The Democrats are committing political suicide

[AzNick]

By ignoring their base and not being progressive enough, they will discourage their base and lose in 2010, and Obama will be a one-termer.

Is it too late?

[phantom power]

1. I don't know if it's too late, but I don't think they are going to change course.

[robinlynne]

47. exactly.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. Boy, that says it all.

Proof that often the first response is the best.

[jaksavage]

2. I hope so

cause the politicians who stand under the democratic banner are not acting like democrats. Maybe if we hate the repukes and hate the dems we could elect a green.

[Orsino]

3. Corporate money has weakend the party's drive for progressivism.

It's not political suicide; it's an inevitable result of legalized bribery, though it means that there is little to distinguish most Dems from Republicans in the public's eyes.

We are committing political suicide by letting them get away with it.

[FredStembottom]

7. It's corruption.

...and not some kinda better, nobler corruption than what goes on in Russia or Mexico. It's just plain, old corruption. Democrats on the take. Crime.

[closeupready]

46. Yes.

Correct.

[Peregrine Took]

10. Excellent point. Who said He would "vomit the lukewarm" or words to

that effect...(sorry for paraphrase.)

[Laelth]

4. Agreed. Honestly, I think Congressional Dems. prefer to be in the minority. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

90. Yes, we must fulfill your stupid prophesy

and destroy the party from within!!!!1111

:puke:

[lunatica]

5. Most of the people in Washington are corrupt

The sooner we 'get it' the less we'll fret about them doing the 'right' thing. Not all of them are corrupt, but anyone who takes money and legislates for those who give them the money is corrupt. Not a little corrupt or slightly corrupt. They are corrupt. It's like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't. No shades of gray.

We will change how we see facts and truth when we finally acknowledge the corruption. We will stop being naive and self-deluded. And we will begin to deal with truth simply because we see it.

[tblue]

20. RFK Jr. said 75% of Dems in Congress are corrupt, and 100% of Repubs.

And we have 22% who call themselves progressives. Hmmmm....

[sinkingfeeling]

6. You do realize that only a small percentage call themselves 'progressives' ? It's somewhere around

22% of the total electorate.

[Richardo]

8. So you want the Dems to take the same path as the GOP, which we laugh about every day?

Wherein the ideologically pure displace and/or marginalize the pragmatists and moderates, thereby reducing the electorate's identification with the party?

That may lead to smug satisfaction with one's principles, but not much in the way of seats in the legislature, or a residence at the White House.

[redqueen]

15. Some apparently do, yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6990068

"if you are thinking of a primary opponent or getting rid of a few "Democrats" that are hindering all progress"

What good is it having all those chairmanships and shit anyway, right? We need True Progressives^TM!

[Selatius]

17. On health care, the public favored a robust Public Option. The House passed nothing of that sort.

But I'm just saying :shrug:

[Richardo]

21. They passed *something* of the sort

Just not the sort you were looking for.

Disclaimer: Contrary to the opinion of many around here, this does NOT mean I approve of all the provisions of the House bill as passed.

[Selatius]

33. I specifically used "robust" in reference to the polls that used "robust"

It may not be what *I* was looking for, but I suspect for a great many it is the same. Sen. Wyden was apt to warn his constituents that that was not what was being seen in either the House or the Senate version drafts he saw. It may be a while before the bill is improved in later years barring some unforeseen disaster.

[robinlynne]

51. The man who created the public option specifically said it has to be large and

wide scale or it cannot work. The whole point of a public option is to have a large group of people, which brings the price down. That is what a robust public option means. There is nothing in this bill to bring prices down. That is supposed to be one of the main point of the bill. We currently pay twice as much as European countries do for health care, for less care. We will now pay more. I cannot pay more. My family is already paying it for me, and I just got the bill for enxt year, 20% raise in health insurance premiums to keep my insurance. NO PRICE CAPS in the bill. no robust public option.
It is better for very poor people who will get helath insurance, no doubt. but free clinics would have given them more care at a lower price. and then maybe, we, the working/middle class would have some access too!

[EFerrari]

50. Isn't that characterization a little dishonest?

Don't most people agree with those you call "purists" on the health care issue?

