrilities of individual politicians.

    But is the CAFTA case so obviously vile that it needs no analysis? This morning a NY Times' editorial, "gives a pat on the back to the Democrats who chose principle over politics and defied their party's leaders to vote for the trade pact."

    NY Times editorialists are notoriously obtuse. Their support may well mean that CAFTA is a disaster. Still, that piece suggests well meaning people understand this pact differently. Some give it the benefit of a doubt. The matter can be read in various ways.

    The point is, Nichols hasn't stooped to give his reasons why this trade deal is an abomination. Or even just referenced an analysis. He simply declares it dreadful and implies, his readers need not worry their little heads. It just is.

    My information on CAFTA is limited to hearing a short debate on the Lehrer Newshour two nights ago. I'm prepared to believe it is a bad deal, but I need more than Nichols' says so. How did he came to his conclusion, on what logic and facts, and why is the pro position invalid? But there is none of that. Just a verdict, and the assumption that everyone will arch their backs, pick up the cadence and fall into step; and many here do. It is astonishing.

    That was also the drill with the John Roberts Suprem Court nomination. Nichols' mind (and Rothenberg's) were instantly made up. A sifting of the record, a consideration of the nominee's performance before the Senate, a listen to his defenders, a consideration of the possible alternative candidates, none of that was necessary. A verdict had been handed down and that was that. Here is the New Masses, and the Stalinist mentality alive and well.

    Posted by nacl at 07/29/2005 @ 07:30am

46. The Democrats will keep losing elections because they are not strongly united on a variety of economic messages. . . But then again it would seem that the GOP coalition is chafing too. It ius frustrating to watch all of this and see the president win victories with Democratic support while his own party is hemoraging votes. I don't know why any Democrat would want to help him but perhaps for some of these legislators, this is NOT a partisan issue.

    Perhaps these senators and representatives voted their conscience on CAFTA? What we really need right now is to have the voters in each of these districts call out to their representatives/senators and have them hold meetings explaining to the voters how they voted and why they voted as they did. Let us not brand them anything yet or immediately call for their removal from office. We should hear what they have to say and they should be responsible and come to a townhall meeting and offer us the courtesy of taking our questions and then answering truthfully and candidly.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2005 @ 08:04am

47. Mr. Scheurer's post shows how this discussion group can be exceedingly valuable.

    I'm sure many of us are very pleased to hear that he is planning a third party challenge to most egregious of the CAFTA 15, Melissa Bean, and, more importantly, the unions should be pleased to hear this as well. My advice to him, picking up on my earlier suggestion, would be to contact the national unions who signed the letter which Nichols refers to in his previous blog entry suggesting that they offer some form of more or less formal support for his candidacy, possibly including help with ballot access. This is exactly the sort of out-of-box thinking and alliances which they should be open to now.

    It might also be worth circulating a general letter for signatures; I would, of course, be glad to sign as would others here though the main target should be union members.

    That Mr. Scheurer is having difficulty with ballot access is one (of many) consequences of the failure, as Mr. Rubin notes, of the nascent third party activism of the 90s. If the Green Party or the Labor Party were functional political entities, the mechanism would be in place for a challenge to Bean and other Democrats. (Whether or not the challenge should be exercised would be determined on a strategic case by case basis.)

    The reasons for why third party politics have not taken off include what I mentioned previously-a left stuck in 60s protest model of politics and a disabling suspicion of electoral politics and real political power.

    Also, a good part of it has to do with the more or less overt hostility of much of the establishment progressive media and their formal and informal connections to the Democratic Party. As mentioned, the discussion we're having here could not happen in the pages of the Nation for this reason.

    Finally, in response to Vic, you can find a piece about my experiences as Green Party Alderman on Sam Smith's excellent Progressive Review website: http://prorev.com/whyiran.htm. Also, I have a piece in the most recent New Politics (unfortunately, not on-line yet.) where I discuss some of these matters. These two outlets, are, alas, virtually the only game in town for discussion of independent political organizing.

    Given the interest there seems to be here, there is a major informational vacuum waiting to be filled.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/29/2005 @ 09:23am

48. Before you start calling Bean a Bush Democrat, take a look at her TOTAL voting record. Progressive punch rates her as a 77; to put this in perspective Lane Evans (a solid liberal) rates a 91 whereas the "moderate republican" (my rep) Ray LaHood rates a 10.

    Yes, Bean made some bad votes but overall I'd still rather have her in my district than LaHood. Also let us remember that she campaigned as a conservative Democrat.

    So, as far as I am concerned, if we are going to win in previously "red" districts, we have to be prepared to take in some "too conservative for our tastes but better than the GOP" democrats.

    Posted by ollie at 07/29/2005 @ 10:13am

49. A quick response to several misreadings of my contribution:

    First, I made no claim that my time in local government was not a success, quite the opposite for reasons that I could easily itemize but won't go into here. (One example: New Haven became one of the first three cities to sponsor an resolution opposing the Iraq war. I was the sole sponsor of resolution-and I had no Democratic co-sponsors. Nonetheless it passed 26-2)

    While my terms were successful they were not "fun". That the left assumes an equation between success and having fun is itself is part of the problem.

    Secondly, several posters made the claim that the Democrat's basic problem not substantive, but rhetorical-i.e. it suffer from "a lack of clear message."

    But this lack of clarity is a predictable consequence of the tension between the party's grass roots base which gets out the votes and its corporate paymasters who dictate its policies.

    There are DP supporters, like David Sirota and Eli Pariser who believe that if the funding base of the party can be shifted to small contributors, that will open the space where this contradiction can be resolved .

    While I respect Sirota and the moveon gang, I, and many others remain skeptical that they will succeed. Most current indications are that they are failing. And, if they are just the most recent continuation of a decades long pattern of the party's failure to reform itself, and the polyannish refusal of activists in the party to recognize this, the only way to go is the third party route-in whatever form it needs to take.

