My friends, you are the seeds of a fantastic community of what will be a major movement in politics in America. We are banding together under the WeDemocrats banner to share a common interest. Democrats, Progressives, Greens and more have joined already.

As of today there are 1,282 members!!

WeDemocrats use the DFA and DFA-Links as aides to help us achieve our goals. Goals that you the members will help form. Although I have expressed some here and at www.wedemocrats.org nothing is set in stone.

We are legally independent of DFA. This means that we can share information, successes, ideas, etc., but we have no formal relationship with or authority over each other. While we at WeDemocrats have formed a Federal PAC, which is covered by the Federal Election Commission requirements, and will have to abide by all applicable rules that govern our activity and this means we have to remain a separate organization. Your organization, shaped in your image, and governed by our by-laws which we are formulating now.

We will create events, blogs, polls, and maintain a list of members, communicating with them so that everyone knows what is going on and when. The Blog is up on the site.

Many Members will be County Coordinators of www.wedemocrats.org, each of you will be a vital part of the growth of this organization. Fill out the applicationCoord.doc in the Files section and we will get you started. We have separate Meetup Rooms on Yahoo for County and State Coordinators, once your Application has been approved we will send you an invite to join the Meetings that are taking place in those Rooms.

Part of our mission is to elect fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government.

I was told when I started this organization that it is impossible for anyone to form a national organization unless they had one of two things going for them, First they had to be a national political figure, Second they must have millions of dollars. Well I am not a National figure, and not a politician, with no desire to be one, and I am on Social Security Disability, so can’t even make enough to reach the poverty level. So What we are showing the doom sayers that concerned, active citizens can still band together in America and make a difference.

Each of us has strengths and skills that can be used within WeDemocrats Organization to achieve anything we want. Put them to good use, volunteer for your County, City or precinct today.

By laying the groundwork now, we can be assured that our opinions and feelings are listened to in upcoming elections. But don’t get me wrong this organization will continue for years to come to be a voice of We the People, that voice will be WeDemocrats.

Thank you for joining the newest National Organization on the Political battleground.

Ron McBride
www.wedemocrats.org
ronmcbride@wedemocrats.org

Various Readers have asked about how we are different than Democracy for America.

Below I will try to explain the basic differences.

Where DFA teaches us to be activists and to educate organizers about the political process in America, WeDemocrats are taking those lessons and putting them to use in a more efficient manner.

WeDemocrats.org is setting up an organizational tree similar to the DNC, State Committee, County Committee framework; with separate apparatus for a blog corps and other Internet based combinations such as the We The People online webzine, and the We The People radio show. Where we will differ from the Party model is that our model is virtual and has a great deal more transparency, idealism and energy.

With 1,284 members in first few weeks, we feel that this astounding enrollment rate is because many people have become exasperated with the old meetup model that was more about talking than doing.

Jim Dean went on a national tour this past year trying to motivate the meetup groups into become doing groups instead of talking groups. Some groups are not so susceptible to change.

By offering an alternative form of group within the DFA family, the doers will migrate to the We Democrats groups, leaving the talkers in the old meet up groups. I think it is important to work within the Internet communications system set up by Burlington. But at the same time have alternative backup just in case it is needed. WeDemocrats are coordinating volunteer efforts of Progressives everywhere.

DFA that says they and we are separate and independent, check FAQ on main DFA
site, http://www.democracyforamerica.com/faq#2 they are an educational system and federal PAC, we are a political organization from the ground up, we are trying to improve DFA and give it some muscle above and beyond what it is chartered to do.

WeDemocrats.org has initiated a program designed to recruit and train people to run for and serve in elected office in the states, in many cases using DFA tools. Whether you are currently serving on the school board, or in the State Assembly, or if you are just beginning to think about running for elective office, we are certain this training will provide you with the skills and inspiration you need.

The foundation will be the individual precinct committees, those are the ones on the front lines, and those are the ones who will be involved with neighbors and relatives who will be important to us in each election.

If you have additional questions don’t hesitate to write me at ronmcbride@wedemocrats.org or netquest@shawneelink.net

Thanks

Ron McBride

Richard Nixon's "weakness" was his paranoia, needing always to know what his political opponents were up to, hence the break-in and wiretapping of the Democratic Party headquarters, the building of his "enemies' list," digging up personal information for his "dirty-trick" operations against political opponents, etc. ("When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal," he claimed) by authorizing secret wiretapping, breaking & entering, bribing of witnesses, etc. -- the felonies that came to be known as "Watergate." To avoid his certain impeachment, Nixon resigned, the only President to do so in American history. Richard Nixon suffered from feelings of inadequacy and was lacking in a sense of self-worth? His inability to "give up" and his reluctance to show weakness, as well as his conviction that through "personal gut performance" any height could be scaled--for all those reasons, it would have been impossible for Nixon to do anything but fight back, stand fast, "stonewall" his enemies. And lose in the long run.

