-Well, it was bad writing on my part. What I meant to say was that your -party prefers to fight over "red" states on existing anti-labor ("small -government," "moderate," "not liberal") terms. It thumbs its nose at -mobilizing the people who would provide the votes to put labor law reform on -the agenda. It woos Reagan Democrat/Republicans, and ignores poor people -and minorities.
Again, where is your evidence? This post started by pointing out that these Dem candidates in these "red states" have publicly embraced pro-labor legislation as part of their campaign. In fact, if you pay attention to the South Carolina race, labor issues and trade issues are at the heart of the debate between the two candidates. Or on civil rights, to take South Carolina again, here is Inez's position on civil rights: http://www.inez2004.com/portal/files/phatfile/One%20Pager%20-%20Af-Am.pdf
Some quotes: "Inez will work to help create jobs across South Carolina by supporting theSmall Business Administration's programs to link minority firms with federal contracting, and to make business loans more readily available."
"From 1994, Inez supported removal of the Confederate flag from the Statehouse dome."
"Inez would also support an increase in the minimum wage, make college more affordable, and work to narrow the health disparities that exist between black and white South Carolinians."
So in red-as-hell South Carolina, the Dem candidate is running on supporting affirmative action, labor law reform, raising the minimum wage, and fighting racism in the health care system.
So that's hardly fighting on "anti-labor" terms.
>And your claim that it would take 60 Senators is also DP propaganda:
"Can't
>be done, so why try?" If there were a President and a House ready and
eager
>to press the point, the Senate would not be able to filibuster it.
We've had that situation repeatedly (1966, 1978, 1994) and the Senate can filibuster labor law reform, just as it filibustered civil rights for decades, despite having Presidents and a House willing to pass reform. If 41 Senators can be reelected based on their anti-labor votes, there is little a President can do to change their votes. Possibly, he could allow other conservative things to pass in exchange for a few votes for labor law reform.
Back in the 1960s, the GOP offered to allow labor law reform to pass if the Dems and unions would allow a constitutional amendment to reverse the "one man, one vote" Supreme Court decision. To their credit, the unions said screw labor law reform if it meant disenfranchising black and urban voters.
But short of trading away something else in exchange for labor law reform, what short of 60 votes can get labor law reform?
>Meanwhile, I ask this as a real, non-hostile question: Why do you read
this
>board? You seem entirely closed to any and all criticism of the DP,
despite
>its long record of utter failure at being progressive.
I actually read it less consistently than I once did-- remember I've been on this list long before you were from the first day it was created. But I'm often not talking to you with my comments; I'm talking to the large number of people "lurking" on the list and others who read the archives, so that they understand that the rhetorical statements about "the Democratic Party" are silly simplifications and misunderstand the real steps needed for progressives to win.
To repeat as always, I don't defend some amorphous non-existent entity known as the "Democratic Party" (please send me its address; I'll send you at least 50 and probably more like 500 additional addresses for where that "party" is located, in its quite wide-ranging diversity of power centers). What I defend is the strategy of progressives voting and mobilizing on the party line labelled "Democratic" versus wasting energy on third parties that can't win at the state legislative level, much less at the federal.
I also defend and promote "independent politics" via groups like Americans Coming Together, which is run by unions, civil rights and feminist leaders and is controlling turnout for this election in most swing states. It's notably that union folks like Steve Rosenthal are directing those hundreds of millions of dollars involved in voter mobilization this year NOT John Kerry. ACT is taking no orders from Kerry and they control their voter lists after the election, not the DNC.
-- Nathan Newman