Who Speaks for Progressives? Nominations Welcome
This week, Gallup tried to identify the Republican spokesperson. Among Republicans, it was a tie between Rush and Newt at 10% each.
Obviously the Democratic spokesperson is President Obama. But who speaks for progressives? This is an important question, because President Obama has been "captured" by the conservative establishment on key issues like bailouts for Big Banks, the wars in Iraq and AfPak, accountability for torture, and corporate control of health care. Who best articulates the progressive alternative to the establishment on these issues? Here are some possibilities:
- Howard Dean
- Sen. Russ Feingold
- Amy Goodman (Pacifica)
- Al Gore
- Thom Hartmann (Air America)
- Arianna Huffington
- Rev. Jesse Jackson
- Paul Krugman
- Rep. Dennis Kucinich
- Rachel Maddow
- Keith Olbermann
- Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation)
- Rep. Maxine Waters
(I've left out some champions of the Left like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky because they don't try to build bridges to the much larger Democratic majority.)
Who would you choose?
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Best of the best...
is Dennis Kucinich. But Washinton insiders are not ready for someone who will speak the truth, someone who will ACTUALLY do what's right for the people of America. Reality and the truth cannot exist in today's political arenas.
Corporate America will spend as much money as needed to ensure that Rep. Kucinich is defeated in any effort to have a turn around in their control of our Government and this Country.
Who speaks for progerssives
I like your ideas of Al Gore and Paul Krugman the best. But here are a few more ideas:
Jon Stewart (I know he is a comedian, but he is also VERY good.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer
Sen. Carl Levin
Sen. Chris Dodd
Sen. Edward Kennedy
Sen. Al Franken (maybe)
who speaks for progresives
Dennis Kucinich;DK,DK,DK,all day,24/7.
Who speaks for progressives?
Commercial Jocks should not be 'speaking for' us.
Amy Goodman is definitely progressive, but as a fair reporter, she is not 'speaking for' anybody. I admire her adherence to journalistic standards. What she does on DN is deliver us the facts (usually, except for 9-11).
Boxer, Kennedy, Dodd, Levin, Jackson, Gore??? These are not progressives. They may seem like it next to other Democrats, but they are at most left or progressive leaning liberals. They answer to left leaning billionaires, and imperialists. They are not true progressives, but they want progressive votes. Paul Wellstone was a progressive.
What exactly does reaching out mean? Progressives are not necessarily liberals. Progressive views are what you get when you simply choose the most logical and intelligent viewpoint, not necessarily the most left leaning viewpoint. (nor the most personally lucrative viewpoint)
Some litmus tests for this are things like, look at their votes on war funding, single-payer, privatization, banking regulation, and TARP funding.
The answer is Dennis Kucinich.
We should stop letting the billionaire oligarchy run our lives and rob our economy, but I guess maybe we need liberal billionaires to neutralize neocon billionaires.
Progressives: Is health care a right?
(I'm being very specific here so we don't get lost in generalities and arguments about personalities).
If the Progressive view (by self identifying Progressives) is that health care IS a right, I'd like to hear the logic behind the view.
Thanks,
Jim
Progressives: Is War ever necessary?
(I thought it only fair to offer a choice in questions to be answered).
I can honestly say, that in the many thousands of posts I've seen, Libertarians and Conservatives never get around to actually answering a simple question. I hope that is not the case here.
Jim
Fair reporters ARE biased.
They speak for rational folks.
Not all matters in life can be reduced to science, but many can. News agencies and reporters can, at minimum, be held to the standard of advancing scientific truth.
It ain't much, but it should not be forgotten in a flurry of PC "fairness".
Jim
I probably don't speak for anyone but me, my own take on things.
I can't say that I believe that 'health care' is a right. I just thought that if you respect your fellow citizens, you don't just let them die for lack of cash. More importantly, you don't charge people buko bucks for decades for health 'insurance' and then cancel their policy when they come down with cancer. (lemon dropping) The private insurance industry is a scam and a theft. Private insurance businesses like income and hate expenses and write the contracts that you simply sign, and they don't 'care' about your health. The question is how do you get actual genuine health CARE. Single-payer is so far the only intelligent solution yet discovered. I certainly don't want to be forced to pay large premiums to private companies that don't want to distribute the money to provide health. Another progressive idea is that it's reasonable for the premium to be borne according to ability to pay, like a 'progressive fee'.
Pardon the generality, but all wars consist of an aggressor stealing land, resources, money from a weaker victim. Mugging. So, for the victims, war is necessary and unavoidable, unless they simply want to be robbed and killed. All aggressors cloak their theft in 'justifications' (lies) like religion, humanitary purposes, revenge for false-flag 'attacks', protection from 'terrorists, on and on.
I agree with your third comment Jim.
Seems I touched a nerve with Bill. Sorry Bill. The semantics are not a disdain for unity. Progressives are among strongest defenders of the Constitution. Your Nationalist Faith is getting the better of you though, and creates the need for semantic distinctions. Progressives are not blinded by Nationalist Faith, ...at least I'm not, anyway. Peace :)
Health Care and War.
On Health Care I would have accepted ;)
1) Health Care is not a right but...
OR
2) Health Care is a right because...
I disagree however with:
It replaces reality with sentiment, does it not? (I fully agree with the sentiment however). The cash you refer to after all, is to some degree a placeholder for OTHER people's labor. Very specific moral and economic arguments need to be advanced here, not what appears to be "taking the shirt off another person's back to cloth the shirtless".
Insurance companies serve a purpose that goes beyond simple book keeping. The profit incentive within insurance companies also serves that same purpose: attempting to keep folks honest.
The above defends against Far Left nonsense. I'll hasten to add a defense against Far Right nonsense.
Just like bloated governments, bloated corporations can be horribly inefficient, immune to competition, etc. I'd add that almost everyone of import (e.g. soldiers, scientists, laborers, etc.) perform their labors for a nominal salary.
The "profit incentive" myth overestimates the effectiveness of increasing profits so as to increase production above the losses due to the withdrawal of capital from our economy FOR those profits.
On War:
Because of the Nazis, present day folks who shove bayonets in vagina's, etc, a distinctly different culture of men (different that is, from sentimental Leftists) needs to be respected. Even nurtured.
The above is conveniently ignored by purists. Some things are true even if ass@@@@ morons on the Right say they are true. Our Military needs our support, including cultural support.
I'd get to commenting on the mushy middle, but this post is already getting long...
Jim