We are Democrats - All of Us

[NanceGreggs]

We are Centrists and we are Far Leftists, and everything in between. We are The Big Tent. We embrace all who have the same goals: political compromise that moves the nation forward rather than backward, diplomacy in foreign affairs over an immediate call for aggressive action, support of social safety nets that assist the down-and-out, support of legislation that ensures every individual’s right to vote, to marry who they love, to have their voices heard, along with a commitment to change what must be changed in order to see that those goals are not obstructed nor ignored.

Some of us are conservative on some issues; some of us are extremely liberal on the same issues. Some of us have a different perspective on how to achieve our commonly-held goals, but the goals themselves are common to us all.

Some of us see one potential candidate or another as representative of our own thoughts on how best to accomplish what we desire to be achieved. All of us want those accomplishments to be realized; we only differ as to how they are more expediently made reality.

Those who seek to divide Democrats by focusing on their differences rather than their commonality of purpose have an agenda – and that agenda only serves one purpose: divide and conquer. And that divide-and-conquer stance benefits only one party – the Republicans.

Those who choose to separate Democrats into subsets – the Centrists, the Far Left, the Leftier-than-Thou, the True Progressives ™, et cetera, are not interested in a united party, nor its ability to achieve common goals. They are interested in division, and the weakening of the Party that ensues from such division.

If you’ve been labelled a Third Wayer, a ConservaDem, a DINO, or any of the other labels that get thrown around here on a daily basis, it is probably because you are too committed to our common goals to be persuaded to abandon them as unattainable, too positive in your outlook that we CAN change the things we must, too stubborn in your conviction that both parties are NOT the same, too much a part of the “we will not be moved” stance that frustrates the divide-at-all-costs faction that are now allowed to post here without interference.

The Democratic Party stands for what it has always stood for. And those who tell you otherwise are not the least bit interested in your convictions – they are only interested in their own. And their own convictions are obvious to even the most casual observer, along with their own agenda, and what they hope to accomplish.

There is something amiss when a self-proclaimed Democratic-supporting site allows its Democratic-supporting posters to be vilified, when Democratic supporters are dismissed as kool-aid drinkers, when Democratic supporters are encouraged to fight amongst themselves rather than fight against the common enemy on the other side of aisle.

It is not a matter of all holding the same opinion on every issue; it is a matter of holding together for a common purpose.

I stand with my fellow Democrats - as I stand against those who seek to divide us.

[madfloridian]

1. How about those of us dismissed as liberals. Centrists have labeled themselves that way.

It's been going on for years.

As I said in my post I am not going to go that route again.

As a liberal I am/was a vital part of the party. I am one of the ones who spoke out on policy yet voted straight Democrat.

We have not labeled Third Way, Centrist, Moderate....they have called themselves that as they made sure the left had no room in the party.

[NanceGreggs]

9. Care to provide any links ...

... to where liberals have been "dismissed"?

Are you really declaring that posters here have not been labelled as "centrists, Third Wayers", etc. despite NOT having described themselves as such?

[Cha]

2. Thank you, Nance. the dividers aren't helping anything. I've seen it with Senator Warren and

President Obama. Sure, they're bound to disagree on some issues but that doesn't mean they're going to divide up into separate camps. They're better than that.. both of them see the whole picture here.. because they are intelligent people who want the best for their country. Not ego driven.

[madfloridian]

8. And anyone who speaks out on policy is considered a "divider".

Can't win for losing.

[NanceGreggs]

44. Yes, because that's exactly what I said ...

[Sheelanagig]

3. Sorry but I can't agree. If you're a conservative Democrat you may as well be a Republican.

[NanceGreggs]

6. Thanks for making my point.

If you're a ______ Democrat, you don't belong.

May I ask who appointed you the arbiter of who is a Democrat and who isn't? I must have missed that memo.

[Sheelanagig]

28. Same as whoever appointed you, I guess.

[NanceGreggs]

34. The Democratic Party ...

... has included centrists, leftists, far leftists, etc. for decades. The fact that you seem to be unaware of that speaks for itself.

[Sheelanagig]

36. I'm well aware of it. Doesn't change my opinion that a conservative Democrat may as well be a

Republican. If it votes like a Republican, it's a Republican.

[NanceGreggs]

47. Well, according to you ...

.. if "it" votes like what YOU think is a Republican, "it" is a Republican.

[Sheelanagig]

49. Yup. Each party's positions are pretty clearly spelled out.

[NanceGreggs]

54. Yes, they are ...

Ever notice how many self-identified "true progressives/real Democrats" here keep telling everyone how "both parties are the same"?

[Sheelanagig]

65. What I pay attention to is how individual elected Democrats vote.

[Capn Sunshine]

88. That's right, Nance. It's an old voter repression technique

The intellectual argument sounds good on paper, and is repeated ad infinitum by unwitting tools. This argument began as an offshoot movement of Paul Weyrich, Conservative hero and founder of ALEC years ago, and is astroturfed constantly by paid bloggers, often pretending to be progressives.

It appears like clockwork in election years, often on this very website.

His now famous speech is recorded here:

[OnyxCollie]

99. Ever notice how many self-identified "pragmatic/serious Democrats" here

keep resorting to semantic word games and strained logic to convince everyone that "both parties are NOT the same?"

Torture prosecutions under the Bush administration: Zero.

Torture prosecutions under the Obama administration: Zero (Score minus one for prosecuting torture whistleblower John Kiriakou.)

[NanceGreggs]

102. Again ...

.. if you believe both parties ARE the same, why are you bothering to post here? Why post on a "Democratic" site? Are you also posting the same thing on Republican sites, in fairness to both parties that are the same?

[OnyxCollie]

107. I believe in principles, not parties.

And there are many here who share my belief in principles, unlike at Republican sites.

If the Democratic party would choose to believe in principles instead of what would please their corporate donors, they might win some elections.

[NanceGreggs]

109. There is nothing "principled" ...

... in allowing a Republican to be elected to anything, anywhere, for any reason.

[OnyxCollie]

110. Are you claiming to know how I voted?

Please provide evidence of your strawman claim.

[NanceGreggs]

111. Yeah, I claimed to know how you voted.

Where? I don't know. But you seem to know, which is all that matters.

[NanceGreggs]

117. I said ...

"There is nothing "principled" in allowing a Republican to be elected to anything, anywhere, for any reason."

You took that to mean that I was commenting on how YOU vote. Quite a stretch.

[OnyxCollie]

122. Not as big a stretch

as when you tried to claim that Obama wasn't referring to torturers when he said those "folks" were "patriots."

LOL!

[NanceGreggs]

127. Not getting into that argument again ...

... you either understand plain English or you don't.

[OnyxCollie]

129. Arithmetic, not English.

Torture prosecutions under the Bush administration: 0.

