Not All Democrats Are Progressive Enough. But All Republicans Are Non-Progressive.

[MineralMan]

That's the bottom line for every election. This November's election is no different, and it's less than a month away.

Just about every last Democratic legislator, state and Federal, has voted for progressive legislation. Not every time. Not for every bill, but they all have voted for progressive legislation at least some of the time. That's been true for a long time.

That can't be said for their Republican counterparts, though. Instead of voting for any progressive legislation, they consistently vote to block every progressive bill. In every state and in Congress, Republicans can be counted on to obstruct progressive legislation every time it is introduced.

That's the equation. It's a really simple one. We could use more Democratic legislators who will support the full range of progressive legislation. That's for sure, but every Democratic legislator will vote for progressive legislation. Not every time. Not every bill. The Republicans, though, can be counted on to vote against and obstruct every progressive measure that comes up for a vote.

Seems simple enough to me. We need more Democratic legislators in Congress and in our state legislators, not fewer of them. It's too late, now, in 2014 to pick new candidates. That needed to be done prior to the primary elections. The slates of candidates we have are the slates we have.

On November, 4, 2014, we have a chance to help make that happen. Will we do it? Will we help get Democratic voters to the polls so we can elect more Democrats to our state legislatures and Congress? That's the question.

I'll be working on GOTV efforts from now until November 4. How about you?

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[valerief]

1. Republican = Hate plus Sadism plus Greed

[MineralMan]

2. Pretty much. The fewer of them in legislative office

the better, as far as I'm concerned. That alone is enough for me to work on getting Democrats elected.

[Enthusiast]

11. +1 You nailed it.

[lovemydog]

3. Very well-said MineralMan.

I've always enjoyed your posts, as you articulate what I'm thinking and feeling. I appreciate it.

I'm far to the left of most Americans. As a dedicated progressive I also know the value of voting for the most progressive available candidates, in every election local state and federal.

Have a wonderful day.

And wish me luck too in helping get out the vote!

[MineralMan]

4. Thank you for your work on GOTV!

It's the most important work an individual who is not in office can do to move things forward.

[lovemydog]

5. Thank you & many others here for motivating me.

I'm really focusing on it, thanks to your posts and those of many other good people at Democratic Underground.

[MineralMan]

6. That's my goal here.

I'm glad to hear that I've helped convince people to get out there to GOTV.

[lovemydog]

7. You do and you have.

And I also feel an obligation to spread the word all around where I live, and here at DU as well.

[vlyons]

8. There aren't any Republicans left.

At least not my Daddy's brand of Republicans. Today's Republicans are so far afield, so over the edge of reason, civility, and respect for the boundaries of others, that I now just refer to them as "crazy talkers." That's about as polite a name that I can use in polite society. Because what they really are is Fascists, ignorant, selfish, and extremely dangerous. They wreck so much suffering on the lives of the rest of us. Frankly I'm getting really tired of their BS.

[MineralMan]

9. I can only deal with people who call themselves Republicans

right now. Now is when the elections are. What the Republican Party may have been in the past is irrelevant to how it acts now. Now is what I'm concerned about. The past is gone. Today will soon be yesterday. Tomorrow is what I deal with.

[vlyons]

10. You missed my point

I was agreeing with you. Today's "Republicans" can only be counted on to obstruct every piece progressive legislation that gets proposed.

[MineralMan]

13. I didn't. I consider today's "Republicans" to be the only Republicans

we have to deal with. If they call themselves Republicans, who am I to disagree. That is the Republican Party I'm dealing with, not your father's Republican Party. I don't make such distinctions. Whatever someone calls him or herself, I accept their self-definition. It's not up to me to decide who is and isn't a Republican, a Christian, or anything else. I take people at their own description of themselves and react accordingly.

[Gman]

12. Well said.

[MineralMan]

14. Thanks. I appreciate that.

[Gman]

37. Its something that needs to be stressed every 2 years here at DU

I used to tell people vote your paycheck and principles don't put food on the table.. Who is your pay and benefits better off with? The Democrat or the Republican who wins because you and like thinkers stayed home? Of course back in that day, I was trying to convince good union members that were bound and determined to vote GOP for their guns. I'd also say, you let that Republican get elected and you'll be pawning your guns.

[MineralMan]

38. That's it.

Seems obvious to me, but not to others, I guess. Odd.

[jeff47]

15. Well said. And if it's a problem one wants to fix...

then the fix is to vote. Every single election.

Upset about "DINOs"? Then vote. Liberals don't appear from nowhere. They need to win primary elections against those "DINOs" you hate. No choice you like in the primary? Run, or help find someone to run.

And down-ticket is WAAAAAAAY more important than top-of-the-ticket. President gets all the attention. But where's the pool of candidates come from? Usually, governors or senators.

