The Left hasn't "surrendered", but HAS taken many "Beat Downs" from the Party Power Brokers.

[bvar22]

The following is an account of just one of them.

The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.

Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?

Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-
(Please view the video from Crooks & Liars above.

So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

[Rex]

1. The Left is constantly being bombarded by authoritarian moles.

They attack the Left far more than they attack the Right. The M$M does the same. Anything to keep the truth hidden.

[villager]

51. Even making a mockery of terms like "Underground..."

...when they're busy trolling...

[bobduca]

106. I don't know, the name seems apt when you think in terms

of mole habitats.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. #1. 2010 was wave election for Repukes. #2 except

In extreme cases, the party leaders tend to support the incumbent in elections. So it wasn't about hating labor--it was about a probability that incumbents do better in elections than newcomers.

Arkansas is a fairly conservative state, polling showed things were bad all over for Dems running. The money went where they thought they could win.

[RobertEarl]

5. Oh?

You claim: "... it was about a probability that incumbents do better..."

And the election proved that to be total bullshit. Seems some here are still caught up in the theory that the 'Officials' know best and the rest of us should just submit to their wisdom?

Its like a giant pretzel that we leftists just don't know how to unravel? Fuck that, we get it. The Left has always been correct. The people have always been more in tune than the leaders. Duh!

[loudsue]

7. Thank you! +++++1,000,000

It is all lies! The democratic party leadership is beholden to the same corporations that are financing the right. The money decides, and screw democracy!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. You have no idea what probability means, apparently and

Certainly cannot tell us with certainty how the other Dem would have fared against the republican in that election.

[merrily]

76. National probablity was irrelevant in that case. Halter outpolled Lincoln and the Republican among

Arkansas voters and Arkansas voters were the only ones relevant to that election.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

77. Then why didn't Haltercwin if he was out polling everyone?

[merrily]

79. Because the Party stepped in. Didn't you read the OP?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

82. With an Obama endorsement? I thought he was kryptonite

By 2010. How is it not the President's right to endorse the candidate of his choice?

Are you saying Obama's endorsement of incumbent candidate worked every time and no up and coming or insurgent candidate was able to get past the evil smiling endorsement of Obama?

Again, I find it hard to believe a red state like Arkansas would have sent a pro labor candidate for Senate to D.C. In 2010 no matter what polling in the spring might have said.

[merrily]

84. Ask Bvar. Bvar was in Arkansas. Were you?

[merrily]

85. PS When was Bubba Clinton kryptonite in Arkansas?

[merrily]

80. And see also, Reply 38.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. You tell 'em! If you're so in tune

Why don't you go be a leader instead of whining about the out of touch leaders who've won the last 2 presidential elections, held onto the senate, etc.

[Enthusiast]

28. +1 an entire shit load!

Way to go!

[GoneFishin]

50. "The Left has always been correct." True. And there is a good reason for this :

There is no money to be had on the left, and there are paid talking heads and shills taking pot shots at our arguments from the right and the turd way. If our arguments survive the siege by the corporate echo chamber they are usually pretty sound.

[merrily]

78. Nailed it.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Maybe but if that is the strategy then you'd keep up the fight in the general.

I don't even give the maybe much credibility either, Halter was polling better than Lincoln though it was seemingly up hill for either.

I have to agree that they didn't want to take the off chance the Halter would win and he isn't even that liberal just more pro labor than Arkansas usually presents but I think is an under served market for that an option is not provided for.

[bvar22]

12. Did you miss the part where NO poll showed Lincoln winning in the General,

or that Halter was polling as well as, if not better than Lincoln in The General?
THAT is why I claimed that we did everything RIGHT.

Blanche Lincoln had ZERO chance in the General Election,
and blows your argument Out-of-the-Water.

[Rex]

17. Post #1

nt.