Torture prosecutions under the Obama administration: 0.

0=0.

[msanthrope]

103. Kiriakou didn't whistle blow. ....he defended water boarding. nt

[hfojvt]

202. you mention torture prosecutions

and I am yawning about that myself.

No doubt that is some sort of High Moral Principle, but it is simply NOT one of my top concerns.

Also, I kinda wonder why Lynddie England does not count since she was sent to prison for a spell.

I would also wonder how many voters, of any stripe, have torture prosecutions as one of their TOP concerns.

But to say that both parties ARE the same, sweeps away a whole bunch of differences. To list a few examples

Roberts and Alito vs. Kagan and Sotomayor
expansion of SCHIP
Lilly ledbetter fair pay act
Matthew Shepherd act
increase in the minimum wage

Those would seem to be at least SOME differences.

But I think the OP has missed the point of those people who feel like - not ALL enemies of the people are on the other side of the aisle. Some of them are in OUR party.

[Hekate]

198. Says the person who joined 5 1/2 days ago

Pay attention; you might learn something.

[Sheelanagig]

203. As a long time voter of over 40 years who has been following politics since I was 15

and LBJ was in the White House, I will never be able to pretend that a conservative Democrat who votes like a Republican is any different from a Republican.

[Capt. Obvious]

211. 5 1/2 days?

SWARM!!

MIRT!!

[Joe Turner]

90. It's called a difference of Opinion

Let me ask you. Do you think bottling up dissension and differences is good for the Democratic Party. IMO, that would only hurt the party as it would cease to be open to new ideas and change.

[NanceGreggs]

94. Do you recognize the difference between ...

... saying "I hold a different opinion" and saying "because your opinion differs from mine, you do not belong in the Democratic party"?

I am not talking about differences of opinion - which is what the Party has always been about. I am talking about those who insist that their opinion is what defines the Party - all other opinions to be dismissed.

[RiverLover]

14. Big Plus 1!!!

So true!

[Sheelanagig]

29. Thanks!

[zappaman]

32. Welcome back!

[hrmjustin]

83. .

[Hekate]

199. whoopsie

[Phlem]

72. yep.

[MADem]

136. Yeah, right--so when we need one more vote to get us the law we need, we tell that

conservative Democrat that he's just not good enough, and to pound sand.

Politicians dance with the ones what brung 'em. Conservative Democrats elect conservative Democrats. In those districts/states, we don't get to be picky and fussy-- it's either the conservative Democrat that will vote with the Democratic leadership when needs must, or a Republican who -- guess what? -- won't.

[steve2470]

140. people like Manchin usually vote with the other Democrats

If all the people like Manchin go Republican, we're screwed. Fact.

[amandabeech]

219. Conservative Dems count as Dems in determining which party controls the Senate or House,

and that makes a huge difference even if the Conservative Dem votes with the Republicans half the rest of the time.

Reid or Turtlehead.

Pelosi or the Orangeman.

That leadership vote is key.

[ScreamingMeemie]

157. Hi Shellanagig... I was going to respond that I agree with the OP about .01% of the time

on anything, but that I agreed with the premise of her OP. And then I read some of the responses to you and others in this thread. And you, of course, are right. This is yet another party loyalty, support-my-pick post with little thought to one's peers.

It's a bummer. Onward.

[Sheelanagig]

185. Hi ScreamingMeemie and thank you for saying that.

[Cary]

4. Parliamentary democracy demands it

The Republicans have allowed themselves to descend into a radical insurgency fueled by hate and fear. I never understood why anyone would want to emulate them.

[Cha]

10. Hey Cary.. Aloha!

[Cary]

151. Hey Cha

Aloha back at ya. I bet you would love some of our freezing rain this morning.

[Cha]

153. Nah, we just had our own kind of rain.. we're good.

[rpannier]

61. Maybe because it works

Since they began purging members of their party that muddied the message (beginning in 88) they've held onto the House for all but 4 years once they took control in 94
They've been the majority party in the senate most of the time since 94
They have controlled most of the Governor's mansions and state houses since 94 as well.
Right now 31 governors are Republican
24 states have a republican governor and republican control of the state legislature
7 states have a Democratic governor and Democratic controlled state legislature
6 have a Democratic governor and Republican controlled legislature
4 Republican governor and Democratic legislature
1 Independent with a Republican Legislature
8 have a split legislature
The only thing they haven't controlled for most of the last two decades is the White House.

When there is a concise message and everyone stays on board, and doesn't run against a prty on key issues, their party seems to do quite well.

[mountain grammy]

85. Yes, they seem to do quite well, and once they have power

they spend their time finding new and better ways to keep what they have and go for more.

Governing?? That's for suckers and Democrats.

[rpannier]

104. I used to think they'd implode, but they still keep going

I find it baffling on some levels
The only thing I can figure is, 'People know what they stand for and they're very clear and unified. While the Democrats seem to act divided."
I can't name one Republican that ran in 2014 that didn't have 'Republican' slathered across their advertisements and campaign signs, while Nunn, Landrieu and Pryor, if you didn't know they were Democrats, you'd have figured they were some independent party nominee
If the Party nominees won't say they're Democrats, what message does that send to the electorate?

[mountain grammy]

162. Poor Democrats. There we were in the 60's and 70's

fighting for peace, Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, all the while the right wing was forming ALEC and funding the Heritage Foundation, laying the groundwork for Saint Reagan. The "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary was ridiculed for saying out loud, was in full swing. They sucked in a landslide for voodoo economics and blindsided us liberals, who never saw it coming, long before the internet, and they just keep winning.

I'm surprised liberals are allowed to even live in America, much less vote and participate.

[Cary]

173. Nonsense

Not "the vast right wing conspiracy." That's factual enough and not the bullshit they've inflicted. What's nonsense is that we weren't aware and that we aren't fighting. We are aware. We are fighting.

They want to wear us down. That's their only real edge.

Never give up Mountain Grammy. They don't give up. We must never give up either. If we fight, they cannot win. They can only out spend us. That's it.

[Cary]

152. Our message isn't our problem

All we need to do to win is to vote. We have no excuses. Simply vote.

[Cary]

172. The other "discipline" they have, that we don't have, is...

A top down structure bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and just a few other billionaires.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. +1 ...

And on point as usual.

[LiberalElite]

7. Reading between the lines here -

same old same old marginalizing of anyone who doesn't drink the Third Way Kool Aid.

[NanceGreggs]

11. And another one weighs in ...

... to prove my point.

Thanks!

[madfloridian]

16. Another what, Nance? Another liberal?

[NanceGreggs]

19. No, another poster ...

... who self-identifies as "liberal", and then dismisses anyone who disagrees with their opinions as being "non liberal".