In fact, iirc, the "ideologically pure" of the Democratic party are nothing like the slobbering GOP base. They more closely predict where public opinion will go -- as they did with the Iraq war, with global warming, with the economy, with so many issues on the table right now.

I'm trying to think of a similar contribution by "pragmatiasts and moderates" by which I assume you mean people whose first priority is winning at any cost. Didn't "pragmatists and moderates" help us achieve the minority for eight years? What am I missing.

[PVnRT]

54. If they aren't willing to stand up for Democratic principles, what's the point of electing them?

We have Democrats in the Senate right now ready and willing to derail whatever health care reform we get and are intent on hamstringing the President's agenda. What is the point of electing these people if they're going to disrupt things as much as Republicans do?

It's not about "ideological purity," it's about electing people who will actually try to do something.

[Vincardog]

78. +1 If they aren't willing to stand up for Democratic principles, what's the point of electing them?

It's not about "ideological purity," it's about electing people who will actually try to do something to HELP people. You know like Obama said he would when he was just a Candidate.

[stray cat]

9. If you allow the GOP to take charge its you who are committing suicide

and the republicans are clearly smarter and deserve to be in power. I'm amazed by how many dems seem to think McCain Palin and people like them will be as good as present for their agenda

[Mari333]

11. I agree. Im going to sit back and watch it happen.

there isnt much more I can do.

[tblue]

12. I just posted the same general thought in a different thread.

Who's gonna phone bank, walk precincts, register voters, and donate money to reelect the people who gave us healthcare with a trigger? This is not a threat. It's my fear. Democrats have to show they stand for somethng. I am really worried about all those young people who all but spilled blood to elect Obama. They didn't do all that because they wanted inordinate attention paid to Olympia Snowe and a handful of Blue Dogs.

[Swede]

13. The Republicans are committing political suicide

By getting in the mud with Palin and birthers and teabaggers. Where will all these unhappy voters go?

[redqueen]

16. Some here seem to want to level out the playing field...

and do some political seppuku of our own.

[AzNick]

22. But older white folks will keep voting AT EVERY ELECTION

We won this time by motivating younger folks to go vote, as well as minorities, especially African-Americans, who went out in droves to elect Obama.

The Dems can lose their base, the Reps can't.

Now, if the Dems pass a strong HCR, then yes, it's open in 2010.

If they don't (I bet they won't) pass a strong HCR, it's bye bye in 2010 and Obama is likely to be a one-termer.

[treestar]

64. +1

They aren't going to vote for Democrats

[mmonk]

14. We can always fight to the end. Loses will be interpreted by

the advisors (which must come from the Republican party I figure) as the losses happened because the party went too liberal and tried to do too much and they must be "moderate" and govern from the "center" and they will try and get more conservatives to run as Democrats in 2012. I've read this script before.

[geek tragedy]

18. Yes, we need a leftwing Teabag movement to Scozzafava anyone

to the right of Dennis Kucinich out of office.

[stray cat]

19. A party of one would get the job done!

:sarcasm:

[AllentownJake]

24. My favorite fail patrol member

[geek tragedy]

26. Well, I just found out I'm a 'cheerleader for the insurance cartel'

so I guess that title fits.

I personally like Brentspeak for King of fail.

[frylock]

79. and his faithful sidekick

[jpak]

89. Pot meet kettle

and yeah - FAIL

[rudy23]

84. "Left-wing teabag" for 100 points! Anyone can play DLC talking point bingo!

C'mon "haters", "Naderites", & "purists"! Follow along on your lists at home.

[geek tragedy]

85. So says someone beating up last decade's bogeyman.

The DLC ain't shit anymore. It has no pull.

[rudy23]

101. What position does Rahm Emanuel hold in the White House?

I hope that's the DLC's new talking point, because that's some weak shit.

[LakeSamish706]

23. I'm truly sorry to say that I agree with you.... Many had such great hope only to find that...

we have a bunch of losers in both the House and the Senate.

[HALO141]

59. Was the really a surprise?

REALLY?!?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. They'll keep ignoring the left as long as we hold our noses and settle for "not as bad".