    In any case, both recognize that the party is doomed (as a political if not a financial entity) unless it is able to look itself in the mirror and recognize this basic contradiction. Sirota in particular is very aware of this. Not surprisingly, his recent pieces on commondreams call for old-testament vengeance against the worst CAFTA 15-way beyond what is being called for here.

    In any case, he and many other believers in a reformable DP recognize that burying one's head in the sand is the worst possible response to the corporate/DLC wing of the party.

    This is a basic truth many participants of this group have yet to wise up to.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/29/2005 @ 10:36am

50. How realistic is it to invest in a third party? Third Parties have never offered prolonged success in national politics nor will fractioning off Democratic votes help change the national agenda. There is not going to be a leftward coalition governing the country and while I share the frustration of many here, how realistic is it to vote for a third party? Many people simply take them less seriously than they already take the Democrats.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2005 @ 11:41am

51. Having said this, what are we to do really? Not all struggles to take over the party leadership work and perhaps the grassroots is not going to be able to wrest the purse strings and executive power from the DLC and corporate wing. We can't vote GOP, so where do we go?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2005 @ 11:42am

52. HHEWM,

    If anyone is to blame for people being unable to take the Democrats seriously, it's the Democrats themselves. Read John Nicols article on Bernie Sanders here [thenation.com]. This is what I would hope that third parties and independents will accomplish.

    Posted by thejman at 07/29/2005 @ 11:54am

53. >How realistic is it to invest in a third party?

    To reiterate a point previously made, John Nichols' feature story in the current issue of The Nation magazine is about the fact that in November 2006, the state of Vermont will vote into the Senate the third party congressman Bernie Sanders. Here it is not only realistic to vote for the third party candidate, it is unrealistic not to. The answer to the above question, therefore, depends on the circumstances.

    Given this fact, the relevant questions are among others 1) why is there only one Bernie Sanders rather than 15 or 20 2) what can be done to strategically develop a third party option in other localities and other states 3) does the CAFTA 15 present us with an opportunity to begin to develop the foundation of a national third party insurgency (possibly, now, with the support of organized labor 4) what would it take allow the strengthen the hand of Nichols, Greider and others at the Nation to give them the opportunity to devote serious attention to those third party candidacies which merit it.

    This is the discussion which it seems to me is now increasingly possible whereas it was not before.

    That's very good news.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/29/2005 @ 11:59am

54. I was pretty horrified to find one of my senators on the list. There is such an air of desperation around my fervent Democrat friends that they cling to any breathing, elected official who dares to put a (D) behind his or her name. There's a cute, old-timey feel to saying that since X is a democrat than X is all right by me. The problem has become that the (R)'s in this state and beyond are thought of as invincible, so "lapses" or "pragmatic" votes are tut-tutted and there-thered, assuming that the good senator takes but a few wrong turns on his way to achieving those glorious Democratic ideals. Those ideals, however, are never listed beyond being Pro-Choice and speaking well of minorities.

    As someone whose only bit of activism is at my typewriter, I hem and haw about getting more involved with the Dems in an attempt to get them to make all of their turns left ones, or to get more involved with the Greens or some other third party. CAFTA seems like a great opportunity for third parties to speak to every workig person in capitalist terms that everyone understands: how can our system survive if there is no one who can afford what we produce? how are we to compete with governments who are even less ethical with their workers than ours? We should be able to do this.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/29/2005 @ 1:27pm

55. When I first came to this blog, I thought that most of the bloggers would be interested in making the Democratic Party more progressive and liberal.

    Boy, was I wrong.

    The majority of the posters to this blog are only interested in creating a third political party. I laugh at the notion of a viable third political party; a third party has never been able to sustain itself over a long time period. Third parties are just a like the proverbial 'flash in the pan' or a roman candle.

    What many in this blog group seem to forget is that; should the Democratic Party be weakened by a third party, some of those who support Democrats will migrate to not just the third party, but also to the Republican Party, or become Independents.

    So, be careful for what you wish; you might get it.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/29/2005 @ 2:56pm

56. I think that the depressing part of the Dem's is not that they could be more progressive, but rather that they were and have chosen to follow the money toward more conservative ends. While third parties might be flashes in the pan, now a flash is the only and rare sign that a spirit of progressivity might lie somewhere in the all but dormant enlightened soul of the Dem's. It seems like a much simpler solution to start from scratch rather than drag an unwilling group of compromisers back to a philosophical position they have abandoned.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/29/2005 @ 3:13pm

57. The poster continually fails to understand the basic point that perpetual apologetics for the right wing of the Democratic Party is what is responsible for the party becoming violently less progressive and liberal. It is not criticism, but the inability to understand or even listen to criticism which is responsible.

    On the other hand, given that the poster identified him or herself earlier as "a manager" of a "non union company" what he/she defines as "liberal" and "progressive" might be something very different than most of us have in mind, i.e. the "liberalism" of Hillary Clinton, Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, Kerry etc.

    He or she currently has two parties which speak for him or her.

    It is time that everyone else had one to speak for them.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/29/2005 @ 3:25pm

58. For a little humor, a Jay Leno joke about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, is provided below.

    The joke was included in a Molly Ivins's article, "Manners and Morons" that offers a few Mollyisms on the nomination of Judge Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    As Jay Leno notes, this is an important job -- these are the people who pick the president.

    Source: Alternet.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/29/2005 @ 3:35pm

59. What some posters forget is that the Democratic Party represents a very diverse group.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/29/2005 @ 3:36pm

60. John Halle:

    You wrote: "A quick response to several misreadings of my contribution:

    First, I made no claim that my time in local government was not a success, quite the opposite for reasons that I could easily itemize but won't go into here. (One example: New Haven became one of the first three cities to sponsor an resolution opposing the Iraq war. I was the sole sponsor of resolution-and I had no Democratic co-sponsors. Nonetheless it passed 26-2). While my terms were successful they were not "fun". That the left assumes an equation between success and having fun is itself is part of the problem."