[madfloridian]

22. Disagree very much. Most do not dismiss those who disagree. We ask to be respected.

[NanceGreggs]

35. Who is "we"? n/t

[madfloridian]

38. Think about it.

[NanceGreggs]

48. I asked a question ...

Are you unable to answer?

[madfloridian]

53. Nance, you know the answers to all your questions.

Of course you do. I am a Democratic party member. I want those who speak of the issues I support to be treated with respect.

[NanceGreggs]

55. That's a very nice non-answer. n/t

[Fumesucker]

57. A good lawyer never asks a question they don't already know the answer to

[NanceGreggs]

63. I'm not a lawyer ...

... and I am not examining a witness.

I am responding to a poster on a message board. If I already knew the answer, there would be no point in asking the question.

[Fumesucker]

67. The problem with having only two political parties is it shoves a lot of disparate views together

And now that the Republicans have camped out far far far to the right basically all politics that's not ultra far right is taking place within the Democratic party which makes the problem of disparate views within the Democratic party even more acute.

Status Quo was kind of an obscure band back in the sixties, as national policy in the twenty first century it's failing badly.

[NanceGreggs]

68. A two-party system is what we have ...

... like it or not.

And attempting to divide the Democratic Party only benefits the Republicans.

Sometimes it's that simple.

[Fumesucker]

71. The Democrats *are* divided, it can't be any other way..

The tent is too big and too full for everyone to coexist peacefully.

Insert obligatory Will Rogers quote here.

[ScreamingMeemie]

156. This thread is super sad and super telling.

Hi mad, it's good to see you

[Change has come]

21. And this is not divisive?

Another...what?

[NanceGreggs]

40. Oh, my, yes ...

What could be more divisive than pointing out how inclusive the Democratic Party is, and has always been?

[Cha]

12. Sorry, your "reading between the lines" lacks comprehension. Nance means exactly what she wrote.

[Capn Sunshine]

89. and for clarification

Nance has never been nor will she ever be "Third Way"

[Cha]

91. Exactly, Capn Sunshine~

Really long time, no see!

[Capn Sunshine]

112. :)

Yeah, nice to see you too, Cha.

There is much work to be done, and some of the live-ins who post here are spending their energy using insult terms like "Third Way" when the DLC is defunct.

Dissolved. Kaput. History. Happened awhile ago.

However, it , along with its destructive politics, lives on here at DU.

Thank GOD this isn't the real world. It took a lot of effort to kill those SOBs off.

You guys just love to keep parading the corpse around though like a fucking Weekend At Bernies movie.

[Cha]

116. Well said.. it's obvious.. bugging me way before Nance wrote the OP.

"Destructive politics", indeed.. they could so make their points well without it.

But, as you can see.. it's all about egos and it ain't gonna happen.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

190. www.thirdway.org

Seriously. Try to keep up.

[whereisjustice]

95. Exactly. We're all equal, except some are more equal than others :)

[MADem]

137. What you just said is that anyone who doesn't see things YOUR way is a

Third Way Kool Aid drinker. And "disagreeing" is not a synonym for "marginalizing." That victim card has been played out.

See how pointless that kind of approach is? And how self-defeating it is for the Democratic Party, which, like it or not, despite your attempts to insult using that foolish Third Way label, is a Big Tent outfit.

I didn't have to read between any lines to take your ill-advised point. You just insulted everyone who doesn't see things your way. Meh.

[LiberalElite]

141. No. That's not what I said

The posters choice of words makes it clear that Her way is The Way.

[RiverLover]

13. I am "far left" these days because I'm an FDR Dem & believe in living wage & regulated industry...

Regulated to protect people & the planet. Unions. Clean safe water & food. Putting these over & above the need for outlandish profits & high stock yields.

That used to be center Democratic.

So did this~

The New Populist Movement: Organizing to Take Back America.
Mar 2014

The new progressive populist movement is rising up in the United States. Inspired by an expansive vision of greater economic opportunity for all Americans, this new movement is also fueled by anger over politicians' broken promises. After decades of recurring economic crisis, which now seems systemic and permanent, millions of Americans have come to realize that much of our democratic system is now owned by a moneyed elite that use their power to resist real change and to manipulate the economy for their own financial gain.

Even the mass media know something big is going on. At the end of November, a Washington Post headline announced, "More liberal, populist movement emerging ahead of 2016 elections." And the New York Times, in a September article, reporting on the new progressive insurgency, cited the excitement generated by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the new populist mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio. These and other media reports have been based on important new populist victories that represent the visible tip of a very large iceberg:

Low-wage workers and their allies have filled the streets of America's major cities, demanding a living wage and the right to bargain for wages and benefits. Their basic demand, echoed now by political leaders, is that full-time work should pay enough to keep a family out of poverty.

The cry of "break up the big banks" is now heard from protests at bank shareholder meetings to the halls of Congress. Many of the groups who worked to pass the Dodd-Frank bill have joined with housing advocates and others to demand Wall Street prosecutions - and real bank reform championed by Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Sen. Warren.

Lawrence Summers, President Obama's top choice for Chair of the Federal Reserve, was stopped from getting that important job by a coalition of civic activists, including women and financial reform groups. Their favorite, Janet Yellen, was appointed instead.

The national debate on the future or Social Security has been flipped - from "Stop cutting benefits" to "Expand Social Security." Activists got Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin to introduce a bill with Sen. Sherrod Brown to expand benefits. Sen. Warren helped achieve critical mass. Conservative "Third Way" operatives attacked, but actual Third Way Members of Congress denounced their own group - and several actually embraced Social Security expansion. And after grassroots pressure, President Obama withdrew his plan to cut Social Security benefits...

Political reporters have tended to frame the New Populism as either a challenge to President Obama - or as an agenda and constituency for whoever might run against Hillary Clinton. But hard experience has taught us we need to build an independent force that can fight the big corporate interests and shape a positive agenda for all politicians who claim be for progressive change.

To be clear, this new movement is still coming together, most visible politically in the grassroots campaigns to raise the minimum wage and extend unemployment insurance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/the-new-populist-movement_b_4899347.html

Very good article. It goes on to list the 12 big elements of the emerging New Populist agenda:

1. Revive Sustainable Economic Growth, Creating Jobs for All.

2. Invest in America's Infrastructure and in New Jobs for the 21st Century.

3. Make Work Pay - and Fight to Reduce Inequality in America.

4. If the Rising American Electorate Succeeds, America Succeeds.

5. Guarantee Access to High Quality Public Education for All.

6. Strengthen and Expand Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

7. Make the Rich and Corporations Pay Their Fair Share.

8. Stop Bad Trade Deals, and Balance Trade Based on Global Labor Rights.

9. Reform the Financial System to Safely Serve the Productive Economy.

10. Invest in Energy Technologies that Drive a Sustainable Economy.

11. Reduce the Military Budget and Invest at Home.

12. Strengthen Democracy.

[NanceGreggs]

17. Congratulations!!!

You have identified yourself as "far left"!

Are you advocating that those who don't self-identify as "far left" are any less a part of the Democratic Party than you are?

[one_voice]

25. +1...

Are you advocating that those who don't self-identify as "far left" are any less a part of the Democratic Party than you are?

I have very liberal positions, liberal positions, and some moderate positions. I'm a Democrat.

[RiverLover]

27. The media and "centrists" consider my beliefs far left and it used to be mainstream Dem

Who divided us & went right? Who did that? DLC, Third Way.

Don't blame us because we want our party back & for it to mean something other than we're not quite as bad as those crazy republicans.

Our country needs Democratic policies. Democratic Values are American Values. Centrists try to diminish that & say we need to be in a nice "warm purple place". No, we need our government to Stand Up for People. We need Democrats to be Democrats.

Tell Democrats: Stop Running Away From Democratic Values & Achievements
http://leftaction.com/action/tell-democrats

[WiffenPoof]

30. Well Stated

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[madfloridian]

39. .....

[NanceGreggs]

42. Funny that.

I haven't seen the DLC separating Democrats into categories and sub-sets, nor declaring that some Democrats don't belong in the party.

"Centrists try to diminish ..."[/i[ And there you go again, deciding what stripe of Democrat fits YOUR definition, as opposed to what the Party's definition is.

[NanceGreggs]

51. So ...

... because you think the "media" consider your beliefs to be far left, that means something in the real world?

[fredamae]

52. Yep

[99Forever]

145. Absolutely.

Republican Lite is still Republican. I don't vote for Republicans, even in disguise.

[ScreamingMeemie]

159. BEAUTIFUL.

[MissDeeds]

161. Spot on!

Well said, RiverLover!

[Autumn]

163. Well said. You should post that as an OP

[marym625]

214. Brava!

[Thinkingabout]

15. K & R, well said, it is a sad day when there is an attempt to intimidate someone for not agreeing

With others, it come hard and swift. Opinions are of separate people and each I entitled to their opinions. Furthermore the attempt to rewrite what others are saying to make a total different opinion than was stated by the poster.

Thanks for your post.

[tkmorris]

18. You are doing PRECISELY what you are accusing others of doing

Why you cannot see that is beyond me.

[NanceGreggs]

23. How so? n/t

[jeff47]

43. Well, you are dividing the party.

Those who choose to separate Democrats into subsets – the Centrists, the Far Left, the Leftier-than-Thou, the True Progressives ™, et cetera, are not interested in a united party, nor its ability to achieve common goals. They are interested in division, and the weakening of the Party that ensues from such division.

NONE MAY DARE QUESTION THE ANOINTED ONE. YOU HAVE OBJECTIONS?! SILENCE YOU DIVIDER! YOUR QUESTIONS MEAN YOU WANT THE REPUBLICANS TO WIN.

I'd far prefer you just move on to VanillaRhapsody's honest approach. Vanilla insists we aren't Democrats.

You have a position. Own it. Actually tell all of us to fuck off instead of burying it under indignant outrage.

Alternatively, you could actually discuss these divisions instead of attributing them to irrational hatred. Here, I'll start:

If you can't make your case without referring to the Republicans, you don't have a good candidate. "The Republicans are worse" was our campaign theme from 1994, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2010 and 2014. It was also our theme in 1992, but we had Perot peeling off a good chunk of the "libertarian" vote.

Clinton needs the "marginally attached voters" that Obama got out to turn out again. This is going to be difficult for her to do, because her lengthy history makes her a status quo candidate. And so far neither she or her surrogates have made any attempt to change her image from a status quo candidate.

Without those voters, 2016 is a base versus base election. Like 2014 and 2010 and 2004 and 2000. She needs to make it a 2006/2008/2012 election. That means being a candidate pushing to change the status quo, not maintain it.

She's still got time to change course, but she shows no evidence that she thinks she needs to change course. Heck, her surrogates are attacking Warren, the current political embodiment of "we need to change direction". That is extremely concerning.

She's up in the polls? She was in 2007. How'd that end up for her?

The path we are on is wrong on policy, and wrong on tactics. There is not a vast, under-represented middle waiting to be tapped. Appealing to the non-existent middle not only costs us elections, it means we implement bad policy.

[NanceGreggs]

60. Where did I say anything ...

... about "the anointed one"?

Where did I say anything about Hillary?

Why are you responding to things I didn't say?

[Number23]

130. This thread... wow.

I just had a "conversation" with the biggest lunatic on this web site. And it was still somehow less crazy than the responses you are getting in this thread.

[jeff47]

167. It's heavily implied by who you are attacking.

We got the message, even if you didn't literally say Clinton. You attacked "the crazy left" for not being happy with the centrists. Clinton is the centrist currently (non-officially) running.

Either you're being utterly incoherent, or you meant Clinton.

Also, you'll note that you stopped again with the indignation instead of wanting to discuss the problems mentioned in the latter 2/3rds of the post. Making it abundantly clear you are more interested in the indignation than "coming together".

[NanceGreggs]

183. This has nothing to do with Hillary ...

... or any other politician.

If I could be said to be "attacking" anyone, it's the posters who insist on labeling everyone as centrists, leftists, far leftists, etc., instead of actually discussing the issues.

I am "attacking" - your word, not mine - those who continually feel a need to affix those labels, and then encourage in-fighting as a result thereof.

What could be - and should be - productive discussion on what the party can do as a whole is immediately sidetracked into "but you're a leftist, you're a moderate, you're a centrist". And those who encourage that bullshit are just playing "let's you and him fight".

There are posters who are only here for that purpose, to be as divisive as they can be. And they're doing an excellent job.

[L0oniX]

77. ^^^this^^^

[DanTex]

158. You're blurring together policy and tactics. And you're wrong on both.

On policy, the fact that the Republicans are much, much worse than any Democrat is actually an excellent reason to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, despite any disagreements or points where he or she isn't as liberal as you or I might want.

On tactics, obviously, nobody is going to run with "the Republicans are worse" as a campaign theme. That's a complete straw argument. And if you really are interested in actually winning the GE, the first people you should go after are the Sanders supporters, because there is no way that the American electorate is going to go for a self-described "socialist". Even Warren is probably too liberal to win in swing states.

Winning a national campaign requires a combination of base turnout and winning swing voters. Between Warren and Clinton, Warren is probably better with the base, and Clinton probably better with the swing voters. But the base will probably turn out for Clinton also, unless there's another Nader-type spoiler -- this is a presidential election, not a midterm, and she polls extremely well with liberal Democrats.

And then there's the fact that Clinton has huge fundraising potential, which you may not like, but if you're talking tactics, you can't ignore this.