Gerald Ford’s “weakness” was his loyalty to Richard Nixon who appointed him Vice President, the first such act in history. A month later Ford issued an unprecedented pre-emptive pardon to Nixon "for any crimes he may have committed" while President. To most Americans who had endured the Nixon and Agnew scandals, the pardon reeked of a cynical, pre-arranged deal, though Ford has always denied any quid pro quo arrangement.

Ronald Reagan's "weakness" was his simple view of the world, which he divided into "the evil empire" (the Soviet Union) and we good American guys; this stark black-and-white view of reality led him illegally to sell armaments to another enemy (Iran) in order to find ways around Congressional laws that prohibited U.S. funds going to the anti-Communist Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua, and then claiming the violations of law never happened. He avoided later criminal prosecution when GOP President George H.W. Bush sandbagged the scandal by pardoning key participants "pre-emptive," to their being questioning under oath. He was famous for not understanding how government works and not particularly caring about it. His job was to read speeches off the Teleprompter, shake hands with foreign dignitaries, pose for pictures, and maybe go out and visit a flag factory or a steel mill every once in a while. Otherwise he was busy sleeping in, eating jellybeans, and watching television. He was a superstitious man, who followed dictates of an astrologer whose instructions would dictate nearly every aspect of his life as President, thanks to insistence of his wife Nancy. His behind the scene deals with Iran in regards to the American Hostages held in that country, and his subsequent approval of the Iran-Contra affair, showed his true weakness, and deceit, while all this was taking place, Reagan pretended that there was nothing illegal going on.

George H. W. Bush’s, “weakness” was as head of RNC during Watergate, he was too chicken to ask Nixon to resign, when he finally did it was in a memo not face to face as would be expected. Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon, appointed Bush to head the Central Intelligence Agency in January 1976. Then Reagan chose him as Vice President, he became the ultimate "Yes" man. When reporters asked him whether he still believed Reagan's stimulus plan for the economy amounted to "voodoo economics," Bush denied ever having said it. This wasn’t the first lie, he also said 'Read my lips -- No. New. Taxes.'. Once in office, Bush signed the largest tax increase in history. Bush also began using an ominous new catchphrase in a February 1990 ‘New World Order’, this laid the groundwork for a new imperial slant to the USA, and changed the perceptions of many in the world. But it was the pardons he handed out that showed the true colors: Elliott Abrams, Pardoned for any and all Iran-Contra crimes. Aslam P. Adam, Clemency for heroin trafficking. Duane R. Clarridge, Pardoned for any and all Iran-Contra crimes. Edwin L. Cox, Pardoned for bank fraud. Alan Fiers, Pardoned for any and all Iran-Contra crimes. Clair George, Pardoned for any and all Iran-Contra crimes. Armand Hammer, Pardoned for making illegal contributions to President Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. Robert C. McFarlane, Pardoned for any and all Iran-Contra crimes. Joseph Occhipinti, Commuted sentence for violating the civil rights of accused criminals. Caspar W. Weinberger, Pardoned for any and all Iran-Contra crimes.

George W. Bush is the apotheosis of all those weaknesses into one humongous Weakness unlike any that has been seen in American politics, with worldwide consequences that result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings. What is different is that the other leaders, at some level, knew they were misbehaving and tried like the dickens to hide the evidence. These politicians were undone when they came to learn, once again, that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Dubya Bush, of course, has tried to conceal his many mistakes, but when that doesn't work, the Rovian approach for Bush is to loudly assert, in a threatening in-your-face manner, that his worst weaknesses are really his strengths. (For example, he's violating laws and the Constitution in order, "to protect Americans.") As the many violations and scandals begin breaking through the denial dam, the policy is altered to proudly assert a "constitutional right" right to do whatever Bush and his cohorts are doing or planning on doing. In short, a variation of Nixon's claim (a theory knocked down instantly by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s) that whatever the President does is ipso facto legal. Most legal scholars today support the Supreme Court's outright dismissal of that claimed right to abrogate the Constitution and upset the separation of powers structure -- but let us not forget that Bush may well have a working majority on today's Supreme Court. Bush feels he can do whatever he chooses to do as long as he does so as "commander in chief" during "wartime." Using this dictatorial theory, Bush has authorized torture, illegal spying on U.S. citizens, breaking & entering into citizens' homes and computers without their ever knowing such violations of privacy occurred, leaking classified information to friendly reporters, and on and on. Incompetent by nature and practice, Bush surrounds himself with yes-men and those who likewise are boastful bumblers.
The American people during the past year or so figured out that Bush and his crew are way over their heads when it comes to intelligent leadership -- witness the debacle that is Iraq, the post-Katrina-disaster federal "assistance" they thoroughly botched in New Orleans, the economy which has put future generations trillions of dollars in hock, the Medicare and Social Security messes, Plamegate, domestic spying, torture. Hence the tremendous win for Democratic candidates for House, Senate and Governorships.

