Thanks for posting!

Have you thought of DIY as a party name? It’s kind of like Yes We Can before it was ruined.

I have a specific image in mind too — I’m a Navy brat and I love this story:

here: http://nowforsomethingdifferent.blogspot.com/2007/05/yankee-ingenuity-and-perseverance.html

or here: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h85000/h85542k.jpg

or here: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h56000/h56782.jpg

or here: http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org/about/index.htm

In July 1812 the USS Constitution by herself was being chased by the British fleet when the wind died and all were becalmed. Powerless. Stuck. And then American sailors got in their rowboats and started rowing and towing the Constitution to safety. So the British start rowing and towing their ships and give chase. After three days of this, the Constitution is safe.

I think, that could be us.

I’m in San Diego — did you know the Constitution came here once? She did, as part of a campaign in the 1920s and 30s to restore her — children donated pennies, people bought memorabilia, and she was saved again.

Now the original Constitution needs rescuing, and I’d like to think we could do it ourselves, again.

(Hey! Rescue Party!)

the rescue party

Well it is appropriate

Oh dear, no matter how well-intentioned he is, Matt Damon is a celebrity, a movie star. I really think that’s the wrong image to send for a fledgling political party.

making a run on the bank ?, where the hell is everyone this morning ?

looks like a fabu webinar, sorry we missed it – thanks for the video

oh,, and the btw again I suggest it be called the Free Range Party – although taking over as the tea partiers did we could be called the Feral wing of the Democratic Party

It was “fabu”! Thank you Jane, and everyone at FDL, for making it happen!

Thanks Jane for organizing a very interesting webinar. I just wanted to pop in quick to make a suggestion for future webinars…

Please schedule more time, say two hours with the understanding that it could run an extra half-hour to an hour if there is a lot of discussion. Yesterday, I took the one hour schedule seriously and pencilled in something else for 5 p.m. (Eastern). At 4:30 p.m. the webinar was still going and I had to leave. Also, I kept watching the clock during the presentations and it became clear that there would be too little time for an active discussion with the attendees. As a result, I did not bother to submit a question.

I think what makes the webinars uniquely useful is the opportunity for our community to discuss ideas with the guests (similar to the book salons). Without time for that discussion, the webinar is not much different from reading a blog post from an author that does not participate in the discussion thread.

Please don’t take this comment to be too harshly critical. I am enormously grateful for all of your efforts on our behalf. I just think more time would make a good thing better. Thanks!

Good morning everyone,
Why do we need to invent a party name when we already have the values of the Progressive Party of yesteryear.
Tomorrow in Wisconsin, we will get some of our answers on whether or not people want change or just mouth the words. Go Wisconsin!!!

Que carajo, Daniel Ellsberg? That attitude is the best way to make sure nothing changes for the better. I’ll write in a vote for an empty shoebox before I vote for one of these corporate sponsored hacks. At least if the shoebox somehow wins, I’ll have a reason for low expectations, because hey, it’s a fucking shoebox.

President Matt Damon.

I found Josh’s presentation to be fascinating. I knew online advertising could be targeted but had no clue it could be micromanaged to the extent Josh outlined. What they did in Florida on the No on 8 vote campaign was really interesting (and I thank him for that, living in Florida I thought voting no was a no-brainer but..)

These times occur very rarely when a political party is so weak that it literally can be killed off. And I think both parties are in that position right now. And I think that a group of people, if we had some real national leadership, and a real commitment to grassroots organizing, to form a new Democratic Party

am I naive in thinking AFL-CIO and SEIU could accomplish this tomorrow – bodies, organized to the bus stop, and infrastructure – all that’s lacking of course is political will

Let’s hit them all. Now, while we got the muscle. – Frank Pentangelis

Ben Affleck as V.P.

Seriously, I think of how intelligent these two are every time I see them speak. Both good Progressives.

I think what makes the webinars uniquely useful is the opportunity for our community to discuss ideas with the guests (similar to the book salons).

phred, i love you, but do you really think “our community” includes only those who have paid $45 to join?

i think the webinars are great. but participation is a benefit to $$ donors. full stop.

unless, that is, you (and i don’t think you do) believe in the concept of the gated community.

I think all of them have gone 2 hours, this one was short because of the time limitations of the participants. I pushed it as it was and everyone graciously hung around, but on this one the limitation was the guests.

think the webinars are great. but participation is a benefit to $$ donors. full stop.

I’ve said it before selise so I know you’ve heard it, but the webinar software is expensive as-is, and we can’t afford to provide it, so someone has to pay for it or these events don’t happen.

In fact, we’re maxing out on it, and we need to upgrade it to be able to accomodate more people who are attending each session, and that’s going to cost us three times as much as it does right now. We’ll be having a membership drive in August in order to be able to do that

Opening it up to the whole community would cost several thousand dollars a month. Do you have that kind of money? I’m quite sure you don’t. So what you are saying is that we shouldn’t have them at all if we can’t afford the tens of thousands of dollars it would take to open them to everyone.

I also don’t appreciate the nasty with crack about “gated communities.” It’s mean-spirited, and reeks of sense of entitlement, as if everyone here is supposed to work their asses off and owes you something. They don’t. It took a lot of work and effort to put that webinar on, people gave up their weekend to do it, and the least you could do is be gracious just for a moment and say thanks.

IRV and Proportional voting are excellent goals to work toward, although we’re talking long-term strategy here, as such changes must be instituted on a state-by-state basis, and I can tell you that Republicans will be against the idea. I’m not sure this country is ready to undergo fifty battles of the nasty type we’ve seen waged on a national level – the citizenry is not angry enough yet – and much of the country still believes that what the Republicans have in mind for the future of this country will be good for them and their families.

BTW – the phrase is, “Hear! Hear!” not “Here! Here!”

LOL. Free Range party sounds like chickens! And a lot of people don’t know what “feral” means. LOL.

And I agree with gesneri @3. My first reaction to Matt Damon was, “MATT DAMON?? The movie star?” I think we need someone with a bit more gravitas, although he has spoken out recently and is very progressive. I could go with Feingold if he’d consider running, but I think he’s ruled it out. He already has started a fledgling progressive movement (Progressives United). I think that would make a good name, if he would “come over” to our cause!

p.s. wrt Mr Ellsberg’s SCOTUS admonition

even Chomsky, who has lectured and written relentlessly on our folly of placing so much significance on national electoral politics, has pretty much expressed the same sentiment

as respectfully as I can, might I ask if these men are captives of their own time and background ?

my .02 – Obama dinged the SCOTUS argument with last week’s USAA Utah nomination

Finally. Some folks getting real about a third party strategy. National parties, even in a limited number of states are built on local party organizations. You cannot depend on media and marketing alone, even with a charismatic candidate.

Did you attend the webinar? I would hardly call Ellsberg a hack.

In other words, no third party, keep voting Democrat forever (while everyone worries about Supreme Court appointments), and the system’s victory against the progressive rank-and-file is complete.

Enjoy the coming disasters.

Free Range vs Veal Pen

Jane, I usually respect Selise’s comments and her work on the economic stuff, but on this one I agree with you. People who aren’t involved in the techie side of the operation usually have no idea how much it costs to run an operation like this. I appreciated the webinar, although my Internet connection has been flaky (call into AT&T today) so I mostly missed the beginning.

Yup. But “veal pen” isn’t a very well known term either, although it is an excellent descriptor. I would like to see something with “progressive” in the name, which is why I mentioned Finegold’s organization.

Where did I say Ellsberg is a hack? I said I don’t agree with his LOTE philosophy, that’s all. Corporate sponsored hacks referred to the crap we’ll be presented with as Presidential candidates.

And I might add — does anyone else here see what’s wrong with Ellsberg’s logic? If you only run in states where your influence on the election is irrelevant, how are you going to encourage participation to the point where your candidate gets 5% of the vote?

(And on a practical note, when Nader decided to compete against Gore in swing states in 2000, his polling dropped from 5% to 2%. So there is historical evidence to support the idea that running in swing states could actually hurt the chance of reaching the 5% target.

I think this is what you call a “hasty generalization.” How do you know this isn’t evidence to support the idea that, as Election Day 2000 drew closer, more people decided to support Gore out of fear of Bush, without regard to Nader’s campaign strategy? Correlation is not cause.

Thank you so much for this Jane. I was unable to clear the time to join in and have been regretting it since.

Obama dinged the SCOTUS argument with last week’s USAA Utah nomination

cbl, I was mostly offline last week. Can you explain briefly? I googled and got insurance and some other stuff not related to SCOTUS.

Que carajo, Daniel Ellsberg? That attitude is the best way to make sure nothing changes for the better. I’ll write in a vote for an empty shoebox before I vote for one of these corporate sponsored hacks.

Read that again, please. “One of these corporate sponsored hacks” sure sounds like you’re including Ellsberg. Sorry if I misunderstood. And the “to hell with Daniel Ellsberg” at the beginning added to the perception.

IIRC it was Michael Moore who said that, in explaining why he jumped “off Nader’s bus” in FL and campaigned for Gore.