[jeff47]

170. Tactics are how you get to implement policy.

They are inherently blurred.

On policy, the fact that the Republicans are much, much worse than any Democrat is actually an excellent reason to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is

Then we would have won 2014, 2010, 2004, 2000, and so on. We lost. Because we lost, we didn't get to implement better policy.

On tactics, obviously, nobody is going to run with "the Republicans are worse" as a campaign theme.

No, actually that's the tactic we just ran on. And we keep running on. And the tactic currently coming from all of Clinton's supporters, and she isn't doing anything to change that.

And if you really are interested in actually winning the GE, the first people you should go after are the Sanders supporters, because there is no way that the American electorate is going to go for a self-described "socialist".

Sander's role is to drag the party to the left in the primary. He will not win the primary, but he can affect the debate during the primary.

Even Warren is probably too liberal to win in swing states.

Again, there is not a vast middle anymore. The Republicans wandered off too far into insanity, opening up a large chasm where the middle used to be. Appealing to that chasm does not win elections because there is nobody there.

Winning a national campaign requires a combination of base turnout and winning swing voters.

There are no swing voters anymore. "Reagan Democrats" went ahead and changed their party affiliation and now always vote Republican. When they turn out.

What we have now are people who label themselves independent, but always vote for one party when they bother to vote. Clinton can not get a right-leaning independent to vote for her. They will either vote for the Republican, or they will stay home. And she has very little effect on which one they do.

What she can have a large effect on is whether or not left-leaning independents vote for her or stay home. Being more like a Republican makes them stay home - if they wanted Republican policy, they wouldn't be left-leaning.

Since she needs these left-leaning "marginally attached voters" to show up at the polls in order to win, she needs to be expressing a policy they want to hear. As a result, tactics and policy are inherently intertwined.

[DanTex]

176. I agree. Further reason why the anti-Hillary stuff is so dumb.

Then we would have won 2014, 2010, 2004, 2000, and so on. We lost. Because we lost, we didn't get to implement better policy.

We've won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, with candidates that were about the same as Hillary on the spectrum. Bush wouldn't have "won" 2000 if Nader hadn't siphoned away votes. The first two you list are mid-terms, with completely different turnout characteristics -- sitting presidents almost always lose seats in midterm elections. And by 2012, the left had already given up on Obama, but he still won.

More importantly, where's the evidence that someone as liberal as Warren can actually win at the national level or in swing states? There isn't any. Has anyone as liberal as Warren won a state-wide election in any swing state (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc.) in say, the last 20 years? Even once?

No, actually that's the tactic we just ran on. And we keep running on. And the tactic currently coming from all of Clinton's supporters, and she isn't doing anything to change that.

No it's not. That's just your interpretation. The actual campaigns, all of them, are based on the theme "we are good and they are bad". You may disagree with the "we are good" part, but candidates don't go around talking about how bad they are.

Sander's role is to drag the party to the left in the primary. He will not win the primary, but he can affect the debate during the primary.

OK, good, so at least we agree that nominating Sanders would be a mistake. I wonder why you don't aim any vitriol at people who would actually like to see that happen.

Again, there is not a vast middle anymore. The Republicans wandered off too far into insanity, opening up a large chasm where the middle used to be. Appealing to that chasm does not win elections because there is nobody there.

What do you base this on? Polls (of course not, because they all show Hillary leading)? Reading DU? There are plenty of undecided voters, who could go for either a Democrat or a Republican. Especially in states like Ohio and Florida and Virginia and Colorado, etc. Winning those voters is a big part of winning national elections.

What you don't realize is that Hillary Clinton's politics are only considered "Republican" to about 5% of the electorate. Centrist and center-left voters don't consider her "Republican" at all. They consider her center-left, which she is.

[DanTex]

179. To add one more thing. Since you agree that tactics are important, then surely

you agree that staying home and not voting in 2016 if Hillary is the nominee (something that people talk a lot about on DU) is the height of stupidity. Once the primaries are done, obviously, the top priority is for the Dem nominee, whoever it may be, to win.

Agreed?

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. Excellent Op, Nance.

We all need to work together to protect what we have gained and make it better.

[DCBob]

24. You would think stopping the Rethugs ftom taking over this country..

should be more than enough to unify us... but unfortunately for some it is not.

[madfloridian]

64. Too many elected Dems voted with the GOP instead of trying to stop them.

And then they lectured the left the liberals for speaking out.

[Art_from_Ark]

131. And then there were those New Jersey "Dems"

who supported Christie instead of their own candidate.

[DCBob]

142. Blue Dogs have their challenges but that's a separate issue.

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2015, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[jeff47]

171. No, it isn't. It is the issue.

Blue dogs dragging the entire party to the right is why the Republicans are winning. We give a little ground here and there to placate Blue Dogs, while those same Blue Dogs ensure liberal policies do not advance.

[DCBob]

200. Not the issue I was referring to.. but regarding blue dogs dragging us to the right...

We dont have to agree with them on everything to accept them as Democrats. We will never regain control of the house or senate without a few blue dog Dems voting with us.

[jeff47]

215. Only if we continue with politics as usual.

Roughly half the country doesn't feel like they have anyone to vote for. Golly, I wonder if giving them someone to vote for might get them to come out and vote.....

[DCBob]

217. I would love to believe that but..

in many parts of this country that's a fantasy.

[jeff47]

238. Yeah, that's why liberal referenda pass and conservative ones fail everywhere.

Because in many parts of the country no one wants any liberal policies.

[DCBob]

239. Yeah like coal regulations in West Virginia.

[bigtree]

26. mostly agree

...but it's hard to avoid defining what type of Democrats we are when even 'centrist' political figures openly celebrate that label - as much as 'liberals' and 'progressives' define their own political philosophy - and, openly disparage those outside of their political positions, just as much as the folks they seek to marginalize do.

I think most of us would agree that we need each other at voting time, but our primaries fully expect that we follow our own principles and seek to advance those who we feel will carry our particular viewpoints forward. General elections and the legislature are where we seek to reconcile those views under our Democratic banner to provide enough political elevation to numerically move our collective ideals forward into action or law.

No one in our party should expect that we agree on every issue and no one should expect people with strong views on any part of the 'big tent' spectrum would be readily willing to fold those views into one political box before we've even held our primary elections; before candidates have even made solid decisions to run and have developed their political platforms. Moreover, we're not likely to ignore clear records of political performance and actions from politicians which indicate future performance and actions.

Where I agree, Nance, is your emphasis on defending the notion of comity between 'supporters.' I also believe we should take more care in how we communicate our interests and concerns among ourselves - especially in this forum - to ensure a free-flowing and productive discussion where all views, within reason, are allowed to be included with respect and appreciation for our differences in an open and vigorous debate.

