You want to find "blame" for the shutdown?

[SomethingFishy]

2010 did not cause this shutdown. Democrats, did not cause this shutdown. Far lefties, did not cause this shutdown.

The shutdown was caused by petulant Republicans and Tea Baggers acting like spoiled little babies. They didn't get their way so they decided to hurt people until they do. That's all there is to it. There is no conspiracy, there is no other reason, there are no excuses.

To come onto DU today and see 5,6,7 posts on the front page blaming the "far left" or those who "sat out the vote&quot I can't even find that guy) in 2010 is just depressing as hell.

THE REPUBLICANS DID THIS. PERIOD.

[liberalmuse]

1. THIS ^^^^^

[Xipe Totec]

2. It's Gerry's fault.

Gerry Mander.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. I think it is good to remind people that faling to vote has consequences.

Those who sat out 2010 or chose not to vote as a form of protest deserve to be reminded that this is the consequence of their choice, and they bear some responsibility for this.

But I do not affix blame to those who did not vote. Blame is squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans in Congress

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. So what is the party going to do to change

Electoral patterns and activate voters in off year elections?

I will wait.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. That is a good question. But we can not escape the fact that elections have consequences.

The 2010 put Republicans in a position to Gerrymander districts. In Texas they were open about it and publicly admitted that they were using it to fix who is in control of the House.

I would like to see something like Deans fifty state strategy. If you compete everywhere it will have the effect leveling things out and moderating the swings to right.

We may will see that people who are now signing up on health care exchanges will be more likely to vote for someone a bit more left that that comfortable and safe guy in the dark suit who says all the right things such as taxes bad, keeping your money good.

As much as we attack the Tea Party and Republicans they are the most disciplined and active political entity in the United States. Courted by the Republicans they have shifted politics far to the right and voted with discipline for people who would enact their agenda. Until the left learns to do that it is no more than a Sunday Afternoon Debating Society.

The closest thing on the left is the Occupy movement. They have had little affect on politics. They were not courted by Democrats, and have not unified into a movement capable of running primary challenges on any scale. The do some work in the streets but that hasn't translated to political power. (Socialist and populist movements in the first half of the twentieth century were far more successful, culminating in the New Deal and Social Security as the left in late fifties and early sixties managed to get an Equal Rights act, Medicare and Medicaid, and Title IX.) The subtle shift to the left is more from cultural shifts caused by younger people who have different attitudes about individual rights and economics than the last generation. We can not look to the parties to change to reflect what the people want. The people must push those in power in the parties to reflect what they want.

For the foreseeable future, we are a two party system. Republicans and Democrats could go away, and something just like them will take their place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Funny, I met some occupiers today at a CPUC hearing

You want to know why the police gave all to make them go home?

At times the obvious escapes people. But if you think they are dead...

That said, you have yet to answer what will the party do to activate voters and coalitions? The groups that have, they have been under attack for decades starting with the Turner Raids.

[Agnosticsherbet]

69. Occupy has set up an admirable system of their own, but remain outside the system we have.

Last edited Wed Oct 2, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

As long as they act outside the system any change they make will be small and will be very slow to percolate through the country.

The idea of social security and most of the New Deal originated in socialist groups and went nowhere until FDR appropriated those ideas and enacted them within the classic capitalist system, which is extinct as trilobites. It was done in desperate times, and FDR went there because he was desperate. The Democratic Party isn't desperate. I am sure they would like to have the energy and zeal at work in Occupy, but they don't need that energy at this time. So it is up to Occupy to get organized and move to get what they want.