[Vincardog]

29. Don't go disturbing the authoritarians with facts. They don't like it because the facts are against

Them

[Art_from_Ark]

63. Yeah, that election was a total disaster

Blanche Lincoln goes down in Arkansas history as being the *only* incumbent Democratic US Senator since Reconstruction to have their ass handed to them on a platter by a Republican challenger. It wasn't anywhere near being close

[whathehell]

104. +10 n/t

[sabrina 1]

23. Wrong, we KNOW what happened in 2010, and we know what the excuses are, we are more than

familiar with all the excuses that were made, but what actually happened was very simple. People do not vote against their own interests, especially when they don't belong to any particular party. In 2008 Independents helped win it all for Democrats, sick to death of Bush and their war mongering, their catering to Wall St etc.

Same thing with young people.

By 2010, with so many disillusioned both long time democrats AND those who joined to help win for Democrats, it was inevitable that while the base would still go out and vote, thankfully they saved the seats of many progressive dems, those not affiliated, stayed home.

I know the stats for 2010 have been posted here over and over again. You are just wrong.

[questionseverything]

38. this is what really happened

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

Results Drastically Changed

The election numbers have radically changed in Monroe County since the May 18th election. At least as reported on the SoS website, and as confirmed by local officials.

It's not all that unusual for the unofficial numbers to move a bit following election day, as absentee and provisional ballots are counted and added in to the totals, and as precinct numbers are double-checked for accuracy in the post-election canvass. It is, however, unusual, for vote totals to get a great deal smaller rather than larger in the days following the election. And that's what seems to have happened in Monroe County --- radically so.

Somehow, more than a thousand votes disappeared entirely, as the election results in the Dem and GOP Senate primaries have almost entirely changed.

On May 19th, voter turnout was 3,393:


But by May 21st, turnout dropped by 1,234 to just 2,159, or 41.11% --- still one of the highest turnout rates in the state:


More disturbing, however, are the complete changes in vote totals for all candidates in both the Democratic and Republican Senate Primary races.

////////////////////

A total of 1,465 votes seem to have suddenly showed up in the Dem Senate race!

/////////////////////////


bvar worked his buns off for halter but no one besides bradblog watched the REPORTING of votes...which flipped all over the place

Monroe is one small county so it is easier to catch but it is entirely possible the primary was rigged or at least inaccurate

[bvar22]

40. Thank You.

There were also credible reports of Voter Suppression in the Heavy Halter districts.
I don't believe this would have been enough to swing the Primary to Halter, but voters in heavy Halter districts WERE turned away at the polls for this important Arkansas Primary.

This is important information for those of us in the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.
This is what we are up against when we challenge the conservative Big Business/Big Money, Anti-LABOR, 3rd Way Party Establishment:

The election process there has been the subject of controversy after the election commission reduced the number of voting precincts from 39 to two.

Voters who felt they were not adequately notified are taking legal action and a lawsuit was filed in the matter today.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/story/lincoln-wins-garland-co-precincts-voting/32378/FzTnUBrIa0yoGlieaAy87A

Garland County (Hot Springs) had cast a heavy majority of votes for Halter in the first Primary.

[questionseverything]

43. the system we have is so muddied

we really never know if the declared winner is actually the winner

as I attempted to show you with the bradblog post ,numbers can move by the thousands and for the most part no one notices

is the run off itself a way to disenfranchise voters? in garland there were 12,258 votes in primary and only 7288 in run off, that is awful

no offense but there is no paper to count in Arkansas is there?

it is no coincidence that the most liberal pols come from states that have paper ballots

[merrily]

73. The OP expressly states that Halter was polling ahead of both Lincoln and the Republican.

In extreme cases, the party leaders tend to support the incumbent in elections.

Elections yes, but they should butt out of primaries. And they supported Lincoln in the election, even though her numbers were low. In other states, the Party has also butt in where there was no incumbent running in the primary. So, none of your attempted explanation holds up.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. No they shouldn't butt out of primaries. That's ridiculous

[merrily]

75. No, it's ridiculous that they butt in. Voters should decide.

Democracy--or what little we have of democracy--is about voters not about the DNC.

That's one of the reasons I no longer donate a penny to the DNC. For all I know, the DNC would use my money against the primary candidate I'm supporting--and odds are they will.