Politicians chase votes. As long as they can get them from the left by using the "not as bad" BS they'll chase the "middle" by moving to the right. When they stop getting our votes they'll have to start earning them.

[redqueen]

28. Yeah, we should totally do like France and vote for the REAL progressive.

The third-party candidate! Or better yet, just not vote at all!

And if we end up with another Bush, well... that'll teach... um... someone!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. You prefer triangulation to the right?

I gave up voting for the "not as bad" candidate in '68 after that convention that anointed another pro-war "moderate". If politicians want my vote they have to earn it. I don't owe it to them just because they have a (D) behind their name.

[redqueen]

37. I don't think I owe it to anyone but myself.

I would rather have Dems in control of congressional committees.

I would rather have Dems in office, period. It'd have to be a fucking AWESOME republican on the ticket for me to even consider doing what you do... because I won't have the election of another anti-choice, pro-war, anti-education, anti-environment repuke on my conscience.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. That's the problem for me. My conscience.

If I vote for politicians who sell out and vote with the Republicans, for war, against abortion rights, against the environment and education, and justify it as "compromise" my conscious bothers me.

So I don't.

[redqueen]

43. Having more Dems than Repukes means we have Dems in charge of committees.

Do you think things would have gone better if we'd have tried to get health care reform through congress with repukes in charge of all the committees?

[PVnRT]

55. Dems like Max Baucus?

Or Dems that allow Joe Liebermann to have power for some odd reason?

[redqueen]

62. Yeah Dems like Max Baucus.

I'll say it again... it'd have to be an AWESOME republican on the ticket for me to even consider staying at home or voting third-party.

Let me ask you: do you think health care reform would look better if republicans were in charge of all the committees?

No, wait... most likely nothing would have been done at all... so yeah... I bet a lot of people here actually *would* prefer that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. Of course not. But, that's a false dillema.

It's like asking "is a tablespoon of arsenic worse than a teaspoon?"

I'll pass on both.

[redqueen]

72. You don't get to pass. No matter what you do, one side will be in charge.

Staying home simply means you forfeit your power to sway the balance to someone else... they get to decide how much arsenic you will eat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Bottle A or Bottle B. I always vote, but sometimes, it's for bottle C.

Because both the contents of A and B are far too similar.

Seriously, though, I believe that the only way to get the Democrats (I've been one since 1965) to move left is to withhold our votes until they're willing to come after them rather than move right to capture rightist votes. Working "inside" the system is all very nice if the system pays any attention. Unfortunately, they only pay attention when threatened with loss of power. And, that's not "idealism", that's realpolitik.

We have an irretrievably corrupt system run by money and the influence it brings. I can go along with it by voting for it, even when the corruption is obvious (i.e. Afghanistan, the Stupak Amendment), or I can refuse to participate.

I choose the latter.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[redqueen]

75. Yeah, we've discussed this before. :)

You consider withholding votes the way to go... I think it's more pushing the electorate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Well, sometimes I have to disagree with an agreeable person.:)

:hi:

[PVnRT]

58. Oddly enough, Sarkozy would be leftist Democrat in this country

[redqueen]

61. Yeah but we're in this country.

Our choices don't include Sarkozy. Most leftists in France don't approve of the death penalty.

We've got a long way to go before the electorate starts making better choices.

[PVnRT]

67. There have to be better choices for the electorate to make better choices

One can't choose something that isn't there.

The attitude expressed by you and others in this thread is, *shrug*, that's the way things are, the alternative's worse, so just keep the status quo. How in the world are we going to give "better choices" to the electorate unless we're willing to go after the bad choices we have now? It's a defeatist attitude, whether you like it or not.

I'll admit that nothing would be getting done with Republicans in charge of committees right now, but what is going to get done when Bayh, Landrieu, Baucus, Liebermann, Pryor and Lincoln turn traitor and kill reform efforts in the Senate? At what point do we keep sending these assholes to Congress just because no one wants to shake the boat?

[redqueen]

69. People who have Blue Dogs should try to primary them.

Maybe there is wide popular support for a more liberal candidate. That's for each area to determine.

I know down here it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell in most counties... I have a little more hope for a Senate candidate, but not much at all.