That said, however, as I said above, 'common purpose' is a political construct which is only necessary when we've exhausted our opportunities to choose candidates to represent us against republican rivals - that is, in general elections and in our legislature. Until that point, it's not only unrealistic to expect people to put aside their different points of view; their particular interests and concerns; and their political definitions; it's antithetical to a productive political debate.

[ismnotwasm]

31. Thank you

[sheshe2]

33. We are a big tent here.

We are all Democrats. Since when does a party have to walk in lockstep? ( that would be the GOP) Yes, there is much of the my way or the highway here. Ridicule for those that do not.

Those who choose to separate Democrats into subsets – the Centrists, the Far Left, the Leftier-than-Thou, the True Progressives ™, et cetera, are not interested in a united party, nor its ability to achieve common goals. They are interested in division, and the weakening of the Party that ensues from such division.

The division gets us no where. There is no need to toe any ones line. We share ideas or we should if we wish to move forward as a diverse party.

The constant bashing of this President is in itself divisive. I know, some will come back and tell me they needed to hold his feet to the fire. That never meant for them to burn them off then amputate them. Funny, or not, they still have nothing good to say about this President. Talk about divisive.

Thanks Nance. Glad you are here.

[FSogol]

37. K&R. n/t

[LeftyMom]

41. Pfft.

[Omaha Steve]

45. Marta and I are in!

K&R!

[langstonhues]

46. I don't think Leiberman or Zell Miller were ever democrats.

[Fumesucker]

56. Welcome to DU!

Joebituary was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 2000, you can't get much more Democratic than that.

On the other hand Zell's nickname in GA was Zig Zag Zell..

[langstonhues]

66. Joebituary supported McCain against Obama.

Senator John McCain, the Republican Party nominee, was endorsed or supported by some members of the Democratic Party and by some political figures holding liberal views in the 2008 United States Presidential Election. McCain Democrat and McCainocrat are terms applied to Democrats who supported McCain.[1][2][3][4]

Democratic and liberal supporters of McCain included some elected officials, retired elected officials, journalists, and some supporters of Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful primary campaign. According to exit polls on Election Day, 10% of those who identified themselves as Democrats voted for John McCain, approximately the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008

This tells me that 10% who call themselves Democrats, are not. It's not the ones who are too far left and are told they aren't democrats but instead they are really Independents, with a big So There! it's the ones who elect to vote for Republicans if they don't get their way.

[ND-Dem]

133. oh come now, all part of the 'big tent' we're supposed to glorify.

why don't the republicans have a big tent?

[MannyGoldstein]

50. Well. You've outdone yourself. nt

[Dragonfli]

58. Can you please elaborate on the far leftists? I have never met a far leftist Democrat

And would like to see if I can find a middle ground with one similar to what FDR found with the reds of his day (back when we did have far leftists)

I did meet a far leftist once that came from Europe who went on a bit on how we don't even have a leftist party in America, let alone a committed one (his phrase for far leftist parties).

Or are you simply red baiting left of center FDR Democrats that still believe in Capitalism but feel it should be heavily regulated and tempered via progressive taxation and workers rights?

[NanceGreggs]

78. I think the self-identified ...

... far leftists are who you should be posing that question to.

Unless you want to contend that no one on DU has ever referred to themselves as a "far leftist", or being "far to the left of everyone", or "much farther left than anyone here" ...

[Dragonfli]

93. Who might they be? I have seen many pre-Will Marshall Democrats labeled as such

by self Identified Democrats that embrace Republican fiscal views, but such appear to be using it as a derogatory label, rather than as an identifier of actual far left ideology.

Regrettably, somehow I missed the far leftists outing themselves with posts asking to nationalize industry or abolish capitalism in favor of Communism. The closest I have seen are self proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" Democrats, but even then with many caveats that knowingly or unknowingly distance them from actual textbook Socialism - let alone Communism.

I ask again as I really would enjoy a conversation with an actual American far leftist because I have only met the European variety, I may find some value in some of their arguments, or perhaps not, but the discussion would be enjoyable to me either way.

Some names if you don't mind as I would like to PM them and begin such discussion.

[NanceGreggs]

98. Who you have met ...

... and how they identify themselves is really of no interest to me.

If you want to converse with self-identified "far leftists" on DU, you can simply do a site search for that phrase, or similar terms.

Poster #76 on this thread just described himself as "far left" - maybe you can address your concerns to her/him.

[Dragonfli]

105. You claim to have knowledge in your OP of far leftists within the party

I can guarantee you, simply because of your claim, you have no idea what a far leftist is, you really should become educated on such matters before claiming to have knowledge of what would mean an infestation of Communists within the party.

McCarthy made similar claims, perhaps YOU will, unlike him, retract your CT bullshit and show that you at least have some decency.

Red baiting is not cool sis.

I will look through the thread to find the far leftist you say self identified and see if the person knows as little as you appear to regarding what a far leftist is.

I had hoped you were not full of it and you could point me to a real one (or several as you appear to imply), but, you were just red-baiting.

So sad, ten years ago I respected you, now not so much.

[NanceGreggs]

108. Oh, fer fuck's sake ...

I included "far leftists" in the OP because that is how many here identify themselves, and I was being inclusive of ALL Democrats, regardless of what they call themselves, or where they place themselves on the political spectrum.

"Red baiting is not cool". YOU'RE the one insinuating that those who call themselves "far leftists" are Communists. Take that up with them, why don't you? Explain to them that YOUR definition of "far leftist" is the only definition that counts here.

Whether you respected me ten years ago - or ever - is of no interest to me, now or then.

[Dragonfli]

115. Again, Democrats here are not identifying as far left, they are being identified as such

Stubbornly claiming something untrue is true even repetitiously does not make it true.

I never defined the far left, or the far right for that matter, I just learned the definitions in school rather from third way talking points.

Look up Fascism and Communism, the two extreme ends of the spectrum, then look at your silly claims after instruction has set in.

I am not interested in your false claims and accusations so it would appear we have no interest in one another whatsoever, on that note. Goodbye.

[NanceGreggs]

119. I pointed you to ...

... someone on this very thread who described themselves as "far left".

Take it up with him/her.

[Autumn]

165. I am not far left, I am a Liberal. But I am stalked and called a "left leaning independent" by

"those" who profess to know what I am, and the term "those" is exactly what I mean It used to be we were called the "fringe" but that doesn't seem to be used anymore. If I was going to call myself something I would call myself a Fed up Liberal. The implied slogan "vote for me, I suck less than the guy in the other party" just doesn't get my vote anymore. Fed up Liberal

[Old and In the Way]

59. United, we stand....divided, we fall.

I am so far left, I paid 100% of my taxes 2 years ago, when I got a 1 time bump on my income.... $70,000 in taxes. And I had no proble,s writing that cHeck.. Because I believe we all have to contribute to the common good.