[rhett o rick]

120. There always seems to be an excuse for the DEmocratic Party machine to support

the Conservatives and piss on the Progressives. The Democratic Party Machine supported Lieberman running as an Independent against a Democrat.

Thank heaven Chris Christie hasnt switched parties. The Conservative Dems would love him.

[1000words]

3. I no longer expect the Democratic Party to advance liberal causes

Came to that realization quite a while ago.

[Skeeter Barnes]

24. Democrats get too much credit simply for being just a hair to the left of Dick Cheney.

All we get as a result is varying degrees of corporate friendly policy. Everything goes through them. If some CEO doesn't want it, nobody will have it.

[merrily]

81. If voters don't hold them accountable, even the hair will disappear.

As it is, it's most about social/cultural issues.

[jsr]

113. No shit

[alsame]

4. And let's not forget

Ned Lamont in CT. The Dem establishment just had to have Holy Joe Lieberman back in the Senate.

[1000words]

6. The evidence is plentiful.

Too many simply will not allow themselves to challenge the carefully constructed narrative in which they are invested.

[loudsue]

11. And they pepper their enablers on sites like DU and DailyKos.

Sometimes they subtly try to convince people all this crap is for their own good....other times, they are down right arrogant about it.

[arikara]

122. Thats sure the truth

Seriously, how can we get rid of them?

[merrily]

83. Meek in Florida, Laffey in Rhode Island (though Chafee was probably more liberal),

Christie in New Jersey, Specter vs. Sestak in Pennsy. There are probably many more that we don't know about or haven't noticed/suspected. I certainly have my suspicions about one high profile election that went to a Republican.

[starroute]

13. I've seen it said that they'd rather keep control of the party and lose elections

... than win elections but jeopardize their position as party bosses.

I don't remember where I read that, but it was probably something posted here around the time of those 2010 elections, and it struck me as very true. It's a lot like the corporate CEOs who are more interested in pumping up their own salaries and stock options than in the long-term health of the company.

Self-interest and short-sightedness are the banes of our country everywhere.

[redqueen]

20. +1

[fleabiscuit]

26. +1 Absolutely correct.

Any chance I get to re-post this I do. I remember a recent candidate that campaigned for "change." IMHO we focus to much on a top down approach, change is going to start local.

Learning from California
RUSSELL SADLER
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/learning_from_c/

“…The party primary was an Oregon innovation, passed by initiative in 1904, at a time when the two political parties were controlled by party “bosses” who determinedly ignored the problems of everyday life. The idea was to give rank and file voters in those parties the ability to nominate their own candidates. It worked as long as party candidates were attractive enough to win the crossover vote needed to win office.

That system has lost its utility as Republicans and Democrats represent smaller percentages of the whole electorate. The solution is not a third party. The election laws -- written by Republicans and Democrats -- are deliberately rigged against third parties and independents as Ben Westlund’s unsuccessful run demonstrates. The first step toward election reform is elimination of the primaries and one all-comers race in the fall where all voters have a real choice.”

[justabob]

45. sadly, this is so

And you are absolutely correct with the comparison to the CEOs running giant companies into the ground and still collecting obscene salaries, bonuses, and then severance/retirement packages and whatever other loot... It is a disease and it is rampant across the board. It has infected just about everything down to the most mundane day to day things.

[Scootaloo]

54. And there it is in a nutshell

[merrily]

87. That is undoubtedly so.

[MisterP]

14. Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, and Kucinich

in fact, they probably tanked them so they could *say* "the American people have failed us by not giving us a liberal Congress"

[arikara]

118. There's no "probably" about it

they did tank them, deliberately.

[zeemike]

15. WbY?...the answer is money

The answer is always money
And if the money men don't want a union supporting democrat elected, and you want their money then you had better see to it someone else gets the nod or the money drys up.
Why the hell anyone would think this is democracy is beyond me.

[pa28]

16. K&R

[Efilroft Sul]

18. Kick!

Thanks again, bvar, for demonstrating why you are one of the more intelligent posters on DU. This place needs more like you here.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. The White House gained... an ally in its true agenda,

of course.