Occupy may be different in ideology but they do have many things in common with the Grassroots populism in the Tea Party. (Yes, I am well aware that the Koch brothers funded the Tea Party, but they simply used a populist movement that was there in their own agenda.) Republicans desperate after 2006 and 2008 accepted them and are now about vomit up everything because of the Tea Party. (karma at work, perhaps, for those that believe in Karma.) What the Tea Party has, other than big money backers, that Occupy does not is the discipline to move in and co-opt a party. I don't like what the Tea Party is doing, but, damn, they are showing what a determined and disciplined political movement can do. There was a movement in the 1800's, the Granger movement (it was one of several at the time) that was really a lot like Occupy is today. They took it a step farther and elected Congressman. Eventually, that movement was absorbed by the Democratic Party, but they changed the party away from its strict Southern roots by working inside the system.

I see the left as comatose. Occupy shows sign of life, but so far they have not tried in a meaningful way to move in and demand they be attended to. (The Tea Party does that.) Perhaps they believe the American system is coming to and end (there are more and more people everyday that feel our system is disintegrating before our eyes) and they feel they will be able to step in and become the next great thing. The problem with that is that if such a thing happens it will be a chaotic and violent time and without the will to do violence they will be annihilated by some right wing totalitarian movement with few scruples on a mission from God (or whatever they are beholden to.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. They are so outside the system that they helped stop

two power plant authorizations and are currently working to stop the extra fees from SDG&E on rate payers. We also have them working within things like services to the poor, and disadvantaged.

They are so outside the system a few are members of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party.

Some of what you are telling me are part and parcel of the talking points. Also what I see is the refusal to admit, the Tea Party will not be infiltrated by the FBI. Any Left wing movement seen as a threat, or just perceived as such will be infiltrated by local, state and federal law enforcement. These groups have even been classified as internal terrorist.

The attacks by police forces on Occupy are not unlike the attacks on the Communist party in the 1920s, why I spoke of the Turner raids. They are indeed comatose, this is by design.

Let me quote a lefty you might be familiar with.

Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

It is time for people to take those words to heart.

[Agnosticsherbet]

71. I didn't say the could not do things on a local scale. The Tea Party works on a national scale.

Unless Occupy finds the discipline to work on a larger scale, or some disaster pushes one of the national parties to invite them in, they will eventually fall apart like other movements have in the past.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. What part of infiltrated by the FBI and attacked by the local FBI are you missing?

Serious, the Tea Party is sponsored by big money on the Right. They have nothing to fear from the POLICE or the FBI. Any movement from the left that seems to be getting traction will be infiltrated and destroyed at a national level.

You understand now? This pattern started, once again, with the Turner Raids.

Here is a short list of what has made "the left" comatose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

https://www.nmc.edu/tgordon/storyofus/hst112/9_a-cold-era/2nd-red-scare.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army%E2%80%93McCarthy_hearings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2410783.html

And this is A SHORT LIST.

I think I hit the highlights. None of what you say is coincidence or lack of will from "the left" to organize. They start to get national traction, your friendly FBI will make sure that traction goes away. You understand now? Let me, once again, quote Kennedy on this.

Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[Agnosticsherbet]

73. I haven't denied they were infiltrated and attacked.

That still doesn't mean they can not become organized on a different scale. It just takes more work. It happened at the end of the Great Depression. Occupy has many ideas in common with the Green Party. The Greens have gone no where, but it would seem as natural allies they could work together, and maybe together they could get people elected.

The FBI hinders their ability to expand, but they can only hinder it not stop it completely.

You like the Kennedy quote, and it is a good one. I think Gandhi's method of challenging violent repression, or Kings, are more instructive. Kings organization was also infiltrated and attacked. Eventually, that movement saw considerable success because it moved into the existing system and became a part of it. Gandhi's revolution won against an empire that was more than willing to use violence. Gandhi set up a movement and then inserted that movement that first changed the existing system and then replaced it.

I would be very happy to vote for an Occupy candidate in a local, state, or federal election. I was surprised that they did not take that trajectory with any real energy. It think it is a disaster that there is no Occupy caucus in Congress.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. I really believe you are blaming the victim here

the country will have to have some ugliness I fear.