Where's the pool for those candidates? Usually state legislatures or the House. Where's the pool for those candidates? Usually lower house in state legislatures and county/local offices. And so on.

Want better choices at the top of the ticket? You need to help liberals win those lower-tier races so that they have a realistic chance at the higher tier races. And you can make a huge difference in these down-ticket races. Heck, you could even run in them. Someone's gotta be on the city council.

[MineralMan]

16. Exactly. The answer is to vote.

The answer is for every Democrat to vote in every election. If we had been doing that, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in. We can start on November 4, though.

[Andy823]

17. Exactly!

It starts at the local level, up to the state level and then on to D.C. and it will take time, but it can be done. As the say when democrats vote, democrats win, when they don't vote only republicans win, and we all know how bad that is for the country, and even the world.

[salib]

18. Exactly, challenge them in the primaries,

Get people out to vote, change party leadership, and more.

But then vote for the Democrat, as they are the best you could muster and what you worked hard for.

[FlatStanley]

19. No. That's just an excuse to let the mediocre be the enemy of the good.

I don't think 1980s Republicanism is a recipe for success. If I did I'd have been a Republican in the 1980s.

[pnwmom]

20. It makes no sense to allow a Rethug to win because the Dem doesn't appear progressive enough.

But a lot of people seem to have no sense, even around here.

[FlatStanley]

22. We passed the Republicans health plan with no Republican votes.

If that was what voting for any old D gets us, we should have passed the plan 25 years ago when the Republicans first offered it up.

I'm disappointed so may will fight so hard for so little.

Oh well. Enjoy.

[pnwmom]

24. Tell that to all the people benefiting from Medicaid expansion -- they'd be so much better off

under your un-passable plan.

[FlatStanley]

29. Sure. Why should we expect Democrats to pass Democratic plans.

I mean, it's easy to pass the oppositions plan.

I have no doubt people are benefitting. And I always believe in providing the least improvement possible and call it a win.

Go team. But don't go too hard.

[pnwmom]

31. The opposition strongly opposed the Medicaid expansion. n/t

[FlatStanley]

32. We received ZERO votes from the opposition.

Well played on our part.

[pnwmom]

35. But we couldn't have gotten ANYTHING passed without the vote of the turncoat,

Joe Lieberman -- who, when he lost the Democratic primary, ran as an Independent and won.

Connecticut is the headquarters of some of the largest insurance companies in the country and Joe Lieberman refused to vote for a public option, single payer, or anything else progressives wanted --except for the Medicaid expansion.

If Ted Kennedy had lived and hadn't been replaced by a Rethug, Lieberman wouldn't have had the power to torpedo the whole bill. But that's what happened.

There is nothing more the Dems could have done to get a bill past the Rethug filibuster. The only bill that could get passed had to get Lieberman's vote, as well as all the Dems and Bernie Sanders.

[idahoblue]

21. I would call them Anti-progression

[Maedhros]

23. The Democrats' record over the last 30 years has been one of unending capitulation

to corporate interests, adoption of Republican talking points and active rebuttal of Liberal concerns.

They must change this behavior if they want to earn my vote.

[treestar]

26. Not the point

It is not about someone else earning your vote. It is about whether you will be part of the process. Looking at it that way will leave you isolated. You simply aren't part of the process. This does not bother the corporations in the least.

[MineralMan]

33. I'm actually probably not taking to you.

You seem convinced that both parties are the same.

[Maedhros]

41. More like, "Neither Party is listening to the people." [n/t]

[calimary]

25. THIS!^^^

Hate to be repetitive but I nag about this, too. Hate to be annoying and repetitive but that's what the bad guys do (and do VERY well, unfortunately) to hammer down in, tattoo on, laminate on, drill into the mind and memory, or otherwise "catapult the propaganda." We should be doing that, too. If it's good enough for them spreading their toxic philosophy and world view everywhere, it's certainly good enough for our side. Particularly since OURS is the world view that SHOULD be hammered, tattooed, laminated, drilled, and catapulted. And whatever way and how-ever else it takes!

We HAVE TO keep reminding! ESPECIALLY to address, once again, all those who insist that various corporatistic connections decree absolutely that both sides are absolutely the absolute same. This couldn't be farther from the truth, especially when you look at who among the donor class has the most money and which party is the bigger beneficiary. Hint: The GOP consistently gets far more in campaign donations from the big corporations and the big fat-cats and industrialists. They know who THEIR better friend is, and it ISN'T the Dems. They KNOW the ideas and bills they hate most - can reliably be expected to come from the Democratic side of the aisle.