What is happening to FDL? The contentiousness here is rising at an alarming rate. I came to use FDL as my primary source for the most liberal slant on things after the deteriorating conditions at DailyKos created a situation where I no longer felt comfortable or welcome. I’ve never really felt welcome at FDL but at least I could count on the coverage. That’s no longer true across the board. There are certain writers whom I’ve become so disgusted with, I no longer read their articles. You yourself, Jane, are growing more shrill by the day. Perhaps you are just tired of all the years of effort and the very small return that effort has delivered in terms of positive change for our society, which is certainly not your fault. Maybe you just need to take a break. I’m thinking of taking a break from FDL myself anyway, because it’s a shade of its former self. This town hall is a perfect example of how FDL and the interviewees are missing the mark. Here we have Daniel Ellsburg, who is validly a hero to progressives, and yet the best he can come up with is to only “compete” in the states which have no effect on the outcome? That is totally unacceptable to me and the Ellsburg I watched in the 70s would never have settled for so much less than could be had. And then there’s Michael Moore, whose best shot is Matt Damon? Seriously? There’s so many things wrong with that, I won’t even begin to list them. And then finally, your response to the “gated community crack” doesn’t sound the the Jane Hamsher that I first encountered via her online presence 6 years ago. Not even remotely. As someone who walked 9 miles yesterday so that I would not have to spend $4.50 on public transportation fare, I totally get what the lack of money can do to a person as well as to a liberal website trying to make a difference. I try to ignore the fact that every time I come here there are solicitations for money because not only is it painful to me that I cannot contribute a single penny to you, it’s also sad that you’re struggling so much with money issues. However, I don’t like being insulted and made to feel as if I’m getting some kind of “free ride” just because I’m at the very bottom of the economic heap. That’s republican thinking and it has no place here! But as long as Bill Egnor and Kevin Gosztola are writing here, I’ll at least be back to hear what they have to say. In the meantime, I wish you the best Jane, and I hope that whatever problems you are having in all areas will soon disappear. (P.S. I did enjoy your recent appearance on The Alyona Show.)

WeI think this is what you call a “hasty generalization.” How do you know this isn’t evidence to support the idea that, as Election Day draws closer, more people decided to support Gore out of fear of Bush, without regard to Nader’s campaign strategy? Correlation is not cause.

“Correlation is not cause?” It’s been the entire story of the modern history of third party runs in the US. In places where Instant Runoff Voting has been adopted, it has made third party runs viable because it removes the “spoiler” effect:

Three is a crowd in a plurality voting system. It allows someone to win even when the last choice of a majority of voters. By discouraging new candidates, plurality voting suppress new ideas and dissenting opinion. It encourage campaigns built around negative attacks.
In contrast, instant runoff voting (IRV) upholds the goals of majority rule and voter choice. IRV alleviate concerns about the dreaded “spoiler effect” and encourages winning candidates to reach out to more people. Unlike traditional runoff elections, it accomplishes these goals in a single election.

Voters will not give a candidate a chance if they think they will be spoilers in a heavily partisan political environment. It isn’t even up for debate. If being a spoiler didn’t have a negative impact on voter attitude, IRV wouldn’t make a difference, and yet wherever it is adopted, third parties become viable.

We’re going to be having an upcoming webinar about IRV, but if anyone is seriously talking about third parties and not familiar with either IRV or the impact is has on viability, there is a serious information gap.

selise, I love you, too, but I don’t share your hostility towards the membership program.

First, FDL has to create a revenue stream to keep the site running and to pay their staff. What business model would you propose to achieve that? Given the conduct of the veal pen, big donors are not the answer and it should be obvious that corporate advertising is not an option either. So what’s left other than a community supported membership drive like NPR and PBS? Even NPR and PBS offer swag with a membership, why shouldn’t FDL?

I would be a member with or without such things because I value so highly the information I receive here, along with the forum for debate. The last thing I need are t-shirts or bumper stickers or whatever, but a webinar interests me.

Second, I am totally sympathetic to those for whom $45 is simply not in the budget. I have been there. I get what that kind of poverty means. That is why I have offered repeatedly to donate money to sponsor memberships for those who cannot afford one of their own. I know others here have done it. What I would love to see is for FDL to offer a mechanism for those of us who can afford it to chip in money to a pool designated to sponsor memberships for others. I bet it would be a huge success and would alleviate the gated nature of membership that troubles you.

Third, I would just like to comment on something you objected to the other day and that was referring to the webinar as a “town hall”. That’s an entirely fair criticism. All citizens are welcome at a town hall (excepting of course for the ticketed pre-screened events run by political parties these days). However, I would also note that all citizens pay taxes, which one might view as their entry fee. Nonetheless, I think town hall is the wrong metaphor. Perhaps union hall is better. I have no problem with the efforts of unions benefiting everyone, but unions succeed because they are supported by the dues of their membership.

Finally, since Jane is providing a video of the presentations, along with an excellent synopsis of the webinar in a post, the broader community has access to the information. Further, they can continue the discussion of the ideas presented therein in the comment thread on the associated post. Even if everyone could attend the webinar in real time, as I noted in my original comment, there is simply insufficient time for everyone to engage in direct conversation, no matter whether 2 or 3 hours are allotted. So in the grand scheme of things my participation today via this post is in no way different than my participation yesterday.

Ultimately, it is up to Jane to figure out how to keep FDL going financially and keep access to the site as open as possible. Until the advent of the internet, people had to pay for subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. The only way to get free access was by going to a library. Maybe one alternative for allowing access to people without a membership (or subscription or however you might like to think of it) would be for libraries…

Huh, I just had a thought… Brick and mortar libraries make no sense given current technology. But what if a certain number of library cards were available on a first-come first-served basis to non-members to participate. Again, other donors could chip in to a pool to cover library access, but maybe that would be a way for those who cannot afford membership to join in… Just a thought.

At any rate, I have gone on far too long, but the unfortunate reality is that nothing in this world is free. So the trick is to figure out how to make sure everything is paid for and at the same time make information as accessible as possible. I think the way Jane has set up the webinars is a really good start. Perhaps though we can all come up with creative ideas to improve the experience for everyone (Jane’s pocketbook included!).

Thanks Jane. It was the first one I attended, so I didn’t realize the time limitation was due to the guests. Thanks again.

So, let me get this straight, if I live in a toss up state, I am suppose to hold my nose and vote for Obama? Oh, please ……….

I am very disappointed in both Daniel Ellsberg and Michael Moore.

I guess we are suppose to vote straight democrat, and not the lessor of two evils. By a long shot, Obama is far worst than even Bush could ever have been, for he has taken the Cheney policies to new heights.

I for one will be working for the defeat of Obama.

Tom Hanks for president.

Also, we need the Donner Party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/07/bill-maher-liberal-tea-party_n_920268.html

Did you watch the video or attend? Because that is not at all what was said. I know it is tempting to just read everything through the lens of ones own perception, but you missed the entire point Mr. Ellsberg was making.

you’ve misunderstood my comment to phred. in it i did not object the webinars, or to the limited participation. only to the use of the phrase “our community.”

Opening it up to the whole community would cost several thousand dollars a month. Do you have that kind of money? I’m quite sure you don’t. So what you are saying is that we shouldn’t have them at all if we can’t afford the tens of thousands of dollars it would take to open them to everyone.

i said no such thing.

I also don’t appreciate the nasty with crack about “gated communities.” It’s mean-spirited, and reeks of sense of entitlement, as if everyone here is supposed to work their asses off and owes you something.

i have no idea where this came from. my comment was directed to phred and what phred wrote and thinks.

jane, you are totally and wildly off base. i don’t think anyone owes me anything (*). if i had the sense of entitlement you accuse me of, i would never have have offered — repeatedly and over many years — to volunteer my time for fdl related projects.

(*) other than the common decency and honest we all owe each other, but i don’t think that’s what you were referring to.

my objection was calling it something other than what it is. words matter.

as for the rest of your thoughtful comment, i’d like to reply, but apparently the issue is too contentious for a thread. would email be ok?

in it i did not object the webinars, or to the limited participation. only to the use of the phrase “our community.”

In that case selise, both Jane and I misread you, because I interpreted it in exactly the same way Jane did, even though it was directed to me.

This is the problem with type-written comments and grammar, one sometimes reads something with the emphasis in all the wrong places.

BTW, as a one-time debate instructor, I can tell you that in your response (above) you didn’t quite address my point, and that I could concede the truth of what you said while in the same breath sticking with my argument. If people are discouraged from voting for third party candidates because of the “spoiler” effect, then this would explain why Nader’s poll numbers were as abysmally low as 5% in the first place.

Properly speaking, I was arguing against Ellsberg’s “let’s tiptoe around the Democrats” strategy, the one he advocated in 2004 when some of the group he was with engineered the result of the 2004 national Green Party convention in Milwaukee to permit non-entity David Cobb to run for President as the Green Party’s nominee, rather than Ralph Nader. For an analysis of how this was done, please see Carol Miller and Forrest Hill’s piece. Even without IRV, the establishment parties see third parties as a threat, and Ellsberg’s position on this matter is well-documented.

At any rate, why do you think that card-carrying members of the Democratic Party would even bother to discuss IRV? The Democratic and Republican Parties have reduced the progressive/ liberal portion of the electorate to powerlessness. They like it that way, and (as you yourself pointed out) the “debt ceiling” Kabuki theater was their victory lap in that regard.