You don't fill up a White House with Rahm, Larry, and a gaggle of bankers because you want to help the 99%, of course.

Great post! We need to keep being reminded of how the White House isn't our ally on most issues, despite their claim that now it's different, really.

[ProSense]

21. Elizabeth Warren is fundraising for Mark Pryor

Blanche Lincoln lost because she voted against the health care law in reconciliation.

Why isn't anyone challenging Mark Pryor?

Embattled Arkansas Democrat Opposes Federal Minimum Wage Hike: ‘It’s Too Much, Too Fast’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453668

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Maybe because they learned their lesson in 2010?.......

When you work your asses off and do everything right and you STILL don't get any Party support, you tend to lose your motivation.

[Aerows]

68. When your own party dumps you

because you may win and get a corporatist out, it's upsetting.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here in Mississippi, and we have an opportunity to get rid of Thad Cochran (R). He has a lunatic teapartier running against him, McDaniel, in the Republican primary. He's running against Travis Childers, a Democrat, which is revolutionary, because half the time, Republicans run unopposed, which is just wrong.

I say pump up the nutjob, because he will have plenty of conservative support. Pump up McDaniel, Thad Cochran has plenty of skeletons to fall out of his closet.

Rational people in Mississippi wouldn't vote for him, but they will vote for Childers, a Democrat.

The people of Arkansas saw Blanche Lincoln as everyone else did - A republican. They wanted a Democrat. We have to work our way forward in these areas, but keep in mind, we are doing our best.

[merrily]

88. Most people were not even aware of Lincoln's reconciliation vote.

[Divernan]

22. And you can expect no better treatment from Hillary than you got from Obama/Bill Clinton!

I've been out knocking on doors collecting signatures from registered democrats for a nominating petition for a Democratic woman running for Congress against an incumbent Republican. Nearly all of these people - my long time friends and neighbors, expressed their deep, and I mean DEEP disappointment in Obama and their increasing feeling that the Democrats were just as corrupt and bought off as the Republicans. Disillusion is rampant. Typical remarks: "I no longer really think of myself as a Democrat." "The two party system is a failure." "I've about decided to quit voting."

The general consensus? Until and unless we can get corporate money out of the campaign process, we are doomed.

[merrily]

98. You need to help your friends.

First, voting is important, even if they are disillusioned with both Republicans and Democrats--maybe especially if they are disillusioned. Second, we have about thirty national parties, not two. More, if you go to the state and local levels. Here is a partial list.

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

Third, many argue that, as between Democrats and Republicans, we no longer have a "two"-party system, more like 1. 25, with most of the differences being on cultural issues.

In any event, not voting is the worst alternative.

Old saying: Tell the truth and shame the devil.

[Enthusiast]

25. Recommended 1000X and kicked too.

Third Way is no way to run a political party.*

*If you want to win elections.

[ProSense]

30. Oh, the irony.

"*If you want to win elections."

The OP's point appears to be that Obama is so popular that whomever he supports will win. If only Obama had supported Halter, he would have won.

[Enthusiast]

33. Yes, the irony has been entirely lost on you.

Ironic.

[Scuba]

42. C'mon, you don't really think that's the OP's point, do you?

[brooklynite]

27. UNREC

What you're saying is that you tried to unseat an Incumbent Democratic who was Center-right in favor of running a Progressive in a Red State, and you wonder why the President wasn't in your corner?

[1000words]

31. lol @ "unrec"

[Enthusiast]

32. Bill Halter would have won. Some Democrats are too far right even in red states.

The President was wrong.

[bvar22]

41. Didn't bother to read the OP?

Not really thinking it through?

Bill Halter is hardly a flaming Liberal,
but he IS a successful Pro-LABOR and Pro-Health Care DEMOCRAT in the state of Arkansas which makes him a decided improvement over Blanche Lincoln.

[font size=3]He was the sitting Lt Governor[/font], with an Up & Running campaign machine and a proven track record of WINNING elections in Arkansas.
He is very popular in Arkansas in his own right.
He was certainly more popular than DINO Blanche Lincoln in 2010.

