Interestingly ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

I've noticed a number of "Go Bernie (Sanders)" posts resting along side of posts blasting the Budget Compromise proposal. Yet, none of these posts make note that Bernie was a part of the budget negotiation team.

Does that weaken the frequent DU argument that all Democrats/Liberals have to do is stand up and fight and we will get everything that we want (and the gop will get none of what they want)?

[djean111]

1. No, not in the least. What it means is that more politicians than just Bernie need to stand up and

fight. The constant capitulation and letting the GOP set the bargaining points is getting old.

If the GOP wants to kill two people and the Dems say they don't want to kill any people, then settling on only killing one person is total capitulation. And the GOP will get to kill the other person next time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. So ...

Bernie wasn't able to prevent the gop from setting the bargaining points, prevent the constant capitulation or stop the gop from killing the person?

I agree more than Bernie needs to show up; but doesn't that give fallacious simplicity to the DU refrain and point to the only real way forward in the fight ... Democratic majorities in the House and Senate?

[djean111]

8. If the Democratic majority is mostly Centrists and/or Third-Wayers, we will still

be in the same damned position. If you believe a corporate democrat or DINO will start being liberal or progressive just because the Dems have a majority - I have a campaign speech to sell you.

The "fallacious simplicity" is believing that all dems would suddenly be more liberal if in power. No they will not. The centrist and Third Way Dems in power do not work for anyone but their owners.

I would like to see progressive Dem majority. Asking me to fight for a DINO who will turn on what they campaign on in order to appeal to progressives is not going to fly any more. Right now, Hillary works for Wall Street. Pure and simple.

[NuclearDem]

2. It wasn't a matter of getting everything we wanted.

It's that the poor got nothing and the rich got everything.

I thought after the last debt ceiling and shutdown debacle that the Dems had permanently grown a spine, but here we are.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I thought Bernie was that "spine." n/t

[NuclearDem]

5. I wish he was on the negotiations, but he's in the senate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Isn't Patty Murray, also in the Senate? n/t

[NuclearDem]

10. Doh, you're right.

Egg on my face.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Honestly ...

We are on the same side of this issue. I just wish to point out the fallacy of the "all we need to do is stand up and fight" narrative. It sounds good ... right up to when faced with the reality of having to govern in a divided government.

I would love to see more progressive legislation and the only way we're gonna get that is with majorities in the House and Senate. And the electoral demographics reality dictates that in order to gain those majorities ... that Democrats will need Centrists to carry reddish districts.

The electoral reality also suggests that the bluer the district, the farther the left of center candidate can be. Hopefully, in 2014, we can get enough "progressiver" and centrist Democrats seated to gain majorities, where we can engage in intra-party compromises rather than having to engage in extra-party compromise.

[HappyMe]

6. Nobody ever gets everything they want.

Bernie's a senator and the budget comes out of Congress.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Did Bernie have veto power?

The argument, I believe, is that if Democrats stand up and fight we win, because most Americans strongly embrace traditional Democratic values. Liberals only constitute a tiny minority of elected Democrats, so they can't do it alone.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. No ...

Bernie doesn't have veto power ... nor, does anyone on the committee; ergo, the resulting compromise that belies the simplistic "stand up and fight" narrative.