As to not taking that route, they took the warning from ironically, the Tea Party. Their founders were pushed out by the powerful interests who took it over. Alas, a side of the story most ignore or don't know.

Look, we need a vibrant left. It is not going to happen in this country until three things happen.

1.- The American people stop thinking in propaganda grounds and for a change get politically aware. (Occupy was that step in that direction). IMO this is the most critical part of it, and why it will never happen if the political elites can help it, and that is on "both sides."

2.- The organization of third parties and proportional representation. Yes, the Granger party was successful, and was absorbed into the Democratic party because of the Winner Take All system. Without proportional representation no third party can survive for long. The Grangers were the outside of that, and I mean at a national level

3.- The two national parties have to actually stop the shenanigans. Why you do not have an Occupy caucus is partly explained by the Democratic Party, supposedly the people's party, shunning occupy like there was no tomorrow. It gets worst, local democratic mayors were just as willing to suppress them as Republican mayors, Why? They are threat to the power structure they both belong to.

Here is another huge secret, the US political system, both parties do it, rely on patronage relationships. They have for decades, but it has gotten so bad, that for example in California a challenge from the left to MY Congressman is the kiss of death.

[Agnosticsherbet]

75. I am not blaming the victim, I am merely pointing out that FBI infiltratrion and attacks

are not sufficient to stop a movement. The old KGB and NKVD (which the FBI sometimes resembles) were no better at in in the old Soviet Union. The Peace Movement of the 60's was another left movement that gained real results even though they were attacked and infiltrated. They brought down President Johnson who, ironically, in his non military polices was among the most liberal Presidents in our history, by turning public opinion against the war. Ultimately, it was the Peace movement that eventually led to the end of the Vietnam War. Some of their leaders went into politics, while others did not. They dissolved after the end of the war as their members went about the business of making lives.

Third parties exist, and certainly a change in laws could make it easier for them to thrive. Several states have viable third parties holding city and state wide positions. Bernie Sanders, himself, shows that in the right place and right time a third party candidate can beat all comers. (Vermont stands out in the success of third parties.) Having national parties instead of state parties with fifty different sets of rules form the fifty different states, rules created to put a high barrier on other parties, would be the solution. Some of that is just the American people themselves do not seem amenable to more than two parties at a national level. (Libertarians vote reliably for Republicans and people like Ron Paul and his son Rand are Libertarians in all but name because they could not be elected by the Libertarian Party.) I like the Green Party, but they haven't caught on, even in West Coast and the North East, where they have a natural constituency. There are many other parties, but they are small and when they do elect someone it is usually to local offices.

Proportional representation would take a amendment to the Constitution a Constitutional Convention or the dissolution of the U.S. The first two won't happen and the last will, I suspect, lead to a number of tyrannical and war like states all claiming the mantle of the U.S. and itching to take it back for themselves.

Democratic and Republican Mayors opposed the Peace Movement and the Civil Rights Movement, also. That is not so much about party as it is power, who has it, who holds it, and who keeps it.

I am not dumping on Occupy. I've looked at them a bit, and their structure seems to resemble a revolutionary cell structure. It is great for acting independently but not so much strategically. The Peace Movement and Civil Rights Movement both had recognizable leaders who guided their movement. Occupy's experiment with pure almost Athenian style democracy is interesting, but makes them a bit like herding cats. That was the reason why, when necessary, Athens elected a tyrant and then exiled his ass after he did his job. IN some things, a movement works best with a strong, top down structure. When it doesn't need it, that's the trick, and Athen's method was a very good compromise. It probably wouldn't work in modern times.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Yes, yes they are. The FBI, and other elements of the political elite,

have defanged a left that was vibrant. These days most Americans, including many on this board. DO NOT know what left is.

The Political system has moved center right, to right. The shift is real. THe people, when you avoid labels, are mostly center left. What they want is closer to a social democrat model, which incidentally, SOCIALISM, RUN!!!! Why you need to avoid labels with a passion.

As to third parties, they exist, and by design they are very ineffectual, it is in the Constitution actually. They can and are effective locally, but at a state level, let alone a national level (with a couple exceptions from two north eastern states), forgetaboutit.

These days, as you know, we also cover politics. I was cynical before; these days, don't ask how cynical I have become. I will vote, but like Mexico in 1984, the first and only election I voted down here then I moved to the States, I am aware that it is an exercise in futility. I guess I will keep doing it to stay in practice.

[jeff47]

33. Why must the party change?

How about we change the party instead?

Vote. Every damn time. Use primaries to drag the party left. Hold nose when necessary and vote D in general elections.

It's how the Republicans ended up where they are today - St. Ronnie would be an outcast today.

So let's do the same thing.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

9. Democrats got more votes in the house.

You're spreading nonsense. Place the blame where it belongs.

[bornskeptic]

21. Democrats got more votes in 2012, but not in 2010.

If Democrats had voted in 2010 like they did in 2012, we would have retained control of the house, and prevented the gerrymandering that cost us the House in 2012. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. Sorry I'm not going to spread the blame around.

The blame should be placed 100% percent at the feet of racist, obstructionist tea baggers.

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Republicans retained control of the House in 2012. Without control, the new seats means exaclty dick

in the House. The minority party has no power to do anything. And, I did not affix blame, just encouraged people to take responsibility for their inactions and not repeat the mistake.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

36. How about your inactions?

Did you do all you could do?

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. Let me see...

(1) I Voted.
(2) I put up signs in my neighborhood.
(3) I helped drive people to the polls.
(4) I talked to friends and relatives in person and on the internet to try and get apathetic Democrats who complained that the Democratic Party was just a fully owned subsidiary of (put big corporate bank name in here) that failing to vote was a vote for the other side.
(5) Though unemployed, I donated money and time to Democratic Candidates that I thought deserved my money.

And that was all I could do.

My argument is that the absolute minimum that people should do is vote. If they vote then that is all that is necessary.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

41. Good for you.

You're a modern day hero. You forgot #6 Chastise people who probably voted....for not voting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

44. I chastised no one who probably voted. People either did or did not.

Only those who didn't vote at all.

Elections have consequences. We are living through them.

[SomethingFishy]

11. While I don't disagree, I would bet that almost everyone on DU,

barring the trolls, voted in all the past elections. Most DU'ers are savvy enough to know that even when they are angry their vote still matters.

[tavalon]

68. Yep, I bitch, moan and complain and I vote in every election

I doubt many here do less.

[frylock]

31. nobody who failed to vote posts on this board..

progressives did not fail to vote. if you want to remind someone of the consequences of not voting, then get out there and start knocking on some doors, because the people that failed to vote were independents, older voters, black voters, and young voters. sick and fucking tired of people scapegoating progressives for not voting. NEWS FLASH: progressives went out and voted for shitty, milquetoast, "moderate" democrats, full fucking stop.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. I did not mention "progressives." I never write between the lines, so don't inject things there.

Since you seem to have voted for "shitty, milquetoast, "moderate" democrats" the statement I made in no way applies to you. You did your part to try and make sure that Democrats controlled the agenda, which is the real power of the majority party in the House of Representatives.

This comment of the OP is what led me to post.

To come onto DU today and see 5,6,7 posts on the front page blaming the "far left" or those who "sat out the vote&quot I can't even find that guy) in 2010 is just depressing as hell.

If you are a leftie, liberal, progressive or "far left" and voted, it doesn't apply.

About 41% of American voted in 2012 http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

According to minority news: http://www.blackradionetwork.com/study__minority_voters_sat_out_midterm_election_

However, several distinct features of the 2010 voting population stand out, and contributed to the results on November 3:
1.Senior citizens turned out in force, with the number of ballots cast by voters over 65 increasing by 16 percent. While making up only 13 percent of the U.S. resident population, Americans in this age group constituted 21 percent of 2010 voters. This age group also significantly increased their support of Republican candidates, from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2010.
2.The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percentcompared to 2006.
3.Relative to 2008, minority and youth voters dropped out of the voting population at higher rates than whites, undoing much of the gain in demographic parity achieved in 2008.
4.Women—already one of the most reliable voting groups—increased their share of the electorate, and significantly increased their support of the Republican Party.
5.Bucking the national trends, Latinos increased their share of the voting population in several states, saving at least three Senate seats for the Democrats.

"It is fair to say that 2010 was the year of older, rich people," Dr. Minnite writes in the study.

So, by sitting out the vote in 2010 and allowing it to be dominated by older, white, rich people, Republicans took control of the House and have defined the Agenda. They lost a little ground in 2012, but retained control so there was no change in the Agenda. Should people sit on their butts in 2014, as they did in 2010, I think it will be either a 2010 redux, or a wash.

So the people who sat out in 2010, and they weren't older, white, rich people, bear some responsibility for the House. It would not be that way if they turned out and voted.

What I find is interesting, is that the movement of Latinos to vote for the Democratic Party was already happening in 2010 and accelerated in 2012. One hopes it will continue in 2014.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. My State set records in 2010 midterms, large turnout

If some States had good and great turnout and others did not then it is likely that candidates and issues in those States has more to do with turnout than any magical language about trends and generalities.

[quakerboy]

60. People need to be accurate about their assertions

I dont believe it was the far left that sat out that election. It wasn't even in small part the angry liberal activists

In fact, if you compare 2010 to the previous midterm election in 2006, it was Moderates who failed to show up. self labeled liberals were 20% each time, and actually voted 3% more for democrats in 2010 than 2006. Twas the moderates that dropped from 47% of the total to 38%, and shifted 5 points to the right as well.

You cant just convince people to vote once. You have to get them back to the polls the next round. Compromise may pass moderate bills, but it sure doesn't seem to win moderate votes in elections.

[Mojorabbit]

61. Well said. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

62. It was a low turnout election in which minority and young voters sat out.

while elderly voters turned out in force and supported Republicans more heavily than in 2008. Another demographic, women, voted more heavily for Republicans. Minority and the youth checked out, and with the other changes in a smaller group it gave Republicans and edge. Unless the big drop off in minority and the youth were moderates, the whole theory that moderates didn't vote is inaccurate. In fact, independent voters, moderats, according to Galston at the New Republic voted for Republicans rather than Democrats. The combination of people sitting out the election and changes in the Demographic groups did the trick.

About 41% of American voted in 2012 http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

According to minority news: http://www.blackradionetwork.com/study__minority_voters_sat_out_midterm_election_

However, several distinct features of the 2010 voting population stand out, and contributed to the results on November 3:
1.Senior citizens turned out in force, with the number of ballots cast by voters over 65 increasing by 16 percent. While making up only 13 percent of the U.S. resident population, Americans in this age group constituted 21 percent of 2010 voters. This age group also significantly increased their support of Republican candidates, from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2010.
2.The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percentcompared to 2006.
3.Relative to 2008, minority and youth voters dropped out of the voting population at higher rates than whites, undoing much of the gain in demographic parity achieved in 2008.
4.Women—already one of the most reliable voting groups—increased their share of the electorate, and significantly increased their support of the Republican Party.
5.Bucking the national trends, Latinos increased their share of the voting population in several states, saving at least three Senate seats for the Democrats.

"It is fair to say that 2010 was the year of older, rich people," Dr. Minnite writes in the study.

[quakerboy]

64. Depends on what election you are comparing it to.

Presidential elections are always higher turn out than midterms, so arguably the better comparison is between 2006 and 2010, as opposed to comparing to 2008.

And when you compare the 2010 midterm to the 2006 midterm, the liberal % of voters was 20% both times, but the percentage who claimed to be Moderate dropped considerably.. So either a bunch of people who said they were moderate in 2006 changed to be conservative in 2010, or a bunch of moderates stayed home in 2010

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. From what reporters are saying

From background convos, 60-70 radical republicans hailing from deep red districts that have been red for over a decade at least.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. And these 60 to 70 Republicans control the rest of the majority.

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 05:40 PM - Edit history (2)

Quite a few high profile republicans are on record saying this is a bad idea. They go along because they are scared to death of a primary from the right and contemptuous of the very idea that a challenge from the left will even get noticed.

I am hoping for a wave election in 2014, but I won't hold my breath.

[Laelth]

6. k&r for the truth. n/t

-Laelth

[quinnox]

7. Correct. But you are ruining the fun of authoritarian types who like to blame

libs and the left for everything.

[truebrit71]

10. Right? They never miss a chance to lay the blame at the feet of "the left"...

[quinnox]

15. yep, they never miss a chance to blame the left

or to whine about liberals/progressives. Scratch one, and you are bound to find an authoritarian lock-stepper underneath.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. It's easier to blame liberals.

Especially when your politics more closely resemble Republicans.....

[truebrit71]

12. Stephanie Miller was fully on board with that message this morning....

...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

14. I don't know who that is.

Is that some talking head? I don't have a television.

[truebrit71]

17. She has a radio show that is on the local progressive radio station...

...here in Chicago...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

19. Oh.

No progressive radio around here. Usually I listen to the 50's-60's country station when I'm in the car.

[Rex]

13. I think it is playing CYA for the GOP.

Now why would DUers do that?

[Hydra]

18. Depends on why they're on DU

But yes, I find it amusing that various people say "You're not criticizing the Republicans!" often are found covering RW policies and alliances by claiming the Left did it.

Point in fact: Nader. Never mind that Bushco committed demonstrable election fraud. It was those purists who wanted a Pony and voted for Nader that destroyed us in 2000. And in 2010.

[Rex]

20. I don't find any sincerity in the people that blame Nadar for 2000.

Not a single ounce. I would bet good money MOST of them are Reagan era Dems that 'saw the light' only after Reagan proved to be another Nixon, but shitter.

[Hydra]

23. It should have been a sign when one of the most epic trolls ever on this site

Used "Fuck Nader!" as his battle cry.

Yet still I see it.

[SomethingFishy]

26. Saw it today in one of the 2010 threads...

I find it amazing and disturbing that as soon as this shutdown happened a certain segment of DU ran right up and started blaming Democrats. Then one of them decided to add "FUCK NADER" to the thread I guess to show us who is who.

[Rex]

34. Yes and now the term ratfucking is getting thrown around

I swear they just don't seem to be able to keep their rage inside anymore. That it would come about cause the GOP is imploding makes it extra special funny imo.

Why are they defending the GOP now and blaming liberals instead? Yeah you know why.

[NightWatcher]

16. it didn't take a huge number of repukes to shut us down

You cant blame the lefties for not winning every freaking house seat. Due to gerrymanding and solid red districts there was no way that we could have prevented this simply by voting for a few more democrats back in 2010.

[OnyxCollie]

24. NADER!!1!

[el_bryanto]

25. Agreed - trying to pin this on the left is maddening

Yes there might be other arguments we might have where we disagree on issues, but when one party puts a gun to the economies head, that parties to blame.

Bryant

[NuclearDem]

28. Nah, it was us complainy-pants lefties not falling head over heels for the Blue Dogs.

[Enthusiast]

32. Lots of DUers don't know what the fuck "far left" even means.

I'm a moderate leftist. I was very pissed off at President Obama when I went to the polls in 2010 to vote straight Democrat.

Far left means Marxist. Period.

[Hydra]

42. lol, you reminded me of another term used

"Militant Leftist"

The Ministry of Truthiness is so inventive. The term "Left!" is supposed to scare us or something.

[Agnosticsherbet]

43. Maybe this will help.

The image below is pretty good, and it doesn't demonize either side.


A hyper simplified version would be:

[SomethingFishy]

54. Interesting...

and actually seems fairly accurate..

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

63. They got the colors wrong. Also, too small to read. I would

like a link to a high res version to check out.

[jeff47]

35. This is a culmination of events.

The largest blame falls on Captain Orange. A clean CR would pass the House with all Democrats and a few moderate Republicans.

The next largest chunk falls on the Teabaggers and their allies. Which are causing the first problem.

But both of those can only be in power because of previous events - we are at the product of a long history. So yes, both of the above were caused by low non-teabagger turnout in 2010.

But that was caused by Democrats terrified of their new-found position and swinging a bit more right for "safety".

Which was caused by Clinton and company getting stomped in 1994.

Which was caused by the Business + Religious coalition that Reagan brought together.

Which was caused by Nixon's rejection of those groups.

And so on, and so on back through the decades. (And yes, that is a massively simplified summary missing lots and lots of key details)

So it isn't technically wrong to blame 2010 voters, but they are not the sole cause. It took us quite a while to reach this point in time. There's a lot of events that got us precisely to this point.

[KG]

37. 30 years of 'bi-partisianship'

[adirondacker]

39. The Insurance Industry. nt

[valerief]

45. No, the shutdown was caused by the assholes who own the Congress members who voted to shut

down the govt. Those Congress members are their bitches.

[SomethingFishy]

46. You'll get no argument from me...

We have the best politicians money can buy.

[B Calm]

47. Damn I missed those posts, you got a link?

[SomethingFishy]

48. Here's a couple that got some traction this morning...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3759440

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3760454

It was a bummer as I was enjoying yesterday when it seemed like we all managed to get together on the shutdown and the implementation of the ACA. Then I come in this morning and see this crap. There were like 5 or 6 of them right at the top of the page when I logged in..

[B Calm]

49. Thanks. . I saw the Bluedog thread and it made me sick!!!

[carolinayellowdog]

50. depressing as hell is right

It's as if they have nothing better to do in their spare time than make false accusations, false equivalencies, fallacious arguments, divisive rhetoric-- anything to show how much they hate the majority of DUers and our values.

[handmade34]

51. Nope...

"you want to find blame for the shutdown?" it is solely John Boehner's fault!!!!

he can right this minute end it all by bringing a clean bill to the House

I blame Boehner alone for this one yeah the teabaggers are assholes but the Speaker supercedes them on this

[SomethingFishy]

52. Boehner is so scared they will take

his chair from him he'll do whatever they tell him to do.

Still not the fault of the Dems or the voters.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. I'm told that only 40-50 Republicans are in the "Suicide Caucus"

Even if you dismiss them as batshit crazy, by my count there are at least 150+ Republicans who ought to know better, and there damn well should be 20 of a caucus of 232 who have the balls to force Boehner to do the right thing.

[handmade34]

58. there certainly are...

the numbers are absolutely there to pass a clean bill... the ball is squarely in John Boehner's court...

I am disgusted by the shadow of a man he is

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. You Are Like A God To Me

Thanks for reminding us of the obvious!

[noiretextatique]

59. interesting that some who blame "the left"

are the same people who call out "the left" for criticizing Democrats instead of republicons. it's the republicons, stupid.

[stillwaiting]

65. Republicans will blame leftists for everything wrong in this country.

So will conservative/centrist Democrats.

Always.

[DCBob]

66. Totally agree.. there is no one to blame but the far right/conservatives.

They have taken this to a level that approaches treasonous activity.

[randr]

67. The pictures of the Republicans celebrating says it all.

[Initech]

77. The Republicans are acting like babies when it comes to ACA.

No wait most babies act with more class. They more act like spoiled rich kids.