[whereisjustice]

69. Now that it's settled, I can't wait for conservative Democrats to welcome liberals back into the

party we built. Reminds me of Austin, TX. At one time the most liberal city in Texas. Liberals built it, made it unique, it attracted attention. Now its filled with "conservatives" buying $500K condos who bitch and moan about noise from live music venue that's been there since 1970s. And the public schools can't afford textbooks (or paper) while UT increases tuition 15% a year.

We aren't all the same. It is impossible when two political parties have a monopoly of power.

Our political system is about money and control. Conservatives call the shots in both parties. TPP is the best example of this.

The best I and some others can hope for is for liberals to one day gain back some influence so we can stop the wage/benefits erosion, poverty and disparity that continues to grow regardless of which conservative faction is in Congress or White House.

How anyone can say we are all the same is just completely fucked up.

[NanceGreggs]

70. My OP was about how we're NOT all the same ...

...but how our common goals should unite, not divide.

"Conservatives call the shots in both parties."

Have you posted this on RW sites as well? Seems to me that if both parties are controlled by the same entity, members of both parties should be equally advised of that reality.

[whereisjustice]

81. Both parties are controlled by conservatives

Obama has managed as a conservative Democrat. Yes, conservative, aka centrist aka moderate.

TPP, patriot act, nsa spying, fracking, off shore drilling, CIA, Monsanto, Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Jeffry Immelt, and idiotic devices like torture apologies, Afghanistan surge, sequester and dangling social security cuts are all well documented and out there in order to gain credibility with conservatives.

Conservative.

It less a problem of Republican and Democrat - it is a problem of conservative and liberal.

Liberals are being denied representation. Even Democrats have bought into the Fox BULLSHIT that liberals are evil hippies.

The time for Kumbaya is long gone.

Liberals are second class citizens in both political parties.

Conservatives in both parties have had a good run.

Poverty, joblessness, broken infrastructure, war and a corrupt, untouchable, superclass citizen is our result.

[OnyxCollie]

73. We are Cells - All of Us

And together we form one Democratic body.

We must be united and inclusive of all Cells, even the cancerous, neoliberal ones that will lead to our demise.

[NanceGreggs]

82. Well, Dr. OnyxCollie ...

... I guess we should all leave it to you to decide who is to be declared "cancerous" and surgically removed by your expert hand.

[OnyxCollie]

84. Let's let the voters decide.

How'd that work out for the Blue Dogs?

[Dragonfli]

97. Some mets WERE removed! I would like to give the voters the ability to begin surgery on the primary

tumor, but first the cancer needs to be isolated, identified and prepped for removal.

A primary with actual liberals involved may help in such an endeavor, but those with too much party religion would refuse the treatment as their dogma will not abide such procedures.

Sad really, the patient is in real trouble and symptoms such as spreading poverty and overt fascism are becoming quite pronounced.

[LittleGirl]

74. I've voted straight Dem ticket

the last two elections '12 and '14. I consider myself far left on most issues and a fiscal conservative otherwise but I have big arms to wrap around anyone that wants to serve each other with kindness and care. Divide and conquer is a republican way and I just don't have the patience for that crap. Your post is brilliant, thanks again Nance. If you post and I see it, I read it. I value what you have to say.

[TheKentuckian]

184. How can you be fiscally conservative but far left on most issues? Economics is the lion's share of

politics.

Probably best stated as "I'm a conservative who isn't a bigot". Fiscal issues are the heart of conservatism and tend to generate a rightist gravity that functionally captures all ancillary issues as well.

[L0oniX]

75. Sorry but some of us are not going to get all kumbaya with the 1% to win elections.

[NanceGreggs]

87. Who asked you to apologize ...

... for being far left?

Or are you asking for those who aren't far left to apologize for not being so?

[Duckhunter935]

79. I am

but to it seems to quite a few, I am not.

[Vattel]

80. So if I tell someone that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for what it used to stand for,

then according to you I am not interested in that person's convictions, and my own convictions, along with my own agenda and what I hope to accomplish, are obvious to even the most casual observer. Do you really believe this? It doesn't strike me as the least bit plausible. Don't most of us think that what the Democratic Party stands for has changed over time? Surely not all who do think this have an obvious agenda and no interest in the convictions of others.

[DonCoquixote]

86. Nance I respect you

but what I have seen here is people whop want a primary to get heckled, and for people who WANT clinton to lean left laughed at. We are not trying to rip down the Democratic party, we want to avoid a series of mistakes that has played out hoirribly, namely a candidate runs to the right, gets rejected for a real GOP, and leaves us in the wind. Despite the fact I geuinely think nader is to blame for 2000, it would have helped if Gore was not afraid to lean forward back then. Let's not get into the Mid terms where Grims would not even admit she voted for the same persaon the country did.

We do not hate the Democratsic part because we do not want to see a pattern repeated that has hurt us. We also think that an actual primary is good, because if nothign else, it will help us be stronger come Noverm,ber, rather than leave us open to charges that Hillary was anointed.

[NanceGreggs]

92. I haven't seen anyone here ...

... advocating for not having a primary, or heckling those who do want one. And if you have, I would appreciate seeing the links to same.

This OP is not about Hillary, or primaries. It's about posters who consistently focus on what "kind" of Democrats are acceptable in a party that's strength has been the diversity of opinions it embraces as to opposed to demanding a lock-step stance from all of its members.

[RufusTFirefly]

96. Let's keep moving further right. That way the tent can get bigger and bigger!!! n/t

[NanceGreggs]

100. Let's keep saying ...

... the Dem party is moving further to the right - because if you say it enough times, people might believe it's true.

[Capn Sunshine]

101. oh jeese

so many agendas so little time

[ND-Dem]

134. +100! soon the republicans will disappear altogether!! we'll BE them!! what a clever strategy!

we'll win everything!!!

[marym625]

106. interesting considering I was told I was part of the problem

For asking a question.

[Capn Sunshine]

114. what was the question again?

[NanceGreggs]

120. Huh? n/t

[marym625]

143. You recently wrote a post that was satire.

Your OP did not have a link to, or reference at all, the post that caused you to write it. I had not seen the post in question and had no reason to believe you were writing yours in retaliation. Though I did read some of the responses in your thread, I didn't read all 377 that were there at the time.

I complimented you on your satire, told you I agreed with everything in the OP, and then I gave my reasons for legitimate concern regarding Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I then asked why you were pushing for her.

In reply you wrote:

NanceGreggs

385. If you think ...

... that poking fun at BS like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6256160 is "pushing for" Hillary, you just might be part of the problem. 

If you have legitimate concerns about Hill's possible election to POTUS, no one is stopping you from expressing them. But if you want to get behind RW talking points about "connections" that don't exist between the Clinton Foundation and its donors, you're going to be a target of ridicule by people who think there are "legitimate concerns" that are being marginalized by such nonsense.