Yes I missed it. Could you clarify for me? I’m sure that a number of readers of this blog are likely to make the same mistake I made.

What a wonderful webinair Jane. I listened to the who thing.
I’ll be looking for the email regarding volunteers to work with Bill on the membership engagement team, as I would like to apply.
The whole issue of voting for the least worse of two evils will probably be a topic of much conversation here. I know it already has been, and it might be helpful to make a bullit list of the most salient arguments that Mr. Ellisberg and Mr. Moore made. Pointing out that there are lots of variables, like which state you live in. What luxeries one living in say California has as opposed to Florida.
Thanks for much for this and it makes me even prouder to be an official member of this site that is looking for authentic opportunities for change.
Whew!

One of my biggest disappointments with the Dem’s is their inability to articulate simple economics simply.

Driftglass and Bluegal recommend a simple example the next time you are surrounded by Republicans. Pull out a One Dollar Bill. Show the Republicans that this One Dollar Bill is larger than the amount of taxes that Exxon Mobile or GE paid on their Billions in profits for 2010, AND I DO NO THINK THAT IS FAIR.

If they are in a Republican district, you can also remind them that their representative has pledged to Grover Norquist to NEVER change that fact, AND I DO NOT THINK THAT IS FAIR.

This is the problem with type-written comments and grammar, one sometimes reads something with the emphasis in all the wrong places.

very true.

If cassiodorus missed Ellsburg’s point, then so did I. I’d love to hear what you think his point is, Bill. You’re a very clear writer so let’s hear it so we can clear it up.

Second, I am totally sympathetic to those for whom $45 is simply not in the budget. I have been there. I get what that kind of poverty means. That is why I have offered repeatedly to donate money to sponsor memberships for those who cannot afford one of their own.

Thanks so much, phred. You and others have been extremely generous.

Not one single person has said they couldn’t afford a membership and asked for one that we did not match up with a sponsor. If someone truly wants to participate, they have never been left out.

Que carajo is more like “what the fuck”, not “to hell with”. But, no apologies are necessary, I should’ve made it more specific who I was referring to.

Of course words matter, but has it occurred to you that sometimes you’re the one taking things out of context? Honestly selise, did you really think my original comment was about the definition of “our community”??? No. It was about time allotment and management. You just used it as an opportunity to grind your axe about access. The gated community was a pot shot and you know it.

You are always welcome to email me, but if you really have some creative ideas about how to generate revenue and maintain open access, I really think you should post it. Lets discuss things openly and see where that conversation takes us.

Thanks Demi. It was a terrific webinar. We were all really excited about it.

We’ll be sending out the email soon, Ryan is working on it right now.

You yourself, Jane, are growing more shrill by the day

I see you’re new here.

Well, you know where to find me ; )

Back to work… I didn’t intend to cause such a to do… But I am looking forward to more time next time around ; )

The gated community was a pot shot and you know it.

It absolutely was. It insulted all the young people who work here, who gave up their weekend and worked really hard to put this on. It was sneering and derisive, an attack on those who are trying to stretch the limited resources we have to try and make a difference, who could be making a lot more doing something else but are working their butts off here because they believe (or at least hope) it’s possible to change things.

Instead of saying “thanks for all your hard work, I really appreciate the opportunity to participate,” they got dirt thrown in their faces and were told that what they thought was an important moment was nothing more than a sideshow for a “gated community.” And the only thing that makes it worse is trying to pretend that it wasn’t what it clearly was. That is both a rigid and cowardly response.

Jane, I’ve been reading your online work for 6 years. I only created a user name when it became absolutely necessary to make any sort of comment. Your terse reply, which is the sort of implied put down I would expect from a Daily Kos obamabot, just proves my point. Take a vacation!

Thanks, phred. We’re actually going to try to have a conference call that’s open to everyone that Dan Choi and his attorney will be speaking on before his trial on August 29. We won’t be able to use webinar software with a presentation because the cost would be astronomical, so we’re trying to see if we can get a conference call setup that allows people to be muted/unmuted for questions. Still it’s going to be $300-$500 just for one call, and we’ll have to cap the number of people who can be on, but we wanted to see if we could make it work.

Of course, that takes a lot of effort to organize too. And the people who have to do that work are not feeling too good about having the “gated community” crack hurled at them this morning, so if the goal was to insult them and make them dispirited and say “why bother,” mission accomplished.

There are smart people here. The problem is that social democracy or liberalism, or whatever you want to call it, is not going to get us out of the mess we are in. This panel obviously was stumped. In the 60s, people experimented, and we need to return to that sense of wonder re the world. Everything has become mechanical, mechanized. I think our problems are spiritual, not so much economic or political. What kind of society do we want and need? What we have is not it and there’s the rub.

Oops, I misspelled Bullet List.
The way I spelled it, it could be read as Bullshit List.
When people cry “bullshit”, usually that’s the end of a potentially educational conversation.
There are people here who see how the crisis in DC has made what’s wrong with the way our government is run, campaigns in particular, perfectly obvious. We need something new. This is the time to address a new way of thinking and acting. Grassroot ideals have a chance. Sniping is not going to help. Glenn Smith has been writing some incredible posts, laying the groundwork for us to look at each other with open eyes and listening with open ears. Respect, empathy and a desire to engage in authentic conversation.
Let’s all keep up the good work and let go of some of the petty personal issues that may get in the way.

FWIW, all you guys do a wonderful job. It should be patently obvious to anyone that you’re not in it for the money. A really talented, dedicated group.

Bravo!

**stands on chair clapping**

I don’t speak Spanish, so I googled the phrase and that was what came up on top. When I go back to Google I see several translations. And although you may not have been perfectly clear, the misunderstanding was mine.

Jane, I’ve been reading your online work for 6 years. I only created a user name when it became absolutely necessary to make any sort of comment.

You created a user name one year ago in August of 2010. It became necessary to create one in order to comment when we moved here from blogspot in June of 2006, over four years earlier.

Your terse reply, which is the sort of implied put down I would expect from a Daily Kos obamabot, just proves my point. Take a vacation!

Why not just say “take a Midol?” You’re a concern troll who can’t even come up with a modestly competent lie, everyone knows you’re no long-time commenter.

has it occurred to you that sometimes you’re the one taking things out of context?

sure. please tell me when you think that’s what i’m doing.

Honestly selise, did you really think my original comment was about the definition of “our community”???

no, not about. seemed to me more like it was assumed.

You just used it as an opportunity to grind your axe about access.

i do have very strong opinions about what community means. (see discussion starting here). it’s ok, i hope, if we don’t think the same way about it (i don’t even know if that’s so)?

I’ve been working with Kelly Canfield and several others on the Scorecard project. We have Skype calls weekly, and although they’ve been a challenge to set up, and individuals have to mute themselves, Skype may offer a more full featured alternative for a price (what we’ve used is free). But I’m sure your techies know all of the alternatives.

Sure, Mr. Ellsberg started by noting that he would bow to no one in his criticism of the president. He is disheartened and disappointed by his actions and the only thing that he could say is that a Republican would be demonstrably worse.

That does not mean that Obama is a good choice just a less crappy one. Knowing this, but needing to do something different, the way to go about it was to make sure that the pressure being a spoiler is removed so that those who live in states like Texas or California (who have pretty much foregone outcomes in the election) can vote for someone else as protest with confidence that they will not also be assuring the worst possible outcome.

That coupled with the fact that a primary challenge to the President is likely to split the African American vote and damage the chances of keeping the worst outcome from occurring means that a plan of action has to take these things into account.

This where his idea that a third party can kick start itself comes in. By being in the states that are not in play and giving that alternative choice to the voters two things happen. One is that the new party can get to the level that it will be on the ballots in all 50 states and that it qualifies for federal money, without throwing the election to the Republicans.

That last part is important because there are lot of angry Democrats who won’t break ranks for that very reason. By encouraging those in battleground states to vote the Democrat there is no conflict except for those in the battleground states. But we pretty much know they will all go home to the Democratic candidate no matter what, so it is not that big a change.

This sets the structural stage for a time horizon that allows those who want a new party to the Left of the Democrats to do so without blame and with a lot of energy.

Thank you econobuzz. The first attack that neoliberal political operatives make on an organization when they’re trying to neutralize it is to call into question its funding, in the hopes of starving it and forcing it to lay off people and render it disfunctional. It happens to us all the time, and so it’s particularly galling when people who pretend that they are support us, who take advantage of all the things that we provide here every day for free to the community, jump on that same bandwagon. It just makes it harder for everyone to do what they need to do in order to keep the lights on, and engenders no small amount of resentment — for obvious reasons.

I am really sorry to see this thread devolve into sniping about meanings of words in comments (and I did it too, in a mild way). I think I’ll go do my house cleaning.

BTW lordgoogoo said he/she had been reading for 6 years, not commenting for 6 years. Another misinterpretation of a comment, which is unfortunate.

Jane, I’ve been reading your online work for 6 years.

Have a good day, everyone.

It insulted all the young people who work here

if any of them were insulted by my comment to phred, i apologize to them: i appreciate what it means to work hard for little or no financial reward for a cause you believe in. you have my admiration, respect and thanks for that.

it’s ok, i hope, if we don’t think the same way about it

Stop trying to pretend this is “respectful disagreement.” You lobbed a small-minded, petty and mean-spirited jab and you keep defending it in a rigid, unyielding and revisionist fashion. Your sense of entitlement, and what you think you are owed for gracing our pages, is both shockingly ignorant of what it takes to make these things available and dismissive and insulting to the people who work hard to do that.