    Rather inconsistent with your previous message: "Politics, as I said in a previous posting, is not about protest, it is about exercising power. This is something the left fails to understand at its peril." What did your Iraq vote do but to express protest. Our troops went to Iraq anyway, and are still there. If your key example of why your term in government was successful was that you managed to get a resolution which protests the Iraq War (which happened anyway and is still happening - so much for your protest) through a liberal town in a liberal state, then truly you are diluting your success is government.

    I couldn't agree with ORAIBI1952 more. If you spend all your time looking to make a 3rd party viable, you're going to see in the end that you haven't achieved your goals and more likely than not, you've created multiple groups that are distant minorities to the republican party, instead of just one that is a close minorirty.

    And, please, name some Democrats (not local ones you know, but national or prominent state democrats) that assume success is equated to having fun. I'd enjoy seeing you back up that statement with some facts.

    By the way, you conveniently decided not to answer any of my serious questions from my previous post. I'll re-post so you can answer them.

    What are the ideas of the 3rd party you ran on, and what are ideas of the 3rd party you envision taking over 25 or 30 house seats? How is the 3rd party you envision different form the current two parties? Do you see a 3rd party being able to take over the current two parties?

    Hopefully you decide to add something substantive to the conversation regarding 3rd parties. That would be accomplished by answering these questions. Perhaps you'll make some persuasive arguments. So far, you have not, so please make your case.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2005 @ 3:45pm

61. What are the ideas of the 3rd party you ran on, and what are ideas of the 3rd party you envision taking over 25 or 30 house seats? How is the 3rd party you envision different form the current two parties? Do you see a 3rd party being able to take over the current two parties?

    To add emphasis to urmygyro's point (in italics above); the 25 - 30 house seats that might be obtained by the third party, as described on this blog, would come from Democrats; consequently nothing would be gained and possibly a great deal would be lost - I offer Nader's third party fiasco as an example.

    Also, I can't imagine Democrats looking favorably on a party that was created at their expense.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/29/2005 @ 3:59pm

62. What are the groups you imagine the Dem's still represent? The elderly, the poor, workers, minorities, gays and lesbians, children and so many more are groups that need a party that will serve their interests. The Dem's are so caught up in playing political games that their efforts have amounted to precious little over the last dozen years.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/29/2005 @ 4:10pm

63. TJBEHRENS1:

    to play devil's advocate:

    If democrats are not representing the interests of the groups you state, then why is it so difficult for a 3rd party to emerge that will represent their views?

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2005 @ 4:14pm

64. Several basic misunderstandings in URMYGYRO's posting.

    First, while it is obvious to anyone with their eyes open, it is necesssary to make a distinction between Democrats and progressives, as I do above. Progressives, for example, those who attended the February 2003 anti-war protests (not attended by any major Democratic politician, e.g. HRC, Schumer, Lieberman, Dodd, want more names?) frequently regarded the demonstrations as ends in themselves, not as a component of a larger, organized, political insurgency. This included the coalitions such as UPJ which organized them. While I supported them, helped to organize them, and attended them, they should not have been surprised that politicians such as those above found them easy to ignore, and in fact signed off on the authorization to commit troops not long after. If demonstrations are not accompanied by real, functional and uncomprimising political organization they will fail-as they have repeatedly over the past few decades.

    Demonstrations, in fact, are fun, giving the opportunity for inventing clever slogans, artwork, street theatre, etc. I love all this stuff and, in fact, the Democrats are hopelessly lame when it comes to this-one more reason to question their viability. But to reiterate, the problem is not with demonstrations per se but when they are not accompanied by any means to force real political change or developing the political infrastructure to do so. That is what requires hard work, and lots of progressive don't want to do it or don't think that its necessary. They're wrong.

    Notice, by way of example, the difference between the protests here and the protests in Spain. Here, there was no political party which even gave lip service to the goals of the demonstrators. There, the Socialist Party supported the demonstrations, were subsequently elected, and made good on their promise to withdraw their troops. Alas, we are not Spain, as Naomi Kline said in the Nation not long after.

    I've said enough about my political career and this is not about me since I'm no longer involved in politics. Bernie Sanders, however, is, so I'd recommend reading Nichols piece for a basic understanding of what seems to be eluding you. Suffice to say that cleaning up illegal trash dumps, shutting down a municipal installation which emitted an 80 decibel noise in a low income neighborhood, preventing the Yale police force from arresting union leaders (issues which most of which the Democratic Machine didn't give a damn about.) were the bulk of what I was involved in- bread and butter grassroots politics made necessary by a corrupt and decadent big city machine.

    As for what the Green Party stands for which is different from the Democrats-that's an ignorant question, easily answered. To begin with, we opposed the war, we support repeal of Taft Hartley, we support the enforcement of CAFE standards, we support elimination of numerous forms of corporate welfare, we support the repeal of the Patriot Act etc.

    "Do I see a third party being able to take over the current two parties?" Depending on what people who are reading this posting choose to do, or choose not to do, the answer is yes or no.

    Posted by john.halle at 07/29/2005 @ 4:21pm

65. John Halle: an inability to sythesize your beliefs with the reality of American politics creaates a consistent misundersanding of how to achieve real goals.

    Intersting that you say "I've said enough about my political career and this is not about me since I'm no longer involved in politics. Bernie Sanders, however, is, so I'd recommend reading Nichols piece for a basic understanding of what seems to be eluding you". Nothing is eluding me about the stance of 3rd party politics, I wanted to see you try to persuade me why you're right in your beliefs, and how that will create change. You haven't convinced me that a 3rd party will actually stand up in this country and have real power beyond protesting republicans and certain democrats. I congratulate you for getting things done locally which are in line with your beliefs. But this thread isn't discussing local issues, it's about national politics.

    I'll be very intersted to see if the so-called "CAFTA 15" will actually be punished by you and your ilk and be ousted the next time their seats are up for election. You obviously won't run to oust Lieberman or Dodd (don't know which represents New Haven), both democrat senators from connecticut, but they are not progressive enough for your tastes. If it's all about "grassroots", then you should get a viable 3rd party candidate to oust your local "Bush Democrat" from the senate.

    The main point is: progressives are in the minority, even more so than democrats. They obviously are not in such countries as Spain, which you cite as a country with the type of political results based on protest you'd like to see here in the U.S.

    You wrote: "Do I see a third party being able to take over the current two parties?" Depending on what people who are reading this posting choose to do, or choose not to do, the answer is yes or no." That is the perfect John Kerry answer. I know you don't like Kerry, but you also won't take a stand and believe it will happen. You're afraid to be proven wrong, and that's why you won't win nationally. You can't be afraid to lose, and it's not about fun (remember), so it should be about standing up for your principals all over the country, not just ousting 15 democrats who didn't vote for CAFTA.

    But then again, the things you stand for are not popular politically, and realizing that, you have no choice but to protest the parties in power, because you realize you'll never be there with your views.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2005 @ 5:20pm

66. A SINKING SHIP

    Posted by aludra at 07/29/2005 @ 5:21pm

67. Zero, naughty naughty by engaging...

    It is absolutely true that progressives are in the minority. The thing is you can come up with all the terms to describe the groups that exist in this country, terms excluding Republicans and Democrats, and all of these groups will be in the minority. Republicans have been able to talk this way to the rich, that way to the evangelicals, this way to libertarians, and that way to those who despise anything that challenges the status quo. Apparently many who vote Republican are able to stomach the part of the party line that doesn't taste so good going down. Progressives, maybe out of pie-in-the-sky idealism or maybe out of a genuine desire to seek improvements in the lives of many citizens, find those distasteful parts of the Democratic party absolutely vile.

    The key is money. The various factions within the Republican party have been brought in through the promise of $$$. Most Progressives despise the flow of money in DC--for this reason, they will not be able to join the game within the Democrats (at least they won't get much sleep if they try to play). It's going to take untapped resources and connections. And to address Urmygyro's earlier question, the people who seek representation (and don't get it) within the Democratic party are the people who have the least resources. Until (as if) election laws are changed to discount the money factor, a third party is always going to struggle to campaign. But the key is to organize, even without funding, to show progressives as a voting bloc to be reckoned with.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/29/2005 @ 6:08pm

68. Since the democrats and repubicans, as the entrenched parties, control campaign reform, do you really think they're going to let a 3rd or more parties in with a level playing field? Please.

    This is capitalism folks. Money is power. Those who have the most money control politics. It's simple. So progressives need to find a way to convince our society that capitalism is out of control.

    Good luck.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2005 @ 6:29pm

69. Thanks for good wishes! You're sweet. I am sure that the progressives will take care of all people who find that the demise of our system through the lovefest between big corporations and the government has led to their inability to earn a living. But before that happens, we can start working to break up this marriage made in hell.

    Have a good evening.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/29/2005 @ 7:10pm

70. John Halle, when I asked you what you stand for, you respoded:

    "As for what the Green Party stands for which is different from the Democrats-that's an ignorant question, easily answered. To begin with, we opposed the war, we support repeal of Taft Hartley, we support the enforcement of CAFE standards, we support elimination of numerous forms of corporate welfare, we support the repeal of the Patriot Act etc."

    I find it telling that what you say you stand for is a list of what you're against. Can't you list a positive agenda that you'd want to push through? Republicans are brilliant in trapping Democrats to constantly talk about issues from their angle. Progressives should try to avoid the same trap.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/29/2005 @ 10:21pm

71. Out of all these postings nobody seems to get the point. Politicians are corrupt, power hungry, egotistical, well to do, self serving, and interested only in staying in the cussy positions they are in. It has nothing to do with you or me, but all to do with keeping the money flowing so they can keep getting reelected. Dems & Repubs are really no different. These issues put before us are meant to distract the public of what is really going on. The money runs this country. CAFTA passing confirms this. The real winners are those who will profit the most, and if you think that the people in Latin America or The US of A are going to profit more than the big money backers of this farce, you need to pull you head out of the sand. Everything done in government has a finacial benifit for someone somewhere.

    Posted by bbrizzy at 07/30/2005 @ 11:25am

72. A cite from The Nation online:

    Although AFSCME has been trying to negotiate a no-raid agreement with SEIU, some AFSCME leaders are ready not only to resist the "raid" but to retaliate by trying to take away units from SEIU. "The situation seems to be moving in a very negative way," AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said. "There are indications SEIU will raid AFSCME aggressively." But if AFSCME and others go after SEIU locals, there could be a disastrous all-out war.

    Source: The Nation online, David Moberg's article, "After the Storm", posted 2005 July 28. ***********************

    Let the union wars begin. The divide and conquer strategy that Republicans couldn't incite among the labor unions have been provided by internal labor union groups themselves.

    Two quotes from Abraham Lincoln:

    "If all do not join now to save the good old ship of the Union this voyage nobody will have a chance to pilot her on another voyage." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at Cleveland, Ohio" (February 15, 1861), p. 216.

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/30/2005 @ 1:53pm

73. Third Parties may be able to help force progressive changes but they are not lasting alliances. If we want lasting changes we need lasting alliances. After all, just look at the Energy Bill. They repealed a 1935 New Deal law prohibiting monopolies in utilities. Lasting change means guarding past reforms and building upon them not punishing legislators in the short term.