The electorate is the key. We can push Kucinich on everyone in the country... and in the vast majority of districts, he'll never get anywhere, and not because of the media. It's the electorate.

The support we got for a public option is a good sign... but it's only a start. People talking about giving up the majority on some quest for a super liberal congress are putting the cart before the horse... it's like our version of the teabaggers. They can push all the Beck/Palin-approved candidates they want... but guess what the result will be?

[Individualist]

35. I agree.

Those who vote for "not as bad" are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[cali]

27. Actually, it's independents who make or break a party.

[redqueen]

29. Actual knowledge of politics is not welcome here.

Take your inconvenient facts and bugger off, you!

[cali]

30. I know. I know. Facts are inconvenient.

[Richardo]

31. ...

:D




:hi:

[redqueen]

38. ...

:hi:

I keep dreaming about the day we'll have learned from France's lesson... I'm such an optimist. :)

[mmonk]

36. Policy successes or failue make or break a party.

Independents and third party members are people who know little on how one gets to success or differences between party stances and success or failure or they are disillusioned former members of a party. My take anyway. Then there are the disenfranchised who came out to vote for the first time in a long time or the first time because they thought an Obama administration might care about them.

[kenfrequed]

57. Exactly!

Present vision and clarity in issues and differences and you will do more to garner the 'independents' and 'undecideds' than all the possible concessions to the opposition that you can imagine. As Truman said (badly paraphrased) "If you have a choice between voting for a Republican and a Democrat that sounds like one why wouldn't you just vote for the Republican?"

[PVnRT]

56. Are the independents the ones manning phone banks and going door-to-door?

No, that would be the committed base of the party. The independents of whom you and others speak just go vote, and in usually much smaller numbers during non-presidential elections.

[cali]

82. delete

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. K&R--It's not only the base: When MIDDLE CLASS INDEPENDENTS get their inflated premiums & realize...

.....how they have been sold out to the cartel, there will be a mass rejection by independent voters as well.


Our political LANGUAGE has been corrupted:full So called "centrists" in our party are the corporate whores.

But passing the corporatist bills of the so-called "centrist" sell-outs is NOT the way to attract the swing voter (not to mention the base).

The political discourse has been so corrupted by the right wing noise machine that some fail to realize that the positions that will attract swing voters (moderate in pre-Fox "News" terms) is NOT pseudo-"centrist" corporatism, but genuine American progressive action.

We have allowed the right wing demagogues to redefine the TRUE AMERICAN CENTER as "far left".

The reality is that the unapologetic policies of Kucinich/Massa/Feingold/Sanders (and NOT the corporatist policies of the DLC sell-outs) are the ones that will both help and appeal to the middle class, the independent swing voter, and even disaffected Eisenhower Republicans.

Yet we have been conned into accepting the depraved idea that corporatist sell-out politicians are "centrists", and that we must let them write the bills to attract swing voters..........Nothing can be further from the truth. The only way we can attract swing voters for more than one election is to do what is right for Americans.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6961005

[Laelth]

40. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[inna]

87. Thank you!

Great link BTW, I missed that thread the first time around.

[leftstreet]

95. +1

[opihimoimoi]

39. Its those GOPiacs who fucked up....not the Dems who enjoy over all support

McCain/Palin is a ZERO TERMER

[azmouse]

42. Check back in 7 years when Obama is finishing his second term.

[AllentownJake]

44. Let's get through 2010

before we start talking about 2012, for all you know the Mayan prophecies are true lol.

[TheCowsCameHome]

45. Step by step they are.

They're in trouble now, never mind 2010.

[LeftinOH]

48. -and the base will vote Republican instead? Disappointments aside, some of us

will gladly vote for "no change"- given that the only alternative will be backwards conservatism. Third parties don't have a chance.

[AllentownJake]

74. No they just don't vote

That is the way it normally happens.

[depakid]

76. Or will find thrid parties that better represent their values

[emulatorloo]

49. If the Dems lose in 2010, teabaggers will win. If you want to sit home, knock yourself out

Teabag types are going to come out of the woodwork to vote.

Personally I am going to knock doors and GOTV. I have a REALLY obnoxious Republican Senator who is up for re-election. He has done more to derail HCR than many others, and they have all done a lot.