You’re a concern troll who can’t even come up with a modestly competent lie, everyone knows you’re no long-time commenter.

lordgoogoo never said he/she is a long-time commenter, as the comment makes very clear.

Now I am gonna leave. This is giving me indigestion.

Wow, you really have lost it. Those four years that I didn’t have a user name here were spent making my comments at DailyKos, where I existed under the name Shemp Lugosi. If my history hasn’t been completely eradicated there, you can feel free to check it out. The August 2010 creation of LordGooGoo coincides with my permanent departure from DailyKos. In all the years I read articles here, I never felt the need to make comments because I had DK for an outlet for that.

And I also invite you, in fact I FUCKING DARE YOU to visit Disqus and read all my comments there posted as LordGooGoo. Your mistaken impression that I’m a concern troll will quickly be dispelled by what you’ll find, if you care to try and prove your accusation against me.

I never dreamed that I would be attacked by you, someone whom I admired and respected. So if you have the courage of your convictions, check me out as I suggest. I have nothing to hide!

Thank you for catching what Jane is so worked up as to ignore, msmolly. It became “necessary” for me to create my username here when I decided to leave DK once and for all.

Voting for Dims is slow death. Obama is worse than Bush on convert ops, civil liberties, etc. And we know he wants to destroy the rest of the safety net.

The elite has laid the trap, and no one has a f’in idea how to get out this vicious circle. How many years will people keep doing the same thing as the world goes down the shitter?

We need to think about a new system.

Agree. I think *get* what Ellsberg & others were saying in the Town Hall, but I disagree that we should keep voting for the lessor of 2 evils on some mis-guided notion that somehow we’re “better off” with a so-called “Democratic” POTUS, etc.

I see NO difference – other than imo Obama is WORSE than GW Bush – between putative “Republican” & so-called “Democratic” candidates. That’s my opinion, but I’m sticking to it. Do I think we would be “worse off” with McCain at the helm? No I do not.

I feel that the POTUS “position” has been rendered into being a POODLE for the upper the 2%, and whoever gets hired for the job wil do what s/he’s told, stat, and then STFU. What does it matter if it’s McCain or Obama doing the dirty work? I see no difference.

I refuse to vote “Democratic” bc somehow in some fairytale land we’ll be “worse off” with a so-called “Republican” POTUS. We won’t be. It’ll just be: meet the new boss, same as the old boss…..

That’s just my 2 cents worth. I know others disagree with that viewpoint, but that’s how I see it.

We really do need a new system.

Thank you, Jane & crew, for all that you do every day. It seems evident that all of you work very hard with very little money, and I, for one, think you all do a fantastic job. I’m sorry that there’s been skirmishing here today, but from my perspective, fwiw, at least people are *paying attention.*

Sometimes like minds disagree and clash. After the dust settles, I hope we can all find ways to work together meaningfully, as I feel that the “regulars” who comment here are all very much concerned about the welfare of our nation, as well as our own personal welfare.

There is much at stake these days, and given the state of our union, I can see why everyone might be on edge. I certainly feel very very unsettled.

Best to all concerned and keep up the good work, FDL! It is appreciated by me, at least, but I certainly don’t mind some vigorous debate.

I think the Ellsberg and Moore, and Jane too, are being rational in terms of working within the system to make a change.
You can ask Santa Claus for a New System, but it doesn’t work that way anymore than some one praying to their God for a direct deposit is going to get rich.
But, that’s just the way I see it. I realize others see this differently.

Bill, my post over at #21 was a sort of reductio ad absurdum of what people like Ellsberg were saying. I didn’t intend to quote Ellsberg, and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that that’s what I intended to do.

I have no doubt that, as you outlined in great detail above, Ellsberg has a strategy for bringing a third party to America. My skepticism as regards Ellsberg’s strategy is that, if a nascent third party is to be continually hamstrung by the necessity of tiptoeing around the Democratic Party for fear of alienating “lesser of two evils” voters (“omigod we can’t do this or that for fear of alienating the Democrats”), then there will never be a viable third party.

This skepticism is in fact borne out by the results of the David Cobb (Green Party) Presidential candidacy in 2004. Cobb followed Ellsberg’s strategy, just as suggested by the letter written by Ellsberg and others endorsing Cobb. The result of the matter was that Cobb received practically no votes. After the election, David Cobb retired to that great hotspot of political activity, Eureka, California.

Now, I recognize that the Cobb candidacy is no definitive disproof of Ellsberg’s strategy — perhaps a more convincing candidate could have made a better “go” of it. Yet nevertheless my skepticism remains.

Perhaps. But rational may not be what we need. In my forty or so years, each year keeps getting worse. When I’m truly an old fart, what will it look it? I shudder to think.

People are scared to face the momentous change that must occur to save us and the planet. Business as usual is a hopeless path.

And now for Part 2 of my commentary:

I congratulate all who participated in this Town Hall, and who made various suggestions for moving forward. I’m not in total agreement with some of the suggestions, but rather than dissing the message, I’d like to state that I *appreciate* the participants for coming up with suggested solutions.

It’s a start, and it’s certainly something that we ALL need to consider. Where do we go from here??

Speaking only for myself, I feel that we either need to ditch the so-called “Democratic” party completely & work either with an existing third party, such as the Greens, or start a new third party. Or, failing that, attempt a type of take over of the “Democratic” party, so that it more truly attempts to meet the needs of the lower 98%. It’s blindingly obvious that the current “Democratic” party is only willing to meet the needs of the upper 2%, who are buying off politicians of all creeds.

IMO, it’s going to be a long, slow process, but it’s one that must be started now and that citizens will hopefully commit to and continue working on for the long haul. The rightwing facists did not get to this level of power overnight. One thing that I can acknowledge is that they made a commitment many years ago to a stated course of action, and they did not stop or give up.

My observation is that leftist/progressive/liberals seem too often to throw up our collective hands and run away (or whatever) when the going gets tough. No doubt conservatives also engage in a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing and blaming, but at the end of the day, they stuck to their course of action.

We on the left must do the same; must continue to consider sustainable courses of action; and must seek endorsement and support wherever we can. Some here have dissed Moore for suggesting Matt Damon as a leader. I don’t. Let’s consider every course of action that we can.

I’ll stop now and wish us all well on this incredible journey. Let’s do our best to continue to work together as a TEAM, who has each others’ backs.

Accepting that capitalism is a dead end may be the first painful truth that many on the left should embrace. Then, we can work from there.

Radical? I mean, look around isn’t it obvious?

It’s been my experience that when someone is behaving irrationally, the response is most likely going to be That doesn’t make any sense.
When I’m an old fart, I’d love to tell my grandkids that I was part of a movement that made a positive change to our political system.
Viable third party candidates! Start now. If not now, when?

You said:

I only created a user name when it became absolutely necessary to make any sort of comment.

But you didn’t create it when it became “absolutely necessary” here. If so, your account would be dated 2006. It’s dated August 2010.

I also marvel at people who use words like “shrill” and “take a vacation” and then whine about being “attacked.”

I said WAY worse things in the early days. We all did. And if you don’t know that, well, having a footprint here that only goes back to 2010 would be more validation that this was when you actually first started reading FDL.

If your insult can’t stand on its own, trying to pretend you’re some august community gray beard just makes your concern trollery look silly.

Thanks, onitgoes.

Ryan just got an estimate for a community-wide conference call. 500 people would be $4500 for one call.

Ugh. It’s going to take a lot of work to make this happen. Back to the drawing board.

Based on the comments in this thread, it’s obvious that the webinar – which was brilliantly conducted by Jane and her staff (thank you FDL!)- touched a nerve. I have the deepest respect for both Mr. Ellsberg and Mr. Moore, and am grateful for their time and participation Sunday and their many contributions to our nation. Having said that, I may still disagree with them on certain points (voting for Dems in swing states and Supreme Court nominees with Mr. Ellsberg, there wasn’t much I had issue with Mr. Moore other than Matt Damon may be too young to run in 2012 – but I could be wrong on that point).

In any event, our frustration is because no one has a clear idea of what we need to do to wrest power away from the Corprorate Whores running our country into the ground. Many of us believe there is value in trying to take over the Democratic Party, many of us feel we need to break away completely and go the route of a third party. Maybe both options have merit, my personal belief is that a hybrid strategy may be the best way to accomplish this (in states where the Democratic Party has a liberal or progressive history (Wisconsin), co-option may be the best way to achieve our goals – in states where the Dems are simply closeted Repubs and have little power or influence (Texas), a third party may be the best approach).

Regardless of the approach, those of us on the Left must be willing to organize and support each other. Principles over Party. We must stand together and forget the wedge issues that are tearing us apart. A divide and conquer strategy is how the Neo-Liberals and Corporatists have accumulated the power that they have, and it’s come at all of our expense.

We have to organize and focus on one main issue: whether we call it class warfare, economic insecurity, or wage slavery isn’t important. That we get together now is.