    If we really want to lasting change I still think this should be done in conjunction with the Democratic Party. Until we have a system that can account for more than two parties in Congress, coalitions within parties remains the most sensible method.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/30/2005 @ 2:06pm

74. Freiheit,

    Democrats do not "support infanticide". Only Republicans and conservatives support the sin of infanticide, and the killing of innocent women and men for the sake of oil and imperialism.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives would rather see innocent people killed so that Big Oil can control the Iraqi oil fields than develop alternative energy sources.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives would like to see men in control of women's healthcare and reproductive rights.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives would like reduce the rights of minorities and women.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives pervert the teachings of the Christian God for political gain.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives support Karl Rove's outing of a CIA operative and the grave harm it has done to our nation's security.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives are supported by such groups as the KKK, neo-NAZIs, The League of the South, and other bigoted and racist organizations.

    It's a shame that Republicans and conservatives used racism as a tool to gain power.

    It's a blight on our nation that Republicans and conservatives exemplify the shames listed above.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/30/2005 @ 3:47pm

75. Bush Democrats? What a ridiculous term. They're Republicans. Republicans! Let's not insult real Democrats by putting the pejorative "Bush" in front of the word Democrat.

    Posted by billsheasf at 07/30/2005 @ 3:52pm

76. Conservatism is sometimes a symptom of sterility. Those who have nothing in them that can grow and develop must cling to what they have in beliefs, ideas and possessions. The sterile radical, too, is basically conservative. He is afraid to let go of the ideas and beliefs he picked up in his youth lest his life be seen as empty and wasted. Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), self-educated Longshoreman and winner of The Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/30/2005 @ 3:57pm

77. Hey, Aludra the self described "six foot four man" is back. But gather around for the truth. Last week we learned that he's really one of the Neocon Chickenhawks. So run whatever he says through that filter. He sure as hell wasn't part of Paul Hackett's convoy in Iraq.

    Posted by billsheasf at 07/30/2005 @ 3:58pm

78. hmmm

    A man I know divides american political life along the lines of slavery vs freedom.

    It is an interesting perspective.

    For example: Abortion - Slavery says that children are the property of their mothers (i.e. slaves), and may be disposed of at will. Freedom says no one may be killed without due process of law, and then only as punishment for wilful acts, not because they are inconvenient.

    Welfare - Slavery says the Government (the GOOD master) must provide for all the needs of the people. Freedom says the government must provide a situation where people can work and receive the fruits of their labors, and live as free men.

    Morality- Slavery says you aren't responsible for what you do (you're a slave to your own passions, after all) but free men understand that freedom is based on responsible and principled behavior, particularly as it involves sexual matters.

    It is an interesting perspective, and if you work it through, the Democratic party is the party of slaves, the republican party is the party of free men.

    A third party has little hope of success, as there is no clear third alternative.

    A socialist, communist, or fascist party would be really fundamentally no different from the Democratic party, except that it would openly espouse the idea of people being enslaved to the government.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 4:14pm

79. Funny thing, as father to 4 children, and holder of numerous US and international patents, and more stuff like that, I suppose I must be a "liberal"?

    really.

    I never knew.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 4:18pm

80. Maybe, in concept, an anarchist party would be different. But they could never get organized, obviously.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 4:20pm

81. Freiheit,

    You're welcome. It was my observation that you needed the Enlightenment.

    Freiheit, there is one good thing about you. That one good thing is that you participate in this blog; thus allowing yourself to be exposed to ideas other than right-wing propaganda.

    Fiat lux

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/30/2005 @ 4:46pm

82. So JonB, I am a slave if I decide with whom and how I want to have sex, but I am free if I let you and other conservatives direct my sexual activities? If conservative sex is all I can have as a free person, then feel free to enslave me. Unless of course that kind of activity is also deemed offensive.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/30/2005 @ 5:05pm

83. well, if you parse the issue reasonably, you get this: If you say that a person can control their sexual activities, (ie abstinance) that is the attitude of free men. Those who view men as slaves ridicule this position, of course. Slaves are unable to control themselves, they are enslaved to their bodily passions. So of course to suggest responsible behavior is simply unrealistic. Provide protection for their irresponsible actions. Slavery.

    The free man is able to control his bodily passions. He is able to choose when and if to engage in such activities. And he is responsible for the consequences of his actions. Freedom requires strength in the will, training and discipline.

    Those who view man as capable of freedom advocate approach.

    Funny how it breaks down along party lines.

    It is interesting, because if you take the point of view that these are the two sides of the issue, the inability of otherwise intelligent and reasonable people to find common ground makes perfect sense.

    Incidentally, the idea that reasonable conclusions about what constitutes proper exercise of freedom in the area of sexual activity can be reached without reference to design intent is not realistic. In this area particularly, the purpose of the creator is most explicitly spelled out. There is simply no point in discussing "right and wrong" until and unless that is recognized. "right" simply degenerates to what I would like to do, and "wrong" to what I find esthetically unpleasant.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 5:33pm

84. BTW, this view of things explains why so many on the left found no problem with the excesses of President Clinton, while those on the right were so repulsed by his conduct.

    Such a fundamental difference of opinion of how a man ought to behave.

    Sorry, I digress.

    My point was there is no natural constituency for a third party.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 5:38pm

85. Democrats are socialists? Give me a break. I guess Nafta is socialism. . . Infanticide? Come on, can't we have better discussions than this?

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/30/2005 @ 6:56pm

86. Somebody telephone Sean Hannity, I think some folks are plagiarizing his ideas.

    Posted by hhemwm at 07/30/2005 @ 6:57pm

87. Herr Freiheit. Katrina and The Nation are Progressives, not Democrats. Of course she clobbered NAFTA for the same reasons as CAFTA.

    Posted by billsheasf at 07/30/2005 @ 7:15pm

88. Actually, one democrat (Russ Feingold, US Senator from Wisconsin) during the debate on the Partial Birth Abortion Bill, when asked suggested that if a child were accidentally born alive, he would support the mother's right to "terminate" it. I would say that is support for infanticide.