If both sides supposedly ARE the same, I will STILL side with the one that stays out of my gyno's office, stays out of my bedroom, doesn't try to keep me OR others from voting, one that accepts science as real and government as something that ISN'T just completely bad and unnecessary. I will side with those who don't hug their guns and Bibles first (and sometimes only) before stopping to think clearly or logically or objectively, and doesn't automatically assume everyone who isn't pale-skinned is somehow bad or there to be exploited, avoided, mistrusted, or shat upon.

Both sides are NOT the same.

And, consider the advisors and friends and big-ticket campaign benefactors and friends/roommates/spouses/kids/relatives-of-friends and other assorted hangers-on who come into power WITH the winning candidate. PLEASE!!! That's just an absolute ESSENTIAL! You know the old saw - "know who your friends are"? Well, this is "know who THEIR friends are!"

I usually wind up, here, reminding about one Randall J "Randy" Scheunemann who was a NeoCON and a high-level PNAC operative who had access to the biggest executive suites at the top of the building during bush/cheney. Guess where he turned up after that? He was a mccain campaign advisor specializing in foreign policy, and was tasked with being sarah plain's debate coach particularly on foreign policy issues. Guess where randy scheunemann would be now if he'd been on a winning team in 2008? Back in the Situation Room and the Defense Department and National Security Advisor's office and the Pentagon. And certainly the White House. As well as the Vice President's office. Again. Like he was, back in the days of (and the run-up to) ... what was that? Some foolish misrepresented mal-adventurism called Iraq? I think he may have been a romney/ryan campaign advisor in the foreign policy department as well. And he's only ONE example. The PNACers would have the run of the White House - AGAIN. NOW! If EITHER of those losing presidential teams had won.

And before you point out, accurately of course, that - "well, shit, now we're back involved over there, including Iraq, anyway, aren't we?" - I'd say we'd have been there ANYWAY. And MUCH earlier, too. Like maybe within the first two years of (Heaven forbid) a mccain/palin first term. From the way mccain talked at the last CONvention in 2012, we'd be in FIVE wars by now. If you still want America to speak war as its most fluent and its principal language, then vote GOP. They're the party with the tendency toward "shoot first and talk later". NOT Dems so much (with aberrations, of course). If you believe it should be "talk first and shoot later" then it's the Dems by a landslide. Maybe even the more corporatist ones (and make no mistake, I do NOT approve of so many of our candidates being in bed with Wall Street, but I choose to dance with what's there).

Both sides are NOT the same.

Or maybe you'd rather have the opposing team picking your next Supreme Court justices? How's the last round of picks during bush/cheney working out for ya these days?

Both sides are NOT the same.

[MineralMan]

34. Exactly.

[Warpy]

27. IOW, the worst Democrat has generally been better than the best Republican

because the Democrat is good on a few issues here and there, while the rigidity of the Republican Party ensures that their people vote the same way--the wrong way--on all issues.

Still, the one line I won't cross is the choice line. Can't do it.

The PTB in the party had better take note of that one because I'm not the only person out there that feels that way.

[99Forever]

28. Shame that we only have 2 choices.

Rotten to the core and not as bad.

[MineralMan]

36. And yet we have two choices.

If you only have two real choices, you either make one or leave the choice to others. You can help make the decision or not. Up to you. Less than a month to the election. You think about it.

[99Forever]

39. My ballot is in its return envelope. .

... and will be dropped into the mailbox on my way to work tomorrow.

But it really misses the point. Settling for not as bad has put us in the shitty position we are in. No freakin wonder people don't show up to vote, we just end getting screwed by a different bunch of corporate shills.

[HereSince1628]

40. I think you don't understand degrees of freedom of common ballots

On some referenda there are only 2 options provided

But.

There is always a third choice...don't vote, that choice works even when there are more than 2 BAD choices.

There is sometimes a fourth choice...write in a name.

There are sometimes more choices...sort of depends on how active minor parties are in a particular election.


And then there is also the truth that choices are made in stages.

Politicians understand winning AND losing.


Not insuring failure as an option in a politicians life is too bad for voters.

We 'vote' informally with campaign contributions and

formally by primarying the assholesthat take the base for granted.


Unfortunately, we are programmed to only one viable choice.

What must be understood is that one viable choice leaves NO degrees of freedom.

That circumstance, understood and acted on by DINOs tosses the needs of the people out in the weather, like so much litter.

[still_one]

30. The Democratic party is pretty inclusive. However, certain factions within the party do not

subscribe to an inclusive party.

It should be noted that it was Howard Dean's 50 state strategy which was a winning strategy for Democrats

[Wella]

42. Agreed.

Party discipline does get things done, even if some Dems are not your favorite.

[Scuba]

43. So our agenda can simply be "the other side is awful"? We don't need policies to motivate voters?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5626023