Yes, technology is very expensive. I know it’s hard to fund-raise, and I do have sympathy for those who feel very frustrated (or something of that nature) when they cannot help with any money bc of their financial circumstances.

To me, Jane, you are doing your best to straddle income gaps and provide services within the means of FDL. We are not a wealthy community, but some have more discretionary income than others.

Perhaps you can fund raise for particular events?? Some of us who have been able to pay to join (and also perhaps paid more to cover membership fees for others) may be willing to kick in periodically to cover event costs. I am blessed to be able to do that and I’m willing to kick in funds periodically, esp for events that may be able to open to others with more limited financial circumstances. A thought.

Best to all. Keep the faith. Peace.

Jane, please read my words carefully. It became necessary, absolutely to me, to have an outlet for my comments once I decided to stop wasting my time at DKos. Obviously you haven’t taken me up on my dare, which means to me that you’re afraid you’ll find out that I am NOT what you are accusing me of being. It’s much more convenient for you to vent frustrations that have absolutely nothing to do with me personally toward me than it is to make a simple trip to Raw Story, Alternet, or some other site on which I comment more regularly than here and find out that you are attacking and alienating someone who is actually on the same side as you. Your little drama queen episode of today means nothing if you can’t be bothered to do just the least possible investigation of the person you’re trying to portray incorrectly. I’m not whining, I’m gonna tell you straight up that you’re being a god-damned bitch about all of this and I’ve lost just about all the respect I ever had for you because of your unreasonableness and your unwillingness to seek out the truth about me, which is available for anyone who cares to venture outside the gated walls of FDL. Yes, I used the term you’re so egregiously offended by in hopes that you will take me up on my dare and discover who I really am. I’ll even make it easy for you – Here’s a link to a Raw Story article in which you’ll find a comment from me, the 2nd comment from the bottom (meaning 2nd comment made). You can click on my user name and see all the comments I’ve ever made there. If you can read my writings, both comedic and serious, and then come back and honestly say you were right about me all along, I will leave FireDogLake forever and never darken your door again. I’ve put up instead of shutting up, now it’s time for you to do the same!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/08/aig-sues-bofa-fraud/#comment-280457330

Dan said that when it came to criticizing the President he took a back seat to no one, but he could not in good conscience back an effort that could be a spoiler in the race and result in a Republican being put in office.

I haven’t yet read the comments, so if it’s already been said, sorry.

But this is where he is flat out WRONG.

Being the spoiler should be something we strive FOR, not run away from. This is how you get political power. This is how you get negotiating power with the Democrats. This is how you actually get them to listen.

If your goal is simply to make sure the Democrats still win elections, then why bother with the bullshit and just go out and support the Democrats.

If your goal is political power, the kind of power that can translate into policy goals, then you welcome being the spoiler. In fact, you make it your first goal. This should be our first goal, with our second making the 3rd party further viable enough to win OR remaking the Democratic Party enough to go back home.

So what’s FDl goal??? Is it going to be to simply make an easily ignorable statement and ensure that Obama wins, or is it political power???

I can probably guess that I’m not the only one waiting for an answer to that question. I hope we get one. Because then we too have decisions to make.

So where’s this 3rd party many here want to run a candidate from in 2012? Ellsberg and Moore and the rest of us were talking about building something for the future, 2020 or perhaps 2016. Do you think a 3rd party organization is gonna fall out of the fuckin’ sky into your lap? I hear/see all these people harping on a 3rd party ticket but want it to be presented to them on a fuckin’ platter. What I don’t see is the 3rd party advocates here out there working to make it happen.

This is a good idea. During yesterday’s Webinar, being aware it isn’t cheap, I had wished I could donate a few bucks to keep the discussion going longer.

And Jane despite all the sniveling upstream, and the technological challenges of putting on such an event, I’m greatly impressed that within a few days of the shit storm that congress tossed us last weekend, you managed to snag Dan Ellsberg for a Webinar, and within a day or two of a diary regarding Micheal Moore “seeing the light”, you had him included in the Webinar as well. Even assuming you have the ear of those two, pulling that off was, I’m sure, no small feat.

I’m truly thankful for the opportunity to have all of you gathered for a discussion in my living room yesterday.

First, I would truly like to thank Jane Hamsher and the dedicated people who put together this very professional webinar and the guests for participating.

Josh Koster made an interesting case for on-line advertising of political campaigns, especially when costs are a significant factor. I have long admired Daniel Ellsberg for his “whistleblower” stance and Michael Moore for seeking out the truth on various issues.

Daniel Ellsberg made a good case for starting a “movement” which if I understood correctly, might have an impact in 2016 or 2020. A movement will put pressure on Democrats and give credibility to a future third party. He used the Bush/Gore campaign as an example of spoilers and went on to express that with all of Obama’s faults, the Republicans look worse.

As I said above, I have long admired Daniel Ellsberg, but, I have a few questions about the continued “lesser of two evils” philosphy type of voting.

1. We no longer live in the world of the year 2000 (Bush/Gore). We are now involved in MULTIPLE wars, a country where financial fraud by financial institutions almost brought down our economy, a rapidly increasing inequality, a continued loss of civil liberties, and have a government where the President and Congress are captured by finance. While this won’t be resolved for some time to come, how can we in good conscience vote in the same people (President Obama) whose policies are taking us further down an “austerity” path instead of investing in our future?? Can we as a nation live through five more years of Obama/Republican policies?

2. In regards to a “movement”, I agree 100% with Daniel Ellsberg that we need a serious movement. But, if the purpose of the movement is to gain credibility in order to put “pressure on Democrats”, at what point will those in the movement once again be absorbed by the Democratic party and become “voiceless”?

As for Matt Damon, I made that suggestion here over a year ago. My thinking was that if we truly do live in a country where “celebrity” rules, then let’s have an intelligent, educated, progressive minded celebrity with a history of caring for the people in this country. The lawyers and politicians certainly aren’t listening to citizens.

After having read all 82 posts to date, I am disappointed that the “base” of the Progressive Movement, has been completely discounted by white Progressives. Thusly, America’s “racial and ethnics” are being cavalierly dismissed and often neglected. Now, I come at my political perspective from the Native American/Chicano Construct.

Therefore, I have been a participant at the FDL for quite some time and subsequently, I have posted well over sixty diaries and in which these diaries espouse my political viewpoint.

Of course, I should not be posting at this thread, since I have yet to become a Member, but I will do so in the coming months. And it’s for this reason that I am posting this comment at the end of this discussion and done out of respect for my fellow FDLers and thereby, not to “insert myself” for any advantageous manner or perceived gain.. And with this in mind, permit to say the following:

When it comes to my “critique” of the Obama administration and the Democrats in both chambers of Congress, I express my ongoing support for the perpetuation and expansion of LBJ’s “The Great Society.” For in doing so, my “yardstick” or measurement tool effectively demonstrates that our “connected” history, is the bedrock or “gold standard” for America’s “racial and ethnics.”

Take, for example, in the debt ceiling debate and the anticipated spending cuts, less any potential tax increases, by the Super Congress, I expect to find that there will be no smart alecky Progressives willing to undergo that difficult task for “yardsticking” the projected or actualized spending cuts, relative to our Gold Standard.

However, less is being made that America’s “racial and ethnics” will eventually come to “own” the Democratic Party and even “own” the Republican Party, should the Census Bureau “prediction” come to fruition. It’s my expectation that the Republican Party will cease to exist, and the majority of white America will be genuflecting at the altar of the Tea Party—this “new” political dynamic that will exemplify and underpin the political Right in future years.

And in closing, should the white Progressive Community attempt to craft a “third party” that is detrimental to the Great Society, the leadership for this effort, can expect an additional reinforcement tool for their “victimization” of this third party, and all because America’s “racial and ethnics” will render its verdict and perhaps, detrimental to this ‘new’ leadership cabal. As such, politics can be tough “in the political trenches.”

Jaango

Unless the Greens can draft Fiengold, Warren, or the ghost of Paul Newman, a presidential third party candidate in 2012 ain’t happening, SD. And I doubt the Greens or any other third party is organized enough to field any viable POTUS candidate for 2012.

I think we are witnessing an historic moment, a nexus point, if you will, not unlike the decade before the US Civil War. The dividing issue then was economic and moral in nature, slavery, as the main issue is now – too much power in the hands of the wealthy. Remember the historic lesson from the 1850′s. When the establishment Party of the day fails in solving the signature issue dividing the country(the Whigs on Slavery), that Party disappears from history and is replaced by the Party that offers a solution.

It only took the Republicans (a Third Party that didn’t exist in 1840) about a decade to elect Lincoln.

If it happened once, it can happen again. Just sayin’.

However, less is being made that America’s “racial and ethnics” will eventually come to “own” the Democratic Party and even “own” the Republican Party, should the Census Bureau “prediction” come to fruition.

You are right about the demographics issue, Jaango. But if the Democratic Party is still controlled by neo-liberal corporate sellouts it won’t matter what the color of your skin is. Obama has demonstrated the only color that matters now is the same color that matters to Republicans. And that color is green.

In August of 1991, how many people had heard of Ross Perot???

He got nearly 20% of the national vote in 1992 as an independant (later to become the Reform Party).

There may still yet be a major 3rd party run for President, in fact, I’d bet more money for that to happen than against.

