You may find the comment in this thread (which is a long and interesting thread covering a number of newsworthy topics):
I'm replying to Rick Staggenborg. The quoted material is from his reply. Here's the comment:
"I cannot invest myself in another campaign that I pay for out of my pocket." That makes perfect sense.
You mentioned Arizona. I lived there and voted for the public-financing measure. While I was there, Evan Mecham (ultra-conservative) won the governorship. He did it on what might be considered a shoestring. He did it mostly via a "newspaper" (his whole platform in high detail) he sent out (only a couple of times if memory serves). I've never seen it done again. You should look into the method. Get your hands on an old copy if possible. He put nearly all of his funds into that one method and won. The political experts were nonplused. They thought he was a fool not to be out on the trail and advertising instead. I thought it was a stroke of genius. Everyone who received that newspaper could read his whole platform. I read it. I disagreed, but I heard more from him from those newspapers than all the TV ads and speeches of the others put together. Put it on recycled paper with biodegradable ink!
"It makes no sense to lump all Democrats together." Agreed, but it is a corporate-funded machine.
"In Oregon we have a very liberal party...." True, but I've been speaking in national terms. I do understand the more incremental approach, but I feel the time for a mass, national Movement is now. Obama remains a huge problem. He was the wrong horse and still is. He will be your party's "leader." That's a huge problem.
You are a tactician and strategist. That's plain to see. You are thinking nuts and bolts. There's nothing wrong with that. You can increase the progressive voice by getting into office as a Democrat; however, could you do more in both the short- and long-term by gathering the disparate "progressive" groups together to form a new party? Have you had the conversation with the leaders of the various parties that you feel should have supported you? If so, how easily did you give up? Did you approach their rank and file? Hit them all up for money for your "newspaper" while you're at it.
Who's your campaign manager?
I throw the various arguments in the scales and see the weight on the side of new parties (plural: "left" and "Libertarian").
"they have put the abolition of corporate personhood on their platform...." That is a positive, and you are right to press them on it. However...
"...pressure Merkley, DeFazio and others to introduce the amendment." They shouldn't require pressure. What's wrong with them? How much money do they take from corporations? More importantly, how afraid are they of corporations even if they don't take much money if any? "Progressives" must stop fearing losing. They must stand on principle come Hell or high water. Caving has been the problem. Blast that out there.
"One possibility if we fail to make progress (which I doubt) is for Progressive Democrats of America to dissolve its PAC and form a new one to support ANY progressive running. This would be a fatal blow to the Democratic Party, whose leadership would be left without a following. This is unlikely in the extreme due to partisanship and a fear of Republican ascendency."
"Progressive Democrats of America" to "Progressives of America" is interesting. Notice that they have to say "Progressive Democrats" because Progressives and Democrats aren't the same thing.
As for fearing Republican ascendancy, Bush's ascendancy opened the door wide open to Single-Payer and the like. The only error was that the people didn't listen carefully enough to hear Obama saying that he would not be a New Dealer, far from it. Don't fear losing. Losing to morons because you've stood on real principle, allows those morons to crash and burn from their own top-heaviness. Then the door opens. It's Shock politics. Just be ready to go in to pass real reforms without, and against, the corporatists (fascists). Don't fall for the Obama-types! The path to really winning is to throw Triangulation under the bus. Spread that word, Rick. Hammer on it.
"People are waiting to be given a real choice. It doesn't matter if the person running is a Democrat, Republican or independent to them." Well, this is true for many people but certainly not all. There is a growing Movement to recognize the Democratic Party as beyond redemption for having gone the Clinton Triangulation (DLC) route (a route I hated at the time; still do). Are you in contact with any people who are in the Movement or heading it up? I can link you up if you want.
On Clinton, I didn't know then everything I know now, of course, and there was not the Internet to voice things such as we are doing here and elsewhere. I spoke against Triangulation at the time, but I had a day job and many other concerns I won't go into here.
Look, how often does Obama refer to FDR the way the Republicans refer to Reagan? He doesn't. He doesn't because he is not a New Dealer! He's a corporatist. How often do any of the Democrats laud FDR's New Deal? FDR was hugely popular with the masses going through much the same thing we are experiencing now. He was so popular that they put in term limits (which I do not support for that very reason, but that's another issue). They run from progressivism because of corporatism. You are running against the corporatists, who are, among others, the Democratic Party if that Party is its leadership. I say it is because the members do not control them. The members constantly listen to the triangulators who are really interested in becoming personally rich at the direct expense of the membership.
"The problem is the self-fulfilling prophecy that only a corporate-backed candidate can win, even as a Democrat." There are places where individuals can break through but into what? They break into the machine that stops them dead in their tracks a la Dennis Kucinich, who played ball to keep his "place" with them (committees, etc.). It is not the way to win!
I'm thinking Single-Payer and the "Public Option" debacle. Obama's lack of fire and fight, his cozy relationship with Wall Street (at least at the time), ruined things. He is still a major obstacle. The Democratic Party is a major obstacle. If the Party had wanted Single-Payer, it would already be in place. A large majority of the public wanted Single-Payer when Obama was running for office. His collusion with the enemy allowed them (the corporatists/fascists) to have a field day in the media running the idea of Single-Payer into the dirt with those in favor being voiceless where it mattered most at the time: the Senate hearings on the subject.
Then there are all the wars. Of course, the voters were dupes not to have listened to Obama beyond his "change" bull. He was clear about revving up the war in Afghanistan: how "progressive" of him, how corporate, how imperial, how colonial, how fascistic.
Then there's Anthropogenic Global Warming. Where the Hell is Obama? The Party in general is much better than he is, but the oil corporations are still buying influence. Why doesn't that party stand on principle and tell the oil, gas, and coal industries that if they want influence, they must convert to green (real green) and fast.
What about GMO "food"? Obama hires Monsanto as his food czar. Where are the Democratic Party members? They are too mixed with Blue Dogs and the like.
Your position is to take over the Democratic Party rather than forming a new party and beating both the Republicans and Democrats.
Don't get too close. The darkness will blind you.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)