If I don't GOTV, he will be back. If I don't GOTV we will get several more Michele Bachmann type reps in as well.

[closeupready]

60. Dems have time to turn around. Burden's on them.

n/t

[natrat]

66. go team- ra ra- us against the teabaggers-what a load of shit

[emulatorloo]

96. I am getting pretty sick of DU'ers calling each other names - The point is to elect more and better

Democrats, not teabaggers.

Tell my why the concept of more and better Democrats is "shit"

[PVnRT]

68. So, if the teabaggers are equivalent to the "loony left" for the Democrats,

you're basically admitting that energizing that base is what will help win an election for one side or the other. So how will deflating the left wing of the Democrats help defeat right-wing candidates fueled by teabagger money and hate?

[emulatorloo]

99. Where did I advocate "deflating the left wing" - the point is to elect more and better Dems

Not bitch on an internet board about how the Dems are "committing political suicide."

We have more responsibilty for the shape of the party.

[Echo In Light]

52. Gotta keep the two name brand party ruse alive and active or the true nature of the Game is revealed

Mission Accomplished

[Arkana]

53. ABSOLUTELY.

AND I WILL HELP IT HAPPEN BY SITTING BACK AND HOLDING MY BREATH UNTIL I TURN BLUE.

[treestar]

63. The opposite is true

The Republicans are, by letting the far end have too much say.

Far right rethugs often claim McCain lost because he was not conservative enough. This is simply not true. The country was not conservative enough to let Palin be VP.

Likewise it is not leftward enough for Feingold or Kucinich to be President.

[natrat]

65. they are corrupt and are controlled by the same scum who controll the thugs

[Forkboy]

70. Agree on 2010, but Obama will be reelected anyways.

[Odin2005]

80. You get in F in Political Science 101. Politics is about capturing the center.

One must get the center to vote for you and try to pull them to your side ideologically.

[AzNick]

83. And the center voted for progress

The center are our base.

[Codeine]

81. Progessives are not the dem base.

Never have been. DU is a self-selected group of very liberal posters who - in my opinion - delude themselves about how liberal both the party and its rank-and-file actually are.

[JoeyT]

86. I agree.

That's why Obama carefully campaigned on not listening to the liberals and didn't endorse a single liberal policy. They weren't needed because liberals aren't the base.

Wait. I'm being told he campaigned on quite a lot of liberal policies. Which was apparently a trick.
Also young people are more liberal than older people. And the massive youth turnout is what got him elected. Never mind.
Looks like yet another example of "We got what we wanted, now you stupid liberals can shut up and like it.".
You know, what killed turnout after Clinton.
But it's the fault of liberals for voting green instead of for a party that actively hates them that Gore lost.
The "logic" here is so twisty it'd make a corkscrew envious.

[jpak]

88. What is all this liberal divisiveness bullshit about?

I know - a ham-handed attempt by GOP operatives to disrupt the Democratic Party and ensure a GOP victory in 2010 and 2012.

Pretty fucking transparent

[fascisthunter]

98. you sure

[placton]

91. It's too late

this is not a party - or president - that deserves to be supported

[PHIMG]

92. Obama = Hoover

[janedum]

93. It's the economy stupid!

[fascisthunter]

97. indeed...

[Kaleva]

100. Will it be liberal or moderate/Blue Dog Dems who lose?

Stupak will win in a landslide like he always does so his seat is safe.

[spanone]

102. have you forgotten the previous eight years? cheney, rumsfeld et al. democrats haven't.

[Overseas]

103. That's the GOP plan for our party, even as they shoot themselves in the foot

with their pandering to their own Religious Hard Right.

That's our only hope-- that the GOP deference to its lunatic hard right will alienate and divide them so that the Democratic caving to its right wing rather than using the Bush Depression as a valid reason to push for FDR's Second Bill of Rights won't lead to losses in 2010.

I thought exposing the professional right wing corporate funding behind those destructive anti-good-government August rallies would give my Democrats another great opportunity to say-- Enough is enough! and return to FDR's unfinished business. But with right wing ownership of most of our mass media, our Democrats just didn't feel strong enough to do that.