Because today’s political climate is much, much, much more ripe for a 3rd party than it was then.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention. He got nearly 20% of the national vote and ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of presidential campaigns. He actually, very very late in the game, ANNOUNCED he was no longer even running!!! How many candidates ever announced quitting and got 20% of the national vote before???

This country was ready then, it is RIPE now for a new party.

Unless the Greens can draft Fiengold, Warren, or the ghost of Paul Newman, a presidential third party candidate in 2012 ain’t happening,

I know that and you know that.

I don’t know that the Greens could pull it off. I’ve talked with various spokespersons from the Green Party and they can’t consistently articulate what they stand for. How the fuck are they going to field a candidate?

The calls for a 3rd party candidate here at the Lake have increased since before the primaries in 08. Has there been any concrete evidence of a nationally viable 3rd party since then? Or the beginnings of an organization in the process? Not that I’ve seen.

People are frustrated with the Dems and I’m certainly one of them. There are numerous “Other” parties listed in the FL elections database. The total number of votes those parties could garner next year in all likelihood would/could not rise to “spoiler” status. I can vote for the FL Socialist Party’s candidate knowing that it won’t even show up in the final tally except as a footnote. Does that send a message to the Dems or Regressives? No.

Outside of the Tea Party favourites who has the name recognition, and money, Ross Perot did?

Back to work

Namaste

And BTW, yesterday when I posted in response to a paragraph written by Anthony Neilo about Ellsberg advocating for only running in states not in play and still advocating for the lesser of two evils, I got several responses saying that it is not what they understood to have been said. Several folks said I should listen to the webinar itself before making a judgement.

Well OK. Now I’m even more confused. Because it did sound exactly to me like that’s exactly what was being said. And now Jane above even posts a paragraph saying almost exactly that.

So where are all of those folks that responded yesterday in that way????

Would you please explain how that WASN’T what was being said??? Because I’m either not understanding this post and the webinar or I’m not understanding what you meant by that wasn’t what was being said???

Very, very confused right now.

In August of 1991, Ross Perot didn’t have the name recognition.

As far as money, I dunno but I didn’t know Ross Perot at this time in 1991 either.

Daniel Ellsberg was not espousing a general strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils. He took great pains to explain that, in his view, we now have two bad parties and that we need to somehow extricate ourselves from both of them. He was talking about responding to the situation we are in right now. Which I don’t need to explain to anyone here, is scary and getting scarier by the minute. Ellsberg and Moore were both advancing the idea that we might be able to pull off some sort of a progressive or third party run over the course of the next two presidential elections. Ellsberg was concerned that in the process we not inadvertently allow a Republican to win the presidency while being beholden to the tea party crazies who apparently want to destroy the country in order to save it. Both Ellsberg and Moore were on board with grassroots efforts to elect third party or progressive Democrats from the congress on down starting now. We’re here folks – in interesting times. We need to be thoughtful and deliberate about our course of action from here on out. We are at a tipping point and have a chance to pull something amazing off because both of the current parties in power are weak now. We just need to take care that things don’t get tipped in the wrong direction. That was the message I got. Please let me know if I got it wrong.

He left IBM in 1962 to found Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in Dallas, Texas, and courted large corporations for his data processing services. Perot was refused seventy-seven times before he was given his first contract. EDS received lucrative contracts from the U.S. government in the 1960s, computerizing Medicare records. EDS went public in 1968 and the stock price rose from $16 a share to $160 within days. Fortune called Perot the “fastest, richest Texan” in a 1968 cover story. In 1984 General Motors bought controlling interest in EDS for $2.4 billion.

Just prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the government of Iran imprisoned two EDS employees in a contract dispute. Perot organized and sponsored their rescue. The rescue team was led by retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel Arthur D. “Bull” Simons. When the team was unable to find a way to extract their two prisoners, they decided to wait for a mob of pro-Ayatollah revolutionaries to storm the jail and free all 10,000 inmates, many of whom were political prisoners. The two prisoners then connected with the rescue team, and the team spirited them out of Iran via a risky border crossing into Turkey. The exploit was recounted in a book, On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett, which became a best-seller. In the 1986 miniseries, Perot was portrayed by Richard Crenna.

From Wiki

By 91 Perot was well known and had plenty of dust. His exploits had him on TV numerous times in the 80s.

You got it right. Thanks.

So where’s this 3rd party many here want to run a candidate from in 2012?

Here’s A third party, if you’re asking that question.

Ellsberg and Moore and the rest of us were talking about building something for the future, 2020 or perhaps 2016.

The issue I was contesting wasn’t that of the date. Choose any date you want. The issue is one of what Ellsberg and Moore are in fact building for the future. Is it a third party which competes with the two other parties, or is it a third party which tiptoes around the Democratic Party so that its rank-and-file members can vote Democrat with a “clear conscience” that they have “done something” before they throw another lifeline to neoliberal elites?

2. In regards to a “movement”, I agree 100% with Daniel Ellsberg that we need a serious movement. But, if the purpose of the movement is to gain credibility in order to put “pressure on Democrats”, at what point will those in the movement once again be absorbed by the Democratic party and become “voiceless”?

Precisely.

Stevo67@92

As to the notional for the “color green,” is not going to occur,writ large given that we already know that Obama is being criticized for his rendition the Republicans’ failed economic policy. And today’s 100 million “racial and ethnics” are not going to stand idly by for a visit from the Hope poster now emblazoned on the front door of the White House.

Consequently, “embarassing” Obama is easily ccomplished since our wallet has been severely decreased in this economic fiasco. And yet, we managed to survive and prosper, even under Baby Bush.

Any “embarrassment” practiced by the Progressive Movement is the only facet that will get Obama’s undivided attention. To wit, Scarecrow’s diary on ‘jobs for military veterans and none for laid-off school teachers’ was spot-on.

Jaango

TMZ reads FDL? LOL.

current top story: “Michael Moore MATT DAMON FOR PRESIDENT!”

with a link to this post.

totally agree with you OFG, that conditions on the ground now are better for a third party than they were when Perot ran with the Reform Party. My take on the ’92 election is that the Reform Party was primarily a vanity project of Perot’s, and that may be why it never had the “legs” to last longer than one or two election cycles, and in Texas at least, morphed into the Libertarians.

Problem right now is that no Lib/Prog with any name recognition or serious money has even hinted at a 3rd Party run, though there is still some time left. Though if one does (Liz Warren, Russ Fiengold… come on down!) I have no problem supporting them.

I still think we can do both strategies I talked about earlier. In states where the Dems are salvageable, take over the Party. In states where Dems are a lost cause, third parties may be the best option. But we need to organize over ONE major issue , stay united, and agree to only support candidates who are with us on this issue.

Both Ellsberg and Moore were right about one thing. We’ve got the numbers. 150 million of us against the super rich and their enablers. The people of this country fully support the Progressive economic agenda. We’ve simply got to organize and stop being divided over the wedge issues of the cultural wars.

Principles over Politics.

They’re talking about a 3rd party that competes with the Ds and Rs. The strategy is to run in states where votes for the 3rd party don’t siphon votes from the Dems to the point the Regressives win until, repeat until, the 3rd party is in a position to challenge both the D and R candidates on a national level and win. I don’t imagine you like the building support phase but no 3rd party is going to win nationally until that support is solidified nationally.

See my comments above re the Green Party.

Here’s the permanent link. They have an on-line poll where they ask whether Damon should run for President and the yes vote is carrying 61%.

If the problem with third party candidates is name recognition, Matt solves that problem. And if we need someone outside the party apparatus to swoop in and pose a primary challenge, once again, Matt could pull that off.

All of that said, the Presidency is more of a curse than a blessing. If Matt has any sense he would never even consider it ; )

In states where the Dems are salvageable, take over the Party.

What does “salvageable” mean, in the context of a Democratic Party that voted with near-unanimity for a bill (Reid’s version) that established a Super Congress? What does “salvageable” mean when the entire “progressive” bloc of the Democratic Party voted in unanimity for ten years of austerity planning?

Does “salvageable” mean that we get representatives who give us Shiny Liberal Objects now and then and a smattering of pretty words in support of the next neoliberal to reach the White House?

At some point you have to recognize that they are all on the same team and that the team decision has been to go with neoliberal austerity. Do you then decide to endorse neoliberal austerity?

People are frustrated with the Dems and I’m certainly one of them. There are numerous “Other” parties listed in the FL elections database. The total number of votes those parties could garner next year in all likelihood would/could not rise to “spoiler” status. I can vote for the FL Socialist Party’s candidate knowing that it won’t even show up in the final tally except as a footnote. Does that send a message to the Dems or Regressives? No.

Can’t argue with anything you said here. One thing I would bet a body part on is that Obama won’t win re-election in 2012 if we stay away like we did in Nov 2010. Or vote third party or Repub, the result will be the same…Nobama in the White House after jan 2013. That Big Zero and his idiot advisers couldn’t figure out the message in 2010 isn’t our fault, its his.

Thanks for the feedback. BTW I needed that talk from Ellsberg.

i think what’s going on in Wisconsin, and Ohio and Michigan at the state level is, to some extent salvageable. I don’t think any Dem in Congress or the White House is worth a bucket of warm spit right now. in Texas where I live, the Dem party died at the same time as Ann Richards and Molly Ivins did.