The Polls ALL showed DINO conservative Blanche Lincoln LOSING the General election by a wide margin.
What part of "Lincoln had NO CHANCE of winning the General Election" do you not understand?

After the Primary was over, and the White House declared VICTORY over LABOR and the Grass Roots, all that EXPENSIVE support for Lincoln immediately disappeared.
---No commercials of support from the Oval Office.
---No barnstorming Tours by Big Name Democrats stumping up support for Lincoln.
---No Liberal Bashing Return Tour for Bill Clinton .
Nobody seemed to care about Blanche and the General Election against the Republicans.
How DO you explain those things?

I explain them by believing that the White House and 3rd Way Leadership got exactly what they wanted.... a Beat Down of those uppity Democrats who thought they had a choice in how the Party was being run and a Voice in the Democratic Party.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Your claim only highlights your knowledge deficit.

UNREC the above post by brooklynite

[brooklynite]

46. I know and I don't care...

...if the seat was open and he wanted to run, more power to him. But if the Party isn't going to support its incumbents, absent corruption, then the support the Party needs (financially and otherwise) FROM its incumbents will disappear, and more candidates will be at risk. The Tea Party has been playing the fear card on the Republicans; how's it working out for them?

Consider this; how many incumbent challengers did progressive idol Howard Dean support when he was Party Chair?

[bvar22]

47. LOL.

So much for "changing the way business is done in Washington."

Bonus Points if you can identify who promised that in 2008.

HINT: "Change you can believe in!"

[brooklynite]

49. Please enjoy your despair...

I'll keep my political activity in the real world.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. Because your way's worked out so well for America

Well, for *some* Americans, anyway.

A few years ago, I saw Chelsea Clinton parking a giant BMW in Manhattan. Looked like things were working out pretty well for her.

[brooklynite]

58. The Federal Govt recognizes marriage equality, we have a comprehensive health insurance program...

...we're pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why, it's like GWB never left!

[MannyGoldstein]

59. The federal government recognized marriage equality well after most Americans did.

You guys deserve a medal?

Two-thirds of Americans want Medicare for All - but most elected Democrats don't.

Another medal?

We've spent more time in Afghanistan since Obama was elected than we spent in WWII. And for what? For zip, as far as I can tell. No, actually that's not right, it did massively increase heroin production and drive down the price, which combined with the utter despair from decades of bipartisan Neoliberalism has lead to the heroin crisis we have today. And killed a bunch of kids, and kept defense contractors and their investors swimmin' in cash.

Another medal?

Better than Dim Son?

Another medal?

[cui bono]

69. In some ways it's worse than GWB.

Whisteblower prosecution higher than ever, by far.

More drone strikes.

More spying on Americans. And I don't want to hear about how it's legal now. That's a bs argument since everyone was up in arms about it when Bush did it, then Obama makes it legal and expands it and somehow now it's just peachy. It's the same thing, Obama just covered his ass.

Banksters appointed to the administration.

Monsanto CEO appointed to EPA.

TPP. Attempted to be done in secret mind you. What is he hiding?

KXL pipeline.

Now more offshore drilling.



Seriously, that's what we're supposed to be thankful for? We should want more of that???

[merrily]

96. You know that GWB had negotiated the withdrawal date re Iraq in 2008 and had wound down in

Afghanistan well before Obama was elected, right? Under Obama, we surged in Afghanistan and tried to get Iraq to extend the withdrawal deadline, but Iraq would not agree to immunity. And, for a good while after Obama took office, the D of J was filing briefs comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. And DADT was deliberately left in place until after midterms.

I don't know why Obama changed his tune about equal marriage when he did, but I suspect gay Democratic bundlers and lobbyists like HRC may have had something to do with it.

When Bush instituted Medicare Part D, Democrats said he did it for the pharmaceutical companies, but when Obama enacted Obamacare, we can't say how big a giveaway it was for health insurance companies.

[Aerows]

71. A Liberal Democrat did just fine

in New York City. Let's see if we can spread that instead of shutting down the idea that it is time to move left.