Are these examples limited to Republicans, of course not, Democratic Presidents have had weaknesses, but they didn’t involve harm to the nation that these Republican Presidents did.

The bad thing is that starting with Nixon, lies and cover-ups have become the standard for the Republican Party, and when those don’t win them elections, they flat out steal the votes needed, by either falsifying results or eliminating Democratic votes.

To answer my question in the title, is this Weakness or Failure? I must conclude its failure. Failure to uphold the constitution, Failure to follow the law of the land, Failure to tell the truth. In short Republicans in the White House have been Failures, for the last half century.

We Democrats need to think about 2008 now, not a few months before an election. We have to get the pieces in place to ensure that all 15,000 local Democratic committees and clubs around the country, every precinct, County and State has organizations that will be active, not give lip service but put people on the ground as we did in this past election to reach out to other groups and form coalitions that will become the new norm in Washington, not the same ole politics we have seen in the past. No more “Deny and Attack” that has been Karl Rove’s mode of operation.

We cannot count on our leaders. We must grow our movements from the grassroots up so that in lieu of a leader, the movement doesn’t die. Each of us must be an activist, able to act without a leader. Are you ready to do the heavy lifting to build a truly effective oppositional Movement. Let's get to work.

Ron McBride
ronmcbride@wedemocrats.org

Revolution to evolution American Politics have made full circle, it is time to return to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and build either from within the Democratic Party a definite Progressive platform, or to become conformists and join the politics as usual, which will be the downfall of the Party and the Country, as was proven in this last election.

Rush "We're patriotic, you're traitorous!" Limbaugh, is a big advocate of conformity, the by word of the Conservative Right.

MOST of us know what conformity is. We know what individualism is. We understand at some level that civilized society is based on a continuing tension between them.

We hope for nonconformists among you, for your sake, for the sake of the nation, and for the sake of humanity. theologian Paul Tillich

We are being trained to think and act in unison, to absorb the values of the team, to suppress any truly innovative ideas in the interest of harmony. not only in our places of business but in our schools at all levels.

I am a nonconformist I guess, since my mother and wife are always telling me I should learn to get along with others, don’t stand out, go along to get along. Hog Wash, back in the sixties and seventies this was exposed for what it was. Bunk.

I have always thought that if I fight for what is right, face to face, that I achieve more than if I set back and let others tell me what to think and do.

The Vietnam War brought this home to many of us baby boomers, and we found that together we had a voice, we had strength. But in the eighties and nineties we fell back into the conformity mode, even Abby Hoffman joined the conformists. In this new age of cellphones, BlackBerries and iPods, we baby boomers feel the surge of non-conformity once again, but we have no direction, especially on the political front.

Steve Jobs of Apple Computer, is a non-conformist, and has basically held true to that belief, although he has become one of the Moneyed Elite that are a bane of progressives, he is a good example for those of us who try to think outside of the box. His I-Pod has crossed social and demographic barriers. (I don’t have one yet, not because I don’t want one, but because disability prevents me being able to afford one).

Timing and execution are everything. Being first in an emerging market is neither as important nor as lucrative as designing the right products and services to cater to second- and third-stage growth.

How you might ask does this relate to Progressive politics?

Being first to capture the imagination of the public on an issue such as Clean Government, Get out of Iraq, Increase Minimum Wage to mention a few are all part of the emerging ideas that will create organizations and services that will support the next level of growth for Progressives.

We have to become self-starters. We must always have a message to deliver, and we must do so with unstinting enthusiasm.

We still didn’t know how well we are achieving what we are trying to do – enhance self-esteem, develop community power in broader political processes, and promote a sense of community, participation in political organizations, and links across social differences.

So I ask you, what are you a conformist or a non-conformist and WHY?

Ron McBride
ronmcbride@WeDemocrats.org

William Arnone sent me this earlier today:

The following is a follow-up analysis of the 29 Democratic candidates who thus far appear to have won their campaigns as Congressional newcomers in seats that were held by Republican incumbents.

The first analysis examined whether they were “centrists” or “progressives” on five issues:

§ The war in Iraq
§ Terrorism
§ Health care
§ Social Security
§ Income taxes

Based on theses characterizations, 18 of the Democratic Congressional newcomers or just over 62% appear to be “progressives” and 11 of the newcomers or 38% appear to be “centrists.”