    It hinges on the idea of legitimate birth, I suppose. Such a birth would be illegitimate. (Not a real birth). Since the constitution is quite clear on granting rights to persons "born".

    Russ gets credit for being up front and consistant.

    I wouldn't want his son to date my daughter, though.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 7:32pm

89. My source for the previous comments about Senator Feingold is somewhere in memory, so don't attribute too much weight to it.

    I will see if I can find it. I trust it is accurate.

    He has been very consistant in the past, and it would fit his penchant for candor.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 7:34pm

90. Hope remains! Thankfully, there are countless people like ORAIBI1952 who have no idea what conservatives really believe and based upon his ignorance thinks that Democrats have all the correct ideas and plans for this nation. So, I keep smiling and Republicans keeping winning elections. I love America!!!

    Posted by love liberty at 07/30/2005 @ 7:42pm

91. I found a record of the exchange I spoke of earlier.

    Judge for yourselves...

    Sen. Santorum: "If that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out - that the baby was completely delivered - would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide?"

    Sen. Feingold: "The standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation."

    Sen. Santorum: "That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?"

    Senator Feingold: "That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who received the advice from the doctor."

    I read that as a yes.

    SO that at least some prominent democrats support infanticide is pretty much established. (the underlying principle is slavery. the child is property, to be disposed of according to the wishes of its owners)

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 7:49pm

92. But again I digress

    Can anyone think of a natural constituency for a third party?

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 7:50pm

93. by the way, it is almost self evident that most people are alive because it is against the law to kill them, (including myself)

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 7:52pm

94. I was only responding to:

    Democrats are socialists? Give me a break. I guess Nafta is socialism. . . Infanticide? Come on, can't we have better discussions than this?

    Posted by HHEMWM 07/30/2005 @ 6:56pm

    the killing of people without regard to age is not properly referred to as infanticide, obviously. That would be "war" or "genocide".

    One blessing of not being filtered through the mainstream media is that your words aren't changed to fit their style book.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 8:02pm

95. Conservative Sites

    Alliance Defense Fund

    American Conservative Union

    Arizona Federation of Taxpayers

    The Arizona Family Project

    Arizona Right to Life

    Center for Arizona Policy

    Concerned Women for America

    Defend Marriage

    Family Research Council

    Focus on the Family

    Judicial Confirmation Network

    Klan Parenthood

    Minuteman Project

    Russell Pearce

    Traditional Values Coalition

    United Families International

    For those who think conservatives are God's gift to mankind, please check the above list of conservative sites that show up as linked sites on the web site The Arizona Conservative - especially note the Klan Parenthood.

    Below in italics is a quote from Klan Parenthood web page titled, "Choice NAZI".

    "If there's one thing abortion advocates can't stand, it's the truth. Now pro-life organizations have a new weapon to use in the fight against abortion that presents the facts on abortion, genocide and more.

    The Choice Nazi is a 14-page booklet that exposes the Margaret Sanger, Hitler, Planned Parenthood eugenics connection. It shows the parallels between Hitler's Nazi holocaust and America's abortion holocaust. It also provides documented abortion statistics that prove legalized abortion has produced a Black Genocide that continues to this day."

    The quote from Klan Parenthood should make Love of Liberty very proud.

    The bigotry and hatred exemplified by the above quote from Klan Parenthood makes me proud that I'm a Democrat, Progressive, and Liberal.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/30/2005 @ 8:29pm

96. Freiheit,

    Thanks for the suggestion.

    To keep vigilant on the political environment, for years I have visited all kinds of web sites and gathered information from many different sources and points of view. That is how I found the bigotry and hatred expressed on the Klan Parenthood web site.

    nunquam non paratus

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/30/2005 @ 9:32pm

97. actually, Margaret Sanger was an interesting person.

    Very interested in eugenics.

    A few quotes from Margaret Sanger from a website I looked at:

    On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

    On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

    On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

    On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

    On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

    Not a very nice lady, nor a very happy one.

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 10:23pm

98. however, even she described abortion as murder.

    funny how the left moves lefter...

    Posted by jonb at 07/30/2005 @ 10:24pm

99. Or... Funny how the left has progressed since 1919. Conservatives might want to check the calendar once in a while.

    Perhaps you good conservative folks could recommend a right-wing site that is flooded with the likes of my "ilk" as this one has become with yours. I'd like to discuss contemporary issues with them and thoughtful conservatives without being taught such mindblowers as Hitler believed in eugenics, the DDR is the defunct German acronym for East Germany, and that most people are alive because it is illegal to kill them. What a bright and beautiful world it is in Rightsville.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/31/2005 @ 12:57am

100. By "thoughtful" I meant adding to the conversation rather than distracting from it. Your comment is way over the top. Had I known you were capable of such ugliness I would never have submitted my last post. I am sorry to have provoked yours. Very sorry.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/31/2005 @ 09:35am

101. FREIHEIT, you might recall that it was Clinton and Gore who pushed loudly and publicly for the passage of NAFTA and it had strong bi-partisan support in both houses. Just as there are pro-choice and anti-CAFTA Republicans, there are pro-NAFTA and pro-life Democrats. Just ask David and Daniel Boren of Oklahoma for starters.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/31/2005 @ 10:32am

102. Democrat and Republican do not mean "liberal" and "conservative." This is a media misnomer.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/31/2005 @ 10:32am

103. JONB, I do not know how or why you think Margaret Sanger is a spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Secondly, perhaps you might want to rethink what birth control is. Last I checked it had something to do with "family planning." If you go into most drug stores in this country you will see that condoms constitute "family planning" and condoms are a form of birth control. However, if you want the GOP to campaign on a pledge of banning sex out of wedlock, good luck. I am sure that will become the basis of an enduring coalition. Not all of us think that sexual intercourse is solely about the production of children. And, because we are responsible people we want to make sure that if we have children we have planned for it.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/31/2005 @ 10:39am

104. really, folks.

     please try not to take things so personally, and if you feel superior, don't go on about it.