At some point you have to recognize that they are all on the same team and that the team decision has been to go with neoliberal austerity. Do you then decide to endorse neoliberal austerity?

and no, i have never endorsed the neo-lib bullshit of Clinton and Obama. I never will. That economic philosophy is what we have to organize and fight against.

I read your words about the Green Party. The fact of the matter is that the Ellsberg strategy has been tried empirically, in 2004, with the David Cobb Presidential campaign for the Green Party. Did you read the link I posted, the one with the letter Ellsberg signed? Here it is again:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-09.htm

At any rate, what the Ellsberg strategy appears to build is not a stronger third party, but rather a stronger Democratic Party, a Democratic Party to which progressives are more committed than ever and in which the neoliberals are stronger than ever. And not only did Cobb hardly get any votes at all, but after 2004 the Green Party itself shrunk significantly in the US.

How do you account for this?

I’m sure the people are salvageable. The question I’m asking is one of whether or not the Democratic Party is salvageable.

I think the Democratic Party is a vehicle of rich people and their political clients for the co-optation of progressives. That’s what it does, and money and careers flow through it so that it’s run like a business. All of the progressive “plans” that I’ve heard or read for “taking over the Democratic Party” seem to me to be larded down with high degrees of unrealism.

The fundamental principle at stake is one of whether or not representatives can be made accountable to the people. The Zapatistas, with their consensus methods and their “juntas de buen gobierno,” in which representatives are elected to do specific tasks, are rotated, and are subject to recall at any time, suggest a principle to be copied. I don’t think the Democratic Party is capable of copying the principles of the Zapatistas, because the Democratic Party isn’t FOR us. From Lance Selfa’s The Democrats: A Critical History:

The Democratic Party (is) something closer to what mainstream political scientist Maurice Duverger described as a “caucus-cadre” party of “notables.” In this type of party, a vestige of the pre-twentieth century forms, small groups of prominent people (politicians and business leaders) hire themselves activists (i.e. a cadre) to maintain the mechanisms of a party (getting out the vote, distributing patronage). These prominent people (the notables) aren’t interested in involving more people or expanding democratic participation — in fact they view voters and constituents as passive objects of the party’s operation. The cadre is motivated to work for the party less because of a commitment to shared values or ideology than for career advancement… (14)

Very well put! The meme that the Greens killed Gore in Florida comes right from the mouth of Hillary Clinton and the DLC. NYT, LA Times, and others studied the results and concluded that Nader actually brought out more votes for Gore than he got himself. Why? Because what Nader message better resonated with voters that would have otherwise stayed home. If we do not oppose the Dem’s narrative we will see one of the lowest percentage turnouts in US history. And, DEMOCRATS ALMOST ALWAYS LOOSE LOW TURNOUT ELECTIONS. IMO, if we do only what Mssrs. Ellsberg and Moore suggest, and I am not impeaching their motives, we will be defeated again and blamed anyway. Why will we be blamed? Because they are going to need a “fall guy” and we have,
traditionally now, been filling that role quite nicely! It is clear that one of Obama’s given missions is to smash the left. And so far, I would say he is succeeding (Apparently, the MoveOners of the world need to brush up on their Sun Tzu and Machiavelli or maybe even Mario Puzzo – keep your enemies close…”) pols know that disunity in large numbers is the main vulnerability of the left historically.

I won’t try. My vision of a 3rd party doesn’t include neoliberal ideology and I think the general population would agree with me if they knew what the term meant. We use it here a great deal and I’d be willing to bet there are those here who really don’t know what neoliberalism is all about.

Let’s be clear about one thing. I don’t see the Democratic Party shifting to the left in my lifetime. Local parties, perhaps, but not on the national level. I abhor the evil of two lessers but until we have another option that’s the framework in which I have to operate. I can’t emphasize enough that we don’t have that 3rd party option right now, no matter how hard and long folks scream for one.

I actually went to an organizing meeting by Cobb a week or so ago based on the Citizens United case

Smart guy

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/obama-nominates-legal-adviser-tea-par

Thank you for the meet. Even though difficult, these discussions need to continue. Being a broadcaster and a student of the “new” media maybe I can make a few suggestions that may help. It’s obvious that you are working very hard to keep participation at a high level and this is, indeed, one of the central tenants of new media. So, obviously, “many to many” com/tech, like “GO To Meeting” is desirable but unit costs don’t always work out to economies of scale. So, the way to deal with that is to create your own cost effective hybrid. There are many ways to approach this. Here’s an example. Do a “one to many” discussion presentation then open it up to a real-time blog right here at FDL. Technologies that could work include MakeTV, BlogTalkRadio, , etc…I produced and hosted an international show using TalkShoe for over a year on a weekly basis. Some of these applications are inherently unstable due to their networking software but a simple, efficient and effective hybrid can be designed with little trouble. Another idea is to allow attendance by all dues paying members and one time charges at low cost for all those who aren’t paid members. When people experience the “inside” of a community they are much more like to become new members.

I can’t emphasize enough that we don’t have that 3rd party option right now, no matter how hard and long folks scream for one.

We don’t have a Green Party? We don’t have ballot access laws that make it possible for a third-party or independent Presidential candidate to make it onto nearly every ballot in America?

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.

Where is their candidate? Without a candidate, and money, they’re just another entity. Where is their outreach? I’ll be damned if I remember an official of the Green Party ever appearing on these pages. Do they appear on other blogs? They have a web page. Big deal.

The Green Party of FL appears on the list of parties one can register for.

Dear Webinar Organizers

Thank you very, very much for all your hard work. I’m sorry you got hit with an insult rather than encouragement. I hope it helps that that comment is a minority view. It’s certainly not my view!

One minor point on the feedback survey:
“on a scale of 1-5″
Which end of the scale is “fantastic” and which is “epic FAIL”?
No snark intended…I really can’t tell. I’ve taken many surveys in my time, and there’s no hard-and-fast rule for this.

Thanks again,
And thank you to my generous membership sponsor, whoever you were!

FunnyDiva

Oh, you mean that we actually can vote for third parties, but that they haven’t “arrived” yet.

I’m going to assume you’re going all out to make the Green Party a nationally viable party, right?

Right now I think we’re headed for worsening conditions, because the Democratic Party has every movement to the left of the Tea Party so thoroughly co-opted that there really is no choice. Even if we did have a Green Party in all fifty states, it would still be co-opted.

I was just trying to clarify your phrasing.

Ellsberg was concerned that in the process we not inadvertently allow a Republican to win the presidency while being beholden to the tea party crazies who apparently want to destroy the country in order to save it.

Doesn’t that comment embrace the “lesser of two evils” philosophy?

The point I took from Mr. Ellsberg is that in red states where the democrat will not win, it is a good idea to vote for the third party candidate as that means you not only help push the numbers to 5% and federal funding for next election, but it would also send a message to the democratic establishment that there is a serious movement in opposition to the status quo. It made sense to do the same in blue states that would easily go democratic. He mentioned in the purple states is where to go with the lesser of two evils to prevent a really awful party from gaining control.

My take-away from the town hall meeting: 1) Begin building a left consolidation movement immediately (I like NPA but I think we should call it something like “The New Democratic Alliance,” or New Commonwealth Alliance, or something like that (let’s start peeling them off and let them worry about the friggin’ “(c)” 2) Start putting up place holders and primary 0 where we can; 3) Be ready to pivot to a third party in case of indicator events like the Tea Party splitting the Repugs.

Their key strengths: Organization, brand recognition, resources. Their key weaknesses: the political economy, lack of integrity; amply demonstrated lack of credibility, two-faced allegiances;

Our key strengths: Pubic opinion; Integrity; candle power, opinion influencers, decentralized/distributed; Our key weaknesses: Lack of organization; demoralized; lack of resources;

The biggest flaw I see in the Ellsberg/Moore scenario is the assumption that to some extent we can “go along to get along.” Make no mistake. We have been targeted and taking a cautious approach will not change that. Why? Because we are opinion influencers. Moreover, it is very clear that the banksters are working off the clock. This is a time critical political economic battle. Their time to accomplish their agenda is framed in a closing window. They are now afraid of paper. Their ability to control populations is being diminished because the music just stopped in the hot potato debt game. So, how do you regain a steady collateral revenue stream impervious to political economic change and post-modern fragmentation when paper and bonds become scary? You crash economies and buy up the infrastructure. If you own the necessities of life like water, transportation, energy, etc. who needs bonds? IMO in a very few years, unless these people are confronted now, it’s game over and we will enter America’s dark age and we will all be wondering what that light is at the end of the tunnel.

Late response but…

Reboot Party?

Just wanted to mention that your comments are putting my critical thinking skills into action. Thanks.

First of all, thank you so much Jane and all the other member of the FDL team for all your hard work.

My thoughts:

1)Before we can even consider our options or strategies, somebody needs to find a way to find out if Matt Damon would run. Help us, Mike Moore?

2)Can we re-grow a coordinated “Hollywood liberal” power structure of some sort?

3) OFG is making some incredibly compelling arguments here, and I’m not seeing them being refuted. And I’m not able to debunk him, either.