This follow-up analysis looks at their positions on “moral values” issues. Unlike the previous analysis, this one does not attempt to characterize candidates’ positions on these issues as either “centrist” or “progressive.” Rather, it characterizes a candidate’s “moral values” positions as “high,” “moderate,” or “low.”

In assessing a candidate’s “moral values” positions, the following issues were examined:

Women’s reproductive rights

A “high” position takes a “pro-life” stance and/or places significant restrictions on abortion. A “moderate” position addresses abortion and places some restrictions on it. A “low” position takes a “pro-choice” or supports a woman’s reproductive rights.

Same-sex marriage

A “high” position makes same-sex marriage a priority issue and/or opposes such marriages. A “moderate” position addresses same-sex marriage and supports gay rights without explicitly endorsing same-sex marriage. A “low” position either does not address same-sex marriage or supports some form of same-sex marriage (e.g., civil unions).

Stem- cell research

A “high” position opposes embryonic stem-cell research. A “moderate” approach either does not address stem-cell research or places limits on it. A “low” position supports it without significant limits.

Overall tone

A “high” tone emphasizes the candidate’s faith or religion, or casts many positions in moral terms. A “moderate” tone makes some references to the candidate’s faith and religion, or casts some positions in moral terms. A “low” tone makes little or no reference to the candidate’s faith or religion, or casts few or no positions in moral terms.

This analysis is based primarily on the positions indicated on each candidate’s Website and other Websites sponsored by organizations that focus on each issue.

Based on theses characterizations, 18 of the Democratic Congressional newcomers or 62% are rated “low” on moral values issues. Of the newcomers, 8 or 28% are rated “moderate,” and 3 or 10% are rated “high.”

Harry Mitchell (Arizona, 5th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona, 8th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

Jerry McNerney (California, 11th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

Ed Perlmutter (Colorado, 7th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Joe Courtney (Connecticut, 2nd CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Moderate
§ Overall tone: Low

Chris Murphy (Connecticut, 5th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Tim Mahoney (Florida, 16th CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Moderate
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: High

Ron Klein (Florida, 22nd CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Joe Donnelly (Indiana, 2nd CD): High

§ Women’s reproductive rights: High
§ Same-sex marriage: High
§ Stem-cell research: Moderate
§ Overall tone: High

Brad Ellsworth (Indiana, 8th CD): High

§ Women’s reproductive rights: High
§ Same-sex marriage: High
§ Stem-cell research: Moderate
§ Overall tone: High

Baron Hill (Indiana, 9th CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: High

Bruce Braley (Iowa, 1st CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

David Loebsack (Iowa, 2nd CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Moderate
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Nancy Boyda (Kansas, 2nd CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

John Yarmuth (Kentucky, 3rd CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

Tim Walz (Minnesota, 1st CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

Carol Shea-Porter (New Hampshire, 1st CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Paul Hodes (New Hampshire, 2nd CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

John Hall (New York, 19th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, 20th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Michael Arcuri (New York, 24th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Heath Shuler (North Carolina, 11th CD): High

§ Women’s reproductive rights: High
§ Same-sex marriage: High
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: High

Zachary Space (Ohio, 18th CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: High

Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania, 4th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Joseph Sestak, Jr. (Pennsylvania, 7th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania, 8th CD): Low

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Low
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Chris Carney (Pennsylvania, 10th CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Moderate
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

Nick Lampson (Texas, 22nd CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: High
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Low

Steve Kagen (Wisconsin, 8th CD): Moderate

§ Women’s reproductive rights: Moderate
§ Same-sex marriage: Low
§ Stem-cell research: Low
§ Overall tone: Moderate

Conclusion

Combining both analyses of the Democratic candidates who thus far appear to have won their campaigns as Congressional newcomers in seats that were held by Republican incumbents reveals the following:

* 14 or 48% are “progressives” with “low” moral values positions (Giffords, McNerney, Perlmutter, Murphy, Braley, Loebsack, Yarmuth, Shea-Porter, Hodes, Hall, Gillibrand, Arcuri, Sestak, Murphy)
> Of these, 5 (Perlmutter, Hodes, Hall, Arcuri, and Sestak) appear to be “progressive” with “low” moral values positions on every issue examined.
* 4 or 14% are “progressives” with “moderate” moral values positions (Courtney, Boyda, Space, Kagen)
* 4 or 14% are “centrists” with “low” moral values positions (Mitchell, Klein, Walz, Altmire)
* 4 or 14% are “centrists” with “moderate” moral values positions (Mahoney, Hill, Carney, Lampson)
* 3 or 10% are “centrists” with “high” moral values positions (Donnelly, Ellsworth, Shuler)