I'm with you sister! But, don't stop fighting.

Neither Wes Clark nor Barrack Obama had anything to do with Tim Kaine winning the nomination for VA governor. They're just trying to help him beat an extremely right-wing Republican.

Kaine may not be ideal, but he's many times better than the competition. Maybe he's even what it takes to win in a red state. I dunno. I just know that it reflects not one whit on Clark or Obama's liberalism that they are trying to do what's best for all of us given the circumstances as they find 'em.

I just don't understand this shift to the right. There's no reason for it. The people who vote anti-choice will never vote Democrat for other reasons. There's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost.

Women are losing faith in the party; blacks have lost faith in it. I don't know that there's going to be any choice except to go with a third party. We can't win an election while the Republicans control the machines anyway - we might as well put our energy into building viable opposition for the future.

Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements

In Virginia, you can't exactly run a pro-gay platform and expect to win a statewide election. Indeed, most of the "progressive" agenda isn't going to win in Virginia, so a Democrat generally wind by running as a fiscal conservative who can work with a Republican-dominated legislature -- essentially what Mark Warner has done.

Of the three gubernatorial candidates, the most attractive, quite frankly, is Russ Potts, a Republican-turned-independent who thinks the GOP has drifted too far to the right, sees no reasons why gays shouldn't adopt, and puts a priority on transportation -- something desperately needed here in Northern Virginia.

Did you read Cap'n Ed's recent op-ed in the Washington Post? If I extrapolate from what he said (a coming ideological war in the Republican Party), I think there's a great deal of potential in the Republicans, particularly among the libertarians and fiscal conservatives.

--|PW|--

As another parental point of reference: My 80+ year old mother, a hardcore Republican from birth in New Orleans, is pro-choice. I don't think her position on choice affects her voting much but even she isn't pleased with the anti-choice rhetoric around the Republican party. But then again, she barely recognizes the "mainstream" of the Republicans anymore and certainly doesn't agree with it.

I guess that doesn't have much to do with the Dems doing their best to sabotage choice. As for the larger SCLB sites, I've come to the conclusion that they rarely have a clue about what "progressive" really means. And Dems, well, the Democratic Party is the New Republican Party. Republicans have become the New Fascists.

Wordlackey

I'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.

Progressive values, as I see them, are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, are about protecting what we have to save for our children, are about recognizing that government is a strong presence and that presence can be directed towards making our lives better, instead of just preventing us from shooting each other and running red lights.

I see these as mainstream values, not "left."

In the '70s, I was smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. Back then, the ACLU was not considered a radical organization except that it was loud and non-partisan. Back then, conservative meant government leaving people alone, not government regulating the bedroom and doctor's office and science findings.

Back then, liberal ideals such as fighting poverty and improving education still had currency, despite the problems with the programs designed to address them.

Now, conservatism has changed, and everyone has bought into this idea that you have to be a modern day conservative to win elections. You have to hold schools in contempt and the very idea of education as an abomination. You have to fall over yourself to give taxpayer dollars to foreign corporations who are already making huge profits, while sticking it to the average citizen. You have to pull out your hair and rip your clothes to express homophobia to prove your virtue while hobnobbing with lobbyists and playing fast and loose with the cash.

Mainstream? Really?

Thanks everyone for the notes of encourgement.

mg, I think you are absolutely right about politics, but I'm not sure Leary's is the voice to follow. When we hippies were trying to opt out of the standard American way of life, we had a vague idea of "living off the land" or embracing poverty and simplicity.

Now, with peak oil coming in and industrialized society clearly on the way out, I think we had the right idea. It's just that now it's going to be about survival, not lifestyle choices. We will be forced to grow some of our own food, because we won't be able to buy enough. We will be forced to conserve energy, and to recycle, because we won't be able to afford to waste things.

Instead of Leary, how about Rachel Carson? With maybe a bit of Allen Ginsberg thrown in for seasoning. Ah, okay, throw in a bit of Leary, but use moderation! That stuff is powerful.

I never cared for LSD. Coffee's my drug of choice. And tuning in is so depressing these days.

But dropping out still holds a lot of appeal.

Instead of "turn on, tune in, drop out," he should have said "turn on, tune in, take over. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. As it is, we need to start doing it now.

Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements