Democratic Party is taking our support & loyalty for granted

[LiberalForEver]

In 2006 the People voted more Dems in and more repubes out. We got bare majorities in the House and Senate. Our new Majority Leader and Speaker of the House talked the talk, strong opposition to the war and the Bush Administration and its policies, but unfortunately they have not walked the walk.

On the watch of the Dem majority in congress we have not re-instituted 'Habeas Corpus', we have not limited the War in Iraq, we have not brought our troops home, we have not addressed the health care of our citizens, we have not removed the 'taxcuts' for the rich, we have not protected our fellow citizens from illegal searches and wiretaps, we have not closed Guantanamo, etc, etc, etc,.

What we have done. Well, with the help of 22 Dem Senators, the Senate has passes a nonbinding resolution condemning the Petraeus/Betray Us ad by MoveOn.org in the New York Times. With a Democrat Majority like this we don't have to worry about the Repubes destroying the Bill of Rights, the Dems will help the GOP do it.

These Congressional Dems are more concerned with their 're-electability' than following the precepts of what the Party should be about. They ASSUME that we will VOTE for them becuase the only alternative is allowing a Repube to be elected. It is time for these Dem Traitors to be thrown out of office. If they are only worried about their re-electability, then WE HAVE THE POWER to make sure they don win reelection. We will be no worse off than we are now. Having Dems in power has gotten us NOTHING.

If the Dems want to start practicing what they preach, then change the rules of Senate with the 'Nuclear Option'. Do what ever it takes to do the Right Things; to get 'Our Agenda' passed and to make real progress.

[redqueen]

1. "Democrat" party?

:wtf:

And you can fuck right off with that "having dems in power has gotten us nothing" bullshit... you don't know WHAT those fuckin pukes would do if we weren't the majority in the house and a tie in the senate... so... UGH!

:puke:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. The turncoats in the Senate deserve that

nom d'infamie

[redqueen]

5. sure the turncoats... the dems who vote with pubs on some issues

but they ALL turned out for habeas, and i REITERATE that we don't know how much WORSE things might be if we weren't a majority in the house and a tie for power in the senate.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. all you state is true. but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth

FISA,
MoveOn,
and they won't even deal with senatorial power as a majority!

Say, how did Ole Joe vote on habeas?

[Sparkly]

9. They are still a slim majority.

The OP seems to be urging us not to be so afraid of Republicans taking office that we vote for Democrats we aren't crazy about. Sorry -- the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican, afaic.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. it wasn't always that way.

the democrats in the south used to be against mixed race relations, and the GOP of the north pushed civil rights.
Today, the GOP of the south pushes discrimination and hatred.

[redqueen]

10. With the pukes (quelle surpise). But he's not a Dem

so I really resent anyone using his votes as a stick to beat dems up with.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. Joe can't be counted as a Dem at all, now.

The sooner we can make that official the better!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. true. can we have bush appoint him someplace

like ambassadress to Belgium or Easter Island?

[suigeneris]

40. Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. (nt)

[redqueen]

43. My distinct pleasure.

Can't believe this got five recs.

:wtf:

[BulletproofLandshark]

2. You may want to edit your subject line.

The phrase "Democrat Party" is rightfully suspect in these parts.

[Sparkly]

4. DemocratIC Party.

DemocratIC Party.

They ASSUME that we will VOTE for them becuase the only alternative is allowing a Repube to be elected. It is time for these Dem Traitors to be thrown out of office. If they are only worried about their re-electability, then WE HAVE THE POWER to make sure they don win reelection. We will be no worse off than we are now. Having Dems in power has gotten us NOTHING.

I'm not playing that game. :eyes:

[redqueen]

6. And fuck that 'make sure they don't get re-elected'...

if there's no DEM or other MORE LIBERAL candidate that can beat them in a primary, then suck it the hell up and VOTE DEM.

God almighty...

[LiberalForEver]

11. if you vote for the 'lesser' of two evils, you'll end up with evil

[Sparkly]

12. Yeah, and if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, you'll end up with MORE EVIL.

What are you trying to do, exactly??

[redqueen]

15. Seems pretty obvious to me.

:grr:

[redqueen]

14. Nice trite saying there. Got a better option?

Oh yeah, I remember... make sure Dems who aren't perfect don't get re-elected.

I notice how you didn't qualify that with any statement saying that we need to replace those candidates with more liberal primary challengers.

HMMMMMMMMMMM..... gee... WHY does that make me just a TAD suspicious...

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Do you believe that the Democratic Party is evil?

That seems to be what you are implying.

[LiberalForEver]

20. No! The Democratic Party is NOT evil....

but some of 'our' elected Democratic Congressional members are more interested in their future ambitions than in the principles of the Party. They are the ones that should be replaced in order to show that we do expect our elected politicians to follow the will of the People.

[redqueen]

41. Replaced with what? n/t

[NoPasaran]

51. So why don't you start your own freeking "non-evil" party?

Mister Internet Concerned Democrat Party Guy?

[redqueen]

7. I can't believe how FUCKING STUPID this post is.

Did you miss the Habeas vote?

Did you?

:banghead:

[polichick]

16. Yes, they take our support and loyalty for granted because...

...we have noplace else to go ~ YET.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Yes, not unlike an abused spouse with no income.

You scream, "Where ya gonna go? You're NOTHING without me (centrist democrats)!

It's getting really OLD when you won't even introduce me to your friends (hold up our concerns within your Bills).

:shrug:

[polichick]

18. This idea will get deleted again but...

It's the perfect time for someone with a huge following and a great deal of respect (think Gore) to run as an indie on a revolutionary progressive platform. Either that, or we have to somehow take over the sinking ship ~ maybe by unseating the "leaders" and the "turncoats" as soon as we can.

[martymar64]

48. I'm ready for secession of the West Coast States.

The Rethugs are pure evil and their enablers in our party are just as bad. I say it's time for us to break up as a nation and go our own ways.

[Lint Head]

24. There is another place to go but you can't say it out loud.

You'll be thrown into a concentration camp for exercising your freedom of speech and identified as an enemy combatant. I will defend the Constitution as defined by our forefathers not by the criminals in the fascist administration that occupies our White House. :dem:

[polichick]

31. Well, I got some satisfaction by calling my turncoat Senator's office...

And promising to help defeat him in the next election.

[alittlelark]

21. uh, yeah....

...like, really...
:spray:

[onenote]

22. how many things can one OP get wrong in a single post?

First, a rather obvious point that seems to elude the OP and others. Each election was separate. I daresay that the number of moderate-minded Democrats and independents that voted in someone like Jim Webb far exceeded the number of voters who would describe themselves as progressive. So, while progressives helped vote him in, so did moderates. If someone who had run as a pure progressive was turning around and voting with the repubs, you might have a point, but by and large (leaving aside the vote on the moveon ad, which ultimately was more theater than anything else) those elected as progressives have voted the way you would expect them to and those elected as moderates have voted the way one would expect them to. No single bloc of the party owns any member.

Second, if you're going to claim that the Democrats haven't walked the walk, you're going to have to figure out how that squares with the near universal support that Democrats gave legislation (ultimately vetoed) to set a timetable to end the war. Or more to the point, the fact that EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR THE BILL TO REINSTUTE HABEAS CORPUS.

Third, you should really look up the nuclear option before you start demanding that it be adopted as a means of overcoming the filibuster. The argument for the nuclear option, tenuous as it is, is specific to judicial nominations.

Finally, while its pretty clear that your real beef is the "repubes", the fact that you are more comfortable attacking what you refer to as the "Democrat party" speaks volumes.

[stimbox]

25. The neoconservatism strain of Democrats actively oppose "The Left".

A great thread by Madfloridian.
Pretty much explains it all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3528617

[smoogatz]

26. Where's that "un-rec" button when you need it?

Seriously. This is one stupid fucking post.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

28. Haha.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

29. LiberalForEver, you're not fooling anyone.

[hvn_nbr_2]

30. We are to the Democratic establishment as the...

wacko hate creed gang of fundamentalists are to the Publican establishment: loonies to be used for energy and money, taken for granted, thrown an occasional bone, and otherwise ignored.

[polichick]

32. Then shouldn't we withdraw our energy and support...

Maybe create something new with it??

(If this too is deleted, I'll assume DU is more loyal to the Dem establishment than the Dem base.)

[hvn_nbr_2]

49. That's the question we seem to debate and ponder here a lot lately

and I don't have the answer. My feelings fluctuate from day to day and even hour to hour. At any rate, too strong an advocacy of that would mean that it should be on Some Other Underground rather than the Democratic Underground. The mods have to walk a fine line, especially at times of great frustration and anger such as now.

[polichick]

50. These are tumultuous times for the party alright!

As far as DU goes, I've wondered if the founders are more aligned with the inside-the-beltway establishment Dems or with the traditional base ~ there's definitely trouble brewing between the two.