[brooklynite]

110. so, NYC = Arkansas?

[Aerows]

119. Goodness no

And Arkansas is probably better than MS where I am.

I'm just saying, we have to keep the faith and keep pushing our party to the left. As best we can.

[brooklynite]

108. Since you didn't bother to answer my Dean question...

Howard Dean on supporting Dems "who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue"

DEAN: The Pro-Life candidates that I was interested in supporting were people who agreed with the Democratic platform in almost every other respect. Therefore, it's very clear, that even a Pro-Life Democrat who may disagree with us on a fundamental issue is a huge improvement over the person who was there before. So, are there some Democrats I would not support? Yes—and No I'm not gonna tell you who they are. But there are not many. Most of the Democrats who are Pro-Life—are very very good on a lot of other issues and I don't want to exclude people like that from our party.

- more -

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/606/transcript.html

Again, you are free to do what you want with respect to Primary challenges. But so am I, and as I've said, I tend to deal with political reality, working with actual party officials and candidates (even Liberal ones!), rather than just blogging my outrage.,

[cui bono]

67. Why are we just supposed to support incumbents, absent corruption?

Who made up that rule? What if they're not good enough? We just settle for them? What a low bar you've set for our country.

And if you haven't noticed, the Tea Party is running whackadoodles. The left is smart and reasonable and fighting for the average citizen, not ignorant and batshit crazy. There's a reason it isn't working for the Tea Party.

[Aerows]

72. If a left-leaning Democrat wins, it's a fluke

If a conservative Democrat wins, it's the nature of politics. That tells you where many want the party to go.

It isn't about ideology when it happens like that - it's about money.

[brooklynite]

109. Let's put our cards on the table, shall we?

Who are the acceptably left-leaning candidates, and who are the right-wingers you want kicked out?

[merrily]

94. The Party may have to choose one day between votes and meddling in primaries.

Democracy is not about the DNC. It's about voters. As recently as 2006, Schumer was publicly describing party meddling in primaries as a controversial practice. Already, it's something that the Democratic Party can't do without?

Consider this; how many incumbent challengers did progressive idol Howard Dean support when he was Party Chair?

Who cares? I have no idea what "progressive" means, given that Hillary and Obama have both used that term to describe themselves and their own policies. But, why is what Dean did supposed to be some kind of be all and end all for policy? As far as I saw, only you and ProSense have posted on this thread under the apparent assumption that those further left than Obama idolize Dean. The thread parent has expressed lack of appreciation for his centrist ways .


As far as candidates, in 2006, Schumer headed the DSCC, Emanuel headed the DCCC and the recruiting consultant for the House was a Clintonite. Is it a surprise that that the candidates were not liberal? That is exactly the point that posters like the thread parent have been trying to make. The deck is stacked long before the election.

[jtuck004]

34. K&R for principles instead of over-valued pragmatism. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Think THAT'S bad?

Kucinich won every debate so they refused to let him attend anymore.

He was making the DLC types look bad.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. The DC Beat Down: Sit down, shut up, and vote for us, cuz the GOP is WORSE!!!

[Autumn]

39. Same in Colorado

Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff

[bvar22]

44. The same happened in Pennsylvania and Florida too.

If I thought that the Arkansas Primary was just an anomaly...
where the support for DINO Lincoln was just a mistake because they weren't paying attention,
I could forgive them.

But the Arkansas Primary was NOT an anomaly.
The Party Establishment's consistent support for the Big Business Conservative,
and the torpedoing of legitimate Democratic challengers is a pervasive pattern.

I highlight Arkansas because out of ALL of them,
Arkansas is the most egregious.
NONE of the usual excuses are remotely valid for the 2010 Democratic Primary.

[madfloridian]

65. Did you see this tonight bvar22?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024588159

I linked to your post and added some more FL outrages. Thanks. Recced it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Yep. "Not as bad" got beat again, but we have to keep running "Not as bad" because...

...because...because...it's "Not as bad!"