4) I have what I believe to be a good idea for FDL fundraising. Companies like ebay and google use a company called crowdflower to perfect their search engines. Crowdflower pays people via Amazon Mechanical Turk and swagbucks to categorize search results.

You can read about it here:
http://blog.swagbucks.com/2011/02/introducing-tasks.html

I bet the folks at Crowdflower would be interested in harnessing a volunteer labor pool of people trying to raise funds for Amnesty International, FDL, etc. They currently are fighting a “market for lemons” issue with scam “workers” clicking random buttons. It’s complicated. I’ve read scientific papers about it. Anyway, I bet Crowdflower would be interested in tapping into the “volunteer labor pool” if you were to call them or email them.

Just a thought.

Agreed. We need to stop falling for their psy-ops, cognitive dissonance campaign. They are succeeding in assisting the fragmentation of the left. We’d better put together a strategy and soon. When Franco is at the gates of Barcelona you stop shooting at each other and realize you better have a strategy like, right now, or there will not be a long term to discuss. I have no personal criticism for Mssrs. Moore and Ellsberg and I very much appreciate their contributions to our Country. But I will criticize the notion that we can go along with business as usual. I’ve yet to hear an articulated vision of where we need to go. I will offer my vision: Social democracy on the way to social libertarianism. I will be posting a twenty page paper on that topic here at FDL, ZNet, OliveBranch and others very soon. Anyone who wants to work with me to develop an articulation of that vision and accompanying strategies just hit me back here or at my profile here at FDL. I have quite a bit of experience doing these sorts of things so who’s in?

Their time to accomplish their agenda is framed in a closing window. They are now afraid of paper. Their ability to control populations is being diminished because the music just stopped in the hot potato debt game. So, how do you regain a steady collateral revenue stream impervious to political economic change and post-modern fragmentation when paper and bonds become scary? You crash economies and buy up the infrastructure. If you own the necessities of life like water, transportation, energy, etc. who needs bonds? IMO in a very few years, unless these people are confronted now, it’s game over and we will enter America’s dark age and we will all be wondering what that light is at the end of the tunnel.

I think so, too.
And I am honestly, utterly terrified.

I am more than in.

good point. Thanks you FunnyDiva. I’ll make sure we make that clear in future surveys (not sure myself!)

“Hollywood liberals” might be a big strength of ours, too.

I hope your ears were burning yesterday Athena, I mentioned during the webinar that I thought to invite Michael Moore when I read your diary.

we’ve discovered who you are from your posts in this thread. Before accusing others of ‘misbehaving’ please re-read your posts prior to publishing them and remove any incendiary comments, statement, and name-calling. Then we can discover who you really are.

Yes, they were. Hearing my pseudonym mentioned by the mighty Jane herself was really an honor. Seriously.

Also, the poll results from TMZ:

Matt for President?

*
Yes
58%
*
No
42%

Total Votes: 26,670

Americans are fed up. I honestly think we could have an “Eisenhower moment” with Matt Damon if he’d run.

“Can we re-grow a coordinated “Hollywood liberal” power structure of some sort?”

There used to be several in Hollywood that I worked with in the past. One was called “STARZ.” But that was quite a while ago. I’ll bet they still exist but the DINO cognitive dissonance strategy is working so I bet that much has been sidelined. Again, IMO, this no accident. Exhibit A: Tom Hanks continuing to chase his tail – It’s making me dizzy so I ignore him. The psy-ops campaign is meant to have exactly the effect intended. Even the FDL community is trying to pull itself to pieces.

You make a great point. We need to start a real conversation with Hollywood. And, that’s how you approach Matt. You say, Mr. Damon, would you please help us to assist Hollywood in pulling its head out of its ass? Ah, the sound of champagne corks! Yeah no body wants to piss off the suits! Well I say a whole lot of boycotts are in order. Yes, some will be blackballed by the suits. However, your career is going nowhere if the avante guard starts making it clear how uncool it is to continue to brown nose the brown suits. We can make it very clear that there is more than one way to commit career suicide. “Fuck with the basic interests of your audience, your customers, well then fuck you!”

Understand, they are running a war on us already, and they are hoping to win without firing a shot. Tsun Tzu, Machiavelli, John Perkins,…

My comments are addressed to Jane Hamsher, not you. When she comes back and tells me that she’s read my writing at Disqus, then I will either continue posting or leave this site altogether. It’s very easy for her to misread what I did write here and then fly off the handle making false accusations about me but much harder to take my dare, read my stuff and then realize that she is wrong about me. It wouldn’t take that long one way or the other. Even if what she accused me of were true, only having been visiting this site since August of last year, she still couldn’t justify invalidating my opinions based on the length of my tenure. Well, she could if she were Markos Moulitsas. In any event, I don’t care about YOUR percpetion of me, just Jane’s. And it’s by her word alone that I will continue to participate or say goodbye. Notice she has yet to get back to me after my last post. I wonder if she ever will. As for you, good day and all the best to you.

Great athena 1! The paper I mentioned is merely the philosophical grounding for developing the vision I mentioned. And, as a key component, it does contain IRV. While I’ve been in and out of FDL for a few years I’ve only recently become a member. So i don’t know how to “friend” you here yet. I would like to start a group who would like to work on this ASAP. If we could put out an easily accessible vision piece that could be used as the basis of unified talking points to repeated over and over and give it some real “new marketing” push. I’m finishing a doctorate in media studies right now. It wouldn’t cost much at all to make this a “viral vision.” The conditions are ripe for it.

The point I took from Mr. Ellsberg is that in red states where the democrat will not win, it is a good idea to vote for the third party candidate as that means you not only help push the numbers to 5% and federal funding for next election, but it would also send a message to the democratic establishment that there is a serious movement in opposition to the status quo.

Which message the Democrats are free to ignore, as there will be nothing at stake for candidates who will only solicit your vote as long as it doesn’t matter.

I whole-heartedly agree with you. See my comments below to athena1. The paper I am referring to deals directly with the point you made hear. This is a sea change in human history. There’s a whole lot more going on here than just class warfare. This is a fight for the very nature of humanity. For example there is now scientific evidence to suggest that we’ve screwed with materialism to the point that our kids are now physically less capable of empathy. That’s right, they have fewer “mirror neurons” which are critical in processing empathy. Would you like a copy? I would love to get your comments. Also, I am looking for partners to help co-author a book on this subject so that we can get it out and maybe help articulate a holistic vision. What is that we stand for? We might know intuitively but the public doesn’t and it is on us to make it accessible and to repeat it often.

i waited until the end of the thread to post this comment, so as not to derail the conversation further:

phred, putting aside whether or not i am, or you believe me to, be mean-spirited, entitled, rigid, revisionist, pretender, small-minded, petty and ignorant with an axe to grind….

i’d like to focus back on the point i was attempting to make (not very well apparently).

my comment was not about access, not about cost and not about the hard work and dedication of good people.

it was not about the webinars (other than to say i thought they were great).

it was about the words used to describe the events: members, town hall and “our community.”

a logical implication that flows from those words is of “gated community.”

i wish you, and others who use those words, would consider that implication and think about not using those words (“benefit to donors” is an alternative). without those words, the implication would go away without changing anything else — not access, not cost to participate.

Congratulations selise. You don’t know the names of our young staff, you don’t know what they do every day to make sure you have the privilege of insulting them here. You haven’t taken the time to try and learn who they are, or appreciate their work. You just order them around like a bunch of bus boys and then throw food in their faces when you think it is not warm enough.

But you are now officially the most hated commenter at FDL. When you consider all the trolls and assholes who have been here over the years, that’s no small feat. You were angling for the honor when they were all really excited about what they had achieved at the end of the webinar and you spit in their faces, you went for the gold with your “gated community” crap, but now your narcissistic doubling down, your inability to apologize for acting like an entitled grand dame, has really sealed it.

Edited to note that this is in reply to selise at 146:

Dang selise, you really do have a bee in your bonnet about this. I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth or implying my intent was anything other than it was. It’s dishonest. You have an issue here that I don’t share. Further, I don’t think you should be the grand arbiter of the definition of “our community”, how that phrase should be used, or who should be allowed to use it.

I was pretty clear I think in my earlier comment about what I think is appropriate. I simply disagree with you.

But as you note, words matter and “gated community” was intended to be an insult and it hit home. Rather than being gracious and apologizing for it, you keep insisting that it was fair. Reread the paragraph that starts with the word “finally” in my comment at 33. Nothing about your use of “gated community” was fair. Not at all. The information is here. Right here. The thread for discussion is here. Everyone can participate. Everyone.

If you think that somehow attending live gives people more opportunity to be an active participant, then you clearly have much less experience with webinars in general than I have, because that is simply not how they work. They can’t because with only a limited time amount of time, only a limited number of people get a chance to add their two cents. In my opinion, the post-webinar discussion provides a far greater opportunity for active discussion and interaction than a webinar. If you read through the comments on this thread pertinent to the content of the webinar, you will see that is true.

As a result, I stand by my use of “our community”. Everyone here can benefit from the webinars. Everyone.

One other thought, I have attended “town halls” with my representative and not once have I gotten a chance to speak. Too many people with their hands up and too little time.

Here, everyone who cares to comment can do so. Even late. Even at the end of a thread. Jane and her terrific crew is providing a far greater service to our community than I can find anywhere else. And I am deeply grateful for it.