of the Democratic Party
of the United States
There is an unusual ring in the phrase "Grassroots Democrats." The president of the United States government is a member of the Democratic Party -- an organization can't possible get further away from grassroots. And where did this president's spend its time and effort? Did it pull out of wars, make peace, establish just diplomacy with foreign nations, provide equality, or improve the standard of living for people? That is, phrased much shorter, "Did the member of this 'Grassroots' organization do anything in favor of establishing 'Grassroots' values?" The answer, plainly put, is no.
"...we support a strong, viable Democratic Party and are completely focused on strengthening state infrastructure; therefore, we do not dedicate resources to specific issues or candidates." Doesn't this seem to be the exact opposite of how rational, political thought goes? Aren't you first supposed to make up your mind on what you believe, what you want, what you think you can create in society? And then you can decide who to do it with, and how to do it?
After all, you've decided to join a political party that built concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in the 40's. In the 60's, they ordered police to open fire on unarmed crowds at their own national convention. And today, they head a government that has been formally kidnapping their own citizens and transferring them to other countries where they can be legally tortured. There's an entire wikipedia article on this phenomena with more than 148 sources, including the British Broadcasting Channel (BBC), the Guardian, the New York Times, and Amnesty International. In case you haven't heard about the responsibilities of the Democrat-controlled executive office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States .
The United States Declaration of Independence promises the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe you skipped over this part and immediately jumped to the section about executive powers, the elastic clause, and the enduring right of governors and legislators to abuse their constituents. In fact, you seem to be most concerned with the fact that you can become employed by the Democratic state parties to do their fundraising. How perfect: even the so-called Liberals and Leftists in government know how to turn everything they do into a strict business. Obtaining votes? Influencing the state house? Passing legislation? It all takes business and money. How perfectly clear do I find that in your message.
The phrase "grassroots" was aptly picked. It denotes community-led and community-driven organizing efforts. But it's hard to describe the kidnapping of civilians as a community-effort. Yes, "Grassroots Rendition to Foreign Countries for Torture," seems so perfect. I can see why you avoided this name for yourselves: it's hard for someone to respect your organization if it were to actually state what it was for and why it existed. If your only message is "democrats first," then that means concentration-camps, police brutality, and the torture of American citizens FIRST.
There's not even any discretion in your choice of politicians or parties. It's not like you offer your services for "progressive candidates," or "socialist-leaning candidates," or "libertarian-minded candidates," whatever. It's just, "This party, whoever joins it, and whoever has enough influence with the scummiest business leaders as to get to the top -- that's the person we support, no matter who it is." John Doe the fifth, who believed what John Doe the fourth believed, and will probably act much the same. Secret wars, disregard of civil rights, capitalist-dominated government, basic human rights violations regularly, etc., etc..
How can you hope to take these pieces and build a new world with them? In every way, it still resembles the old world, with its tyranny and exclusion.