[woo me with science]

52. To the Greatest Page. This is such an important OP.

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

The truth hurts, but change won't come until Democrats are clear about what we're *really* dealing with.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

On edit: Madfloridian has written another fantastic OP that supplements this one beautifully. IMO, both belong on the Greatest Page together: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024588159

[ProSense]

55. "Important" in a retrospective sort of way?

Why is this "important"? It's about a 2010 race that likely none of the Democrats involved would have won. One definitely proved that.

It's "important" to stew about this? The 2014 election is eight months away. What would be "important" is pushing the candidates that you believe should win.

Who are they?

[Jefferson23]

53. Recommend..thanks bvar. n/t

[bbgrunt]

57. +1,000,000. THANK YOU bvar.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

60. I would expect as much from an admin that says things out loud like liberals are...

fucking retards.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_latestheadlines#printMode

[dionysus]

61. slow poutrage day? this again?

[cui bono]

70. Slow rational thought day? This again?

[Le Taz Hot]

114. A reply typical

of those who can't argue the issue(s).

[Doctor_J]

62. The president wanted a republican congress to enact far right agenda

I am pretty sure he and the party big shots tanked the midterm.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

86. Yes. Because that makes rational sense. FDR's

Big downfall was that he didn't tank the 1934 midterms.

[merrily]

89. Obama is no FDR. To the extent that FDR had a downfall, it was

beginning to dismantle the New Deal. At that point, only World War II saved the economy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

91. Well, Obama also never had FDR's majorities in both houses like

1932 and 1934. The reason FDR had to scale back New Deal spending was...you guessed it--GOP regaining control in 1938 by forming a majority coalition with conservative southern Democrats.

The point of my previous post was to say it is beyond lunacy to suggest any president and party in power would willingly cede such power by throwing an election.

[merrily]

92. I knew what the point of your prior post was. I repeat: Obama is no FDR.

No matter what majorities they do or do not have: Obama is no FDR. Never even tried.



Dems under FDR were far from unified. Also, the dismantling to which my prior post referred was done at the Executive level, not the Congressional. The Republican Congress did dismantling, but that was not what I was referring to.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

93. Some of the dismantling was also done by the Supreme Court

Anyway. Sounds like you have all the answers. Night night.

[merrily]

95. Totally different issue--and FDR managed to overcome even that, instead of

just pointing fingers at another branch and pretending helplessness.

[merrily]

100. btw, Democratic controlled Congresses also refused to continue funding of some of the New Deal

programs.

[Chathamization]

64. Not surprising at all.

A lot of the reform that needs to be done involves the long struggle to retake the party from a lot of thoroughly nasty people that are entrenched in it. Pols are also clever and cynical, and you can expect a lot of them to work against you until it seems you have the upper hand. As others have said, party bosses care about their personal power, not so much about progressive agendas or even winning elections. It's a long slog, but a worthwhile one.

Good luck. Hopefully the alliances and networks you build in 2010 were helpful in later campaigns.

[eridani]

66. It happens at the state legislature level as well.

Check the WA forum for details. The summary is that the "Democrat" Rodney Tom started caucusing with Republicans in the WA State Senate in 2013, effectively turning control over to the Republicans. He was a Republican up until 2006, when he switched parties to run as a Democrat, as his suburban district was increasingly trending blue. He was embraced by the party establishment, which turfed out the real Democrat in the race. Hopefully the 48th can get rid of this asshole this November.

[merrily]

90. Local, too, at least in locales with significant population.

Rahm in Chicago, for example. Though, New York City seems to have a liberal again at last.

It's funny. On the one hand, the professional Democrats, politicians and pundits, are all over TV saying the Republicans are a dying party that is out of step with the populace and with the times. On the other hand, they claim they can't defeat them unless they are a lot like them (which, of course, is no defeat for Republicans at all, but a victory).

[eridani]

99. ^^+1000^^ n/t

[progressoid]

97. I Only Regret That I Have But One Rec to Give This Thread

[gulliver]

101. I assume you supported and voted for Lincoln after the primary.

Anything short of that would be mere disgruntled Tea-liberalism.