     On a trail this cold (this blog is a few days old, after all) it is nice if somebody says something, so you can tell that you aren't being clever for only your own amusement.

     I agree that the left has progressed. To progress is to continue in the direction you are going.

     Makes perfect sense.

     Broad is the gate and easy the way that leads to destruction, and many go that way. Never applied it to ideologies before, but I think it is applicable.

     Question:

     What is A.N.S.W.E.R ?

     Wisdom and self restraint to you all in the name of Jesus

     Posted by jonb at 07/31/2005 @ 10:46am

105. Jonb's post:

     actually, Margaret Sanger was an interesting person.

     Very interested in eugenics.

     A few quotes from Margaret Sanger from a website I looked at:

     On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

     On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

     On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

     On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

     On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

     Not a very nice lady, nor a very happy one.

     A Different View

     Sanger and Eugenics

     Eugenics is the study of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Margaret Sanger was not a racist, an anti-Semite, or a eugenicist. Eugenicists, like the Nazis, were opposed to the use of abortion and contraception by healthy and "fit" women (Grossmann, 1995). In fact, Sanger's books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning ("Sanger on Exhibit," 1999/2000). Sanger actually helped several Jewish women and men and others escape the Nazi regime in Germany ("Margaret Sanger and the 'Refugee Department'," 1993). Sanger's disagreement with the eugenicists of her day is clear from her remarks in The Birth Control Review of February 1919:

     Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother (1919a).

     Margaret Sanger clearly identified with the issues of health and fitness that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s, when treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown. However, Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that effected passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other inherited traits vary by individual and not by group.

     In 1927, the eugenics movement reached the height of its popularity when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, held that it was constitutional to involuntarily sterilize the developmentally disabled, the insane, or the uncontrollably epileptic. Oliver Wendell Holmes, supported by Louis Brandeis and six other justices, wrote the opinion.

     Although Sanger uniformly repudiated the racist exploitation of eugenics principles, she agreed with the "progressives" of her day who favored

     incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions

     the adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.

     placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct

     Planned Parenthood Federation of America finds these views objectionable and outmoded.

     Published Statements That Distort or Misquote Margaret Sanger Through the years, a number of alleged Sanger quotations, or allegations about her, have surfaced with regularity in anti-family planning publications:

     "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief issue in birth control." A quotation falsely attributed to Margaret Sanger, this statement was made by the editors of American Medicine in a review of an article by Sanger. The editorial from which this appeared, as well as Sanger's article, "Why Not Birth Control Clinics in America?" (1919b), were reprinted side-by-side in the May 1919 Birth Control Review .

     "The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly." Another quotation falsely attributed to Margaret Sanger, this was actually written for the June 1932 issue of The Birth Control Review by W.E.B. DuBois, founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Taken out of the context of his discussion about the effects of birth control on the balance between quality-of-life considerations and race-survival issues for African-Americans, Dubois' language seems insensitive by today's standards.

     "Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race." This fabricated quotation, falsely attributed to Sanger, was concocted in the late 1980s. The alleged source is the April 1933 Birth Control Review (Sanger ceased editing the Review in 1929). That issue contains no article or letter by Sanger.

     "To create a race of thoroughbreds. . ." This remark, again attributed originally to Sanger, was made by Dr. Edward A. Kempf and has been cited out of context and with distorted meaning. Dr. Kempf, a progressive physician, was actually arguing for state endowment of maternal and infant care clinics. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger quoted Dr. Kempf's argument about how environment may improve human excellence:

     Society must make life worth the living and the refining for the individual by conditioning him to love and to seek the love-object in a manner that reflects a constructive effect upon his fellow-men and by giving him suitable opportunities. The virility of the automatic apparatus is destroyed by excessive gormandizing or hunger, by excessive wealth or poverty, by excessive work or idleness, by sexual abuse or intolerant prudishness. The noblest and most difficult art of all is the raising of human thoroughbreds (1969).

     It was in this spirit that Sanger used the phrase, "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds," as a banner on the November 1921 issue of the Birth Control Review . (Differing slogans on the theme of voluntary family planning sometimes appeared under the title of The Review, e.g., "Dedicated to the Cause of Voluntary Motherhood," January 1928.)

     "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." This statement is taken out of context from Margaret Sanger's Woman and the New Race (1920). Sanger was making an ironic comment -- not a prescriptive one -- about the horrifying rate of infant mortality among large families of early 20th-century urban America. The statement, as grim as the conditions that prompted Sanger to make it, accompanied this chart, illustrating the infant death rate in 1920:

     Deaths During First Year 1st born children 23% 2nd born children 20% 3rd born children 21% 4th born children 23% 5th born children 26% 6th born children 29% 7th born children 31% 8th born children 33% 9th born children 35% 10th born children 41% 11th born children 51% 12th born children 60%

     "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Sanger was aware of African-American concerns, passionately argued by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s, that birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In that letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear:

     It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs (1939).

     "As early as 1914 Margaret Sanger was promoting abortion, not for white middle-class women, but against 'inferior races' -- black people, poor people, Slavs, Latins, and Hebrews were 'human weeds'." This allegation about Margaret Sanger appears in an anonymous flyer, "Facts About Planned Parenthood," that is circulated by anti-family planning activists. Margaret Sanger, who passionately believed in a woman's right to control her body, never "promoted" abortion because it was illegal and dangerous throughout her lifetime. She urged women to use contraceptives so that they would not be at risk for the dangers of illegal, back-alley abortion. Sanger never described any ethnic community as an 'inferior race' or as 'human weeds.' In her lifetime, Sanger won the respect of international figures of all races, including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Mahatma Gandhi; Shidzue Kato, the foremost family planning advocate in Japan; and Lady Dhanvanthi Rama Rau of India -- all of whom were sensitive to issues of race.

     "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" This is the title of a book falsely attributed to Sanger. It was written by Lothrop Stoddard and reviewed by Havelock Ellis in the October 1920 issue of The Birth Control Review . Its general topic, the international politics of race relations in the first decades of the century, is one in which Sanger was not involved. Her interest, insofar as she allowed a review of Stoddard's book to be published in The Birth Control Review, was in the overall health and quality of life of all races and not in tensions between them. Ellis's review was critical of the Stoddard book and of distinctions based on race or ethnicity alone.

     Source: Planned Parenthood

     The comments, that jonb provided us, were taken out of context by bigoted, anti-family planning advocates. The radical and bigoted right-wing conservatives' mantra seems to be; pervert and dissemble - the public won't care if the truth is twisted and they are deceived in the process. Maybe it's another case of the "ends justifying the means".

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/31/2005 @ 12:05pm

106. ORAIBI1952, thank you for that posting which must have been laborious to collect.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/31/2005 @ 12:15pm

107. We clearly live in an age of cynicism where misquoting people and falsifying evidence is okay if it is presented as a "moral" task accomplished in the pursuit of "moral" goals. I wonder if people will ever stop believing that by thinking something is true does not actually make it so.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/31/2005 @ 12:19pm

108. I very much doubt Jesus would approve of such methods.

     Posted by hhemwm at 07/31/2005 @ 12:19pm

109. HHEMWM,

     The information was taken from Planned Parenthood's web site with a little copy-and-paste.

     Because the words of Planned Parenthood state it best, I kept their words exactly as written; except for my comments in the last paragraph after citing the source.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/31/2005 @ 12:42pm

110. Freiheit,

     ad rem

     There is no compromise, and cannot be any compromise of a woman's healthcare and reproductive rights.

     When the debate about women's healthcare and reproductive rights focus solely on abortion, the truth is perverted and dissemblance occurs; but more important, the debate is de-humanized. Surely, the radical right and conservatives do not wish to de-humanize the discussion of women's healthcare and reproductive rights.

     veritas lux mea

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/31/2005 @ 1:26pm

111. "The baby" as defined in the Science Textbook, King James Version.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/31/2005 @ 1:52pm

112. oh well, fetus if you prefer.

     A latin word that means "baby".

     I have been told, and don't have any reason to doubt, that the word had the same semantic range (when latin was spoken) as the word "baby" in english, that is it referred to the product of conception from the time of conception through roughly the second birthday, but could be used affectionately to refer to older persons, as I refer to my four children as my "babies" from time to time, and my younger brother is the "baby" of the family.

     That Planned Parenthood has worked long and hard to make their founder look like a nice person is not surprising. The Mormons do the same with Joe Smith, etc.

     But lets get back to the issue.

     What is going to happen to those Reagan Democrats who voted for CAFTA...

     Posted by jonb at 07/31/2005 @ 2:18pm

113. Oraibi1952 wrote:The quote from Klan Parenthood should make Love of Liberty very proud.

     Usually I tolerate a lot of the BS that get's generated on these sites with all manner of slurs; however your's Oraibi1952 goes beyond the pale.

     For your information, I am married to a Latina/Black mix woman for many years thank you. I raised 3 black stepsons whom I love very much. Your stereotypical linking of conservative thought with racism is one more reason why so-called "progressives" continue to lose elections. My mother taught me to 1)think before speaking and 2)never assume the worst about someone you don't know. You might try it; you might even grow as an individual.

     Posted by love liberty at 07/31/2005 @ 2:22pm

114. Love Liberty,

     I didn't put the link to Klan Parenthood on the conservative web site. The conservative web site managers/owners added the link, and they were appealing to a certain audience when they did it.

     You call yourself a conservative, so I wanted to point out to you the facts of life regarding conservatives.

     With respect to whom you are married, well there are racists and bigots across racial lines, religious lines, etc. Thus, the fact that you are married to a Latina/Black woman and raised black children makes no difference to me - I hope it has made you happy.

     Conversely, it does matter to me, and a lot of other folks, when 'conservatives' try to deceive people that they are for liberty and rights, but there behaviour supports and encourages bigotry and racism. I don't care if these folks are white, black, brown, yellow, or blue; bigots and racists are the same in any color.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/31/2005 @ 6:14pm

115. Below is an excerpt from Howard Wilkinson's article,"Hackett steps up ads, prominent campaigners":

     Local 48 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the union that represents Cincinnati firefighters, gave its endorsement to Schmidt, as did its international union. It was Schmidt's first union endorsement. Some union locals endorsed Hackett before the June 14 primary election.

     Source: Cincinnati Enquirer online, 2005 July 20.

     The above information was in the sixth paragraph of Wilkinson's article.

     Please note that the union endorsed Republican candidate, Jean Schmidt, over Democratic candidate Paul Hackett. This endorsement occurs about one week before the Republican-controlled congress passes CAFTA - you think Jean Schmidt supports CAFTA. In her interview on Hardball, she was falling all over herself in an effort to carry Bush's water, and now Bush is making telephone calls, on her behalf, to voters in Ohio's Second Congressional District.

     This type of behavior from the unions won't make them any friends in the Democratic Party, and it might make them a few enemies.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/31/2005 @ 6:45pm

116. I sympathize with the writer's anger and frustration, However, having lived very close to both Moran's and Dick's districts in the past, I'd say that their most likely replacements would be Republicans. To "punish" them is only to "punish" ourselves. What I really crave is a new electorate, one that is more capable of critical thinking and less vulnerable to emotional, "Madison Ave style" manipulation. Just how bad the situation is is detailed in Deanna Kuhn's outstanding book, The Skills of Argument. So I sound like the voice of despair here... you're right.

     Posted by DDK at 08/01/2005 @ 11:31am