[Sufficient Voice]

33. Look. I'm new here too, and also critical of the party BUT

unless you are some UNDERCOVER REPUBLICAN, this is not a helpful way to be critical of the party. With the exception of when Lieberman was a Dem, even the worst Senate Dems are still better than any Rep on 90% of the issues. So there is no point in DISCOURAGING ANYONE FROM VOTING for a Dem, unless they are simpling voting for a better Dem in the primary. (Just to be fair in some cases 3rd party or independent candidates would be preferable. But until a 3rd party can really gain more city and state level seats to challenge the 2 party system problem, this doesn't happen very often.)

I appreciate you. I would never call your post stupid, and I am glad you are posting on this website. If you truly have the passion you espouse, we need you! But you may need to learn a little more about progressives. There is no 'Our Agenda'. Republicans have an 'Our Agenda'. We have nothing so sinister. Us progressives have a variety of ideas and plans for improving the country based on reasonable, progressive, compassionate thinking. We are not usually down with blanket blaming or blaming the victim. Think about that and get back to me.

[LiberalForEver]

34. No I am certainly not a Repube or undercover repube

Thanks for the reply. I know there is MUCH left to learn. The road from being just a Democrat to 'Liberal" was long but the road getting to 'Progressive' seems to be much longer. I know that I need to learn much more about the progressive movement and I will. My use of 'Our' was merely my attempt to to feel a part of a shared and desired set of goals.

I appreciate you. I would never call your post stupid, and I am glad you are posting on this website. If you truly have the passion you espouse, we need you! But you may need to learn a little more about progressives. There is no 'Our Agenda'. Republicans have an 'Our Agenda'. We have nothing so sinister. Us progressives have a variety of ideas and plans for improving the country based on reasonable, progressive, compassionate thinking. We are not usually down with blanket blaming or blaming the victim. Think about that and get back to me.

[Froward69]

36. ummm well

"The road from being just a Democrat to 'Liberal" was long but the road getting to 'Progressive' seems to be much longer." um no they are next door to another... and a true Democrat would never espouse removing another (epically these days) as well as "repube" is with a small "r". republicans do not receive the luxury of a capitol "R". you say you have much to learn, then learn it first as in reading these posts for a while. Watching Olberman then posting. as well as when referring to the move on add their is no need to reference NYtimes. We all know where it was printed. and lastly criticizing the democratic congress is flat out obtuse. as the Democratic side of Congress is doing what it can with the limited power it has. Work on more seats in congress once we have two thirds then we can bitch about nothing getting done.

[Sufficient Voice]

47. Cool. Thanks. Keep posting.

:)

[Froward69]

35. This is written by a mole

For various reasons I can spot em, This sort of dribble is meant to divide us! question our convictions and turn on one another. beware of this sort of babble. :wtf: :nuke:

[polichick]

38. You sound like a Rep...

Someone speaks the truth and you malign them. The Dems do take the loyalty and support of the base for granted ~ take it from someone who's been in the trenches for 30 years.

[Froward69]

39. ok i am newer to the trenches

but no less passionate. when I came to start my volunteer work here.(look me up) I ferreted out a mole here in this office. I have always been middle of the road when it came to politics. I have found that I am (really) a conservative Democrat. so you may have a disdain for that revelation, I don't care. I believe in whats best for our country The United States. not what is best for a particular party. (leave that to the repubes) I believe our party needs to sharpen our teeth, stand up to, and ferret out repubes at every turn. no apologies!

[polichick]

46. It seems to me the Dems are naturally splitting into two parties...

And I think that could be a good thing in the long run ~ Reps will be left with right-wing nutjobs and assorted opportunistic criminals; well-meaning Americans from the middle of both existing parties can work together on behalf of big business and "predatory capitalism" (a term used by Kucinich); and the "radical left wing" can stand up for peace, civil rights, the middle class, environmental stewardship and other crazy ideas like that. :)


('Course this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do think big changes are due ~ for both parties.)

[redqueen]

42. Speaks truth?

Did you see the comment about Habeas in there?

It's chockablock with TRUTHINESS, though, I'll give ya that.

[polichick]

44. Anyone who is supporting Kucinich should know that...

...the Democratic party does take its base for granted. I'm not saying every word of the OP is accurate ~ but the basic premise most certainly is.

If more Dems got fed up with being taken for granted, Dennis would have more of a chance.

[redqueen]

45. Dennis would never say some of the absolutely ridiculous things

that are said in that OP.

I agree that if more Dems would demand real change instead of nibbling around the edges, that things would improve.

Vowing to ensure that republicans are elected in areas which triagulators now serve is luancy.

[ecstatic]

37. join the club

Blacks were thrown under the bus, then unions, then liberals, and I think women will be next.