Abandon a female Democratic incumbent? You expected the party to do that? How would Lincoln supporters have viewed that? How would women?

That was just not going to happen. If you wanted your candidate, your task was to beat Lincoln despite opposition from the party. That was the job. The job wasn't to have the party hand you a win by supporting your candidate of choice. You weren't beaten down. You were just beaten.

Sorry, but the burden is on folks who want to oust the incumbent to oust the incumbent. And if they fail, their job is to vote Democratic in the election and try again next time if they feel the need.

[Maedhros]

121. My job is to vote for whom I think would be the best representative of the people.

If that happens to be a Democrat, then the Democrat will get my vote.

It's the job of the candidate to earn my vote, not my job to pull the lever for whatever warm body your party deigns to run.

[TheKentuckian]

123. Shit, they dropped that female incumbent as no chance as soon as they got her though

the primary, so teabagging as you call it under the cover of having no chance and as such a bad investment which makes the argument fishy at best.

[valerief]

102. The system doesn't want their recipe tampered with. nt

[Octafish]

103. ''To get along, go along.'' -- Speaker Sam Rayburn

And that holds from those at the top to those at the bottom.

Of course, those at the top of the various piles find ways to get along with each other, too.

[tomp]

105. the democratic party is the OPPONENT of the left.

they would rather lose elections than support progressives.

[fredamae]

107. Rahm Emanual aka: Dem Leadership

Let us All understand--in a Crystal Clear Statement that the "Liberal Activists" in the Dem leaders minds are "Fu****g Retards".
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded/

That sealed it for me--the "hand writing on the wall" was becoming very focused--and things have Not changed because a mere few months ago--Schumer weighed in (Powerful Senior Dem)
We're Worse than RW? Really? Seems "We" were "good enough" for him when he needed donations and door knockers...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/03/1259830/-Chuck-Schumer-wants-us-to-stop-picking-on-Wall-Street

The Neo-Libs/Third Way Dems/Blue Dogs/New Dem Coalition/DCC/DSCC/DNC can kiss my ass.
You don't piss off "real Dems" who have been in and loyal to the party for, literally, Decades...My generation might be Old--but we're not "out" - We're a fkg Big voting block--I don't Care what the polls say-they're mostly rigged anyway-by virtue of limited questions and creative wording of said questions...
The old fart Dem Wing of the Democratic Party need to rise the hell Up-and reclaim the foundation of "good over greed" that the Dem party once believed.
If you want to know How far the Dem Party has fallen--just take a gander at the 1956 Republican Party Platform--Singing the praises of Unions, Soc Security and ask yourself--WTF happened to the Democrats?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838

[Kermitt Gribble]

111. Thanks for posting this again, bvar22!

As far as I'm concerned, this post should be stickied at the top of GD so everyone can see the great scam that is being pulled on the registered voters of a once-great Party.

[Le Taz Hot]

112. Excellent!

This is a topic that needs to be front and center every election year. We need to stop the corporate Establishment "Democrats" from interfering and, when they do, fight just as hard against them as we do the Republicans which is pretty ironic when you think about it.

[leftstreet]

115. DURec

[Laelth]

116. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[sulphurdunn]

117. We don't have a republic.

We have a duopoly that sets us to fighting each other in the mistaken belief that we actually pick those who govern us when in fact all we do is legitimize those who rule us.

[Jamastiene]

124. K&R

[woo me with science]

125. kick

[colsohlibgal]

126. Amen

The serious left has been taken for granted by DCCC types, has been compared with the far right as nuts in a false equivalency, we've been trampled on.

The two party system does appear to be broken yet is entrenched to the nth degree, it's hard for other parties like the Green party to get traction. Something has to give sooner or later and it's not likely to be pretty.

[woo me with science]

127. kick

[Ed Suspicious]

128. How amazingly relevant to the dust up with third way Hill

Over single payer that we are experiencing today.

[Ed Suspicious]

129. Think our new party ever wanted universal health care?

Read this fantastic OP then think again. K&R for exposure.