So you blamed me for agreeing with something I hadn't even seen, dismissed the fact I complimented the satire and agreed with the OPs content, accused me of using "RW talking points," dismissed my legitimate concerns, suggested I was "part of the problem" and didn't answer my question.

Then you ignored my response to that.

Hardly follows what you say in this OP.

Absolutely nothing I said was "RW" and everything I said were legitimate concerns.

Here's the link to my response to that OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6263539

[marym625]

220. Again, no response

What you say here is diametrically opposed to what you said to me.

And posting about how ridiculous and horrible fellow Democrats are because they don't fall in line with your beliefs is completely contradictory to this OP.

[NanceGreggs]

222. The fact that you think this OP ...

... called Democrats "ridiculous and horrible because they don't fall in line with my beliefs" explains why I don't care to engage in any conversation with you.

Let's leave it at that.

[marym625]

225. Yeah, nice excuse, Nance

Doesn't work though when you went after me for something that I didn't say, then refused to respond to my calling you on it, days before.

It's hypocritical of you. Let's leave it at that.

[marym625]

227. by the way

I said it was opposed to this post. I said it after you ignored me yet again. And I was referring, obviously, to things you have posted elsewhere since this OP.

So, again, nice excuse but it doesn't work. .

[TerrapinFlyer]

118. More than 50% of the people on this thread are here for the argument?

[NanceGreggs]

121. Yes, they are.

[TerrapinFlyer]

123. No, they aren't.

Your turn.

[NanceGreggs]

124. Yes, they are.

I believe the ball is in your court, good sir.

[TerrapinFlyer]

126. No they aren't.

Are you here for the 5 min post, or the full half-hour discussion?

[Major Hogwash]

125. Self-inflicted wounds are a DU trademark.

Wait until the flameouts begin.

[Capt. Obvious]

148. Only reason I click on her OP's

I just scroll right past the word salad.

[JoePhilly]

178. Perfect!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

128. Sad when an Democratic Solidarity Post gets so few recs. Must be a lot of

very unDemocratic folks posting tonight.

Solidarity!

[Ken Burch]

132. "The Democratic Party stands for what it has always stood for"?

Not for what it stood for in 1860, thank God.

Not for much of what it stood for in 1972, tragically(we lost that year because of dirty campaigning-NOT because we were anti-poverty or because we dared to question the foreign policy status quo-the voters DID want out of Vietnam a.s.a.p.) .

[MADem]

135. Me too!!!

I stand with my fellow Democrats - as I stand against those who seek to divide us.

[Scuba]

138. "If you’ve been labelled a Third Wayer, a ConservaDem, a DINO ..."

Apparently, Nance, you think it's only us "lefty loonies" who are trying to divide the party.


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

Rahm Emanuel: Liberals Are “F–king Retarded”

[NanceGreggs]

207. I have never called anyone a "leftie loonie".

In fact, I am probably far to the left of most posters here.

But I, unlike some, have no reason to "label" those who I don't see eye-to-eye with as anything other than "fellow Democrats who I don't see eye-to-eye with".

[eridani]

139. "The Democratic Party stands for what it has always stood for"

You neglected to mention what it has always stood for.

[eridani]

221. <crickets> n/t

[wyldwolf]

144. Bravo! I can't add anything to this but I'll quote The Magistrate

Accepting that there is an imperfect fit between the Democratic Party and the furthest aims of left and progressive people, several things must be acknowledged.

First, it has to be acknowledged that left and progressive people really do not have solid ground to proclaim they and only they are true Democrats, or are the real base of the Democratic Party, and that people who are left of center or center-left or even centerists are not really Democrats.

Second, left and progressive people need to consider whether the tactic of attacking people who are perhaps a bit to the right of them, though generally well to the left of a national average, or of the average in the locale where they reside, as rightists who do not belong in the Democratic Party, is likely to expand and increase their influence in the Democratic Party, and advance the prospects of actually getting laws and regulations they would like to see adopted come to pass.

----------------------

(this statement came in a thread where several DUers were 'centrist witch hunts," going so far as to callin JFK and Jimmy Carter 'dinos.')

The Statement (DINO, 'real Democrats,' etc.) Is Nonesense, Sir, And On Several Levels... the perennial brouha here about what constitutes a "real Democrat", most of which is conducted along lines that bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party. The idea that figures like Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were not "real Democrats" is nothing but the punch-line to a very poor joke, although it is certainly true that they embraced many policies and ideas that some of our radicals today detest. But that latter is hardly an indication they were not "real Democrats"; rather, it is an indication that such radicals are somewhat out of step with the Democratic Party as a real institution and political force, as opposed to an ideal item they imagine not only to be fact, but to be wholly agreeable to them. The faction of the Democratic Party that opposed the Cold War had its political trial with the campaign for President of Sec. Wallace in 1948, and failed utterly, gaining the votes of only a handful of people. What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters cannot be the real face of the Democratic Party. It really is that simple.

That Presidents Carter and Clinton could be described from some vantages as centerists is hardly sufficient to establish as fact a claim they were not "real Democrats". Such a statement depends on assent to the proposition that the Democratic Party is an organ of the far left, and there really is not a trace of support for this notion in history. The fact is that the Democratic party occupies, and has throughout the latter portion of the twentieth century and into our present days occupied, a position roughly analogous to that of a moderate Social Democrat element in European politics, which is very far from a radical left view, and during that period in Europe has been taken as the chief enemy by the radical left. It seeks a degree of reform and mitigation of the capitalist order, not its complete restructuring or overthrow. This is both a fairly popular view among the people, and a position of long and distinguished pedigree on the left, dating back almost to the origins of the modern left in the mid-nineteenth century. The schism between reformers and revolutionists is a very old one among leftists, and is one that the revolutionists have tended to be on the losing side of in all polities containing a reasonable degree of democratic representationalism in their governments.

[William769]

146. Kick & highly recommended.

[catnhatnh]

147. If "Our common goals'...

...are the betterment of our country, then our goals then are much closer than we acknowledge but our rhetoric is divergent, and at times heatedly so. I feel the centrist mindset is win-lose whereas the left will perceive the possibility of lose or win or Win Big. And to me Clinton is only a win. A last line of defense, only incrementally better than a loss...

I think many who self-label as centrist are afraid to lose while those who self-label as left dream of a win...

[bigwillq]

149. I agree. Everyone is a different kind of Democrat.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

150. Thanks!

[ScreamingMeemie]

154. We are all Democrats...so, when we get angry at seeing our party throw away

the very ideals that make up the party, it's okay to get angry and not have to face a "SO will YOU support the Democratic nominee" response. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the reframing. I'm tired of the namecalling. All in all, it's going to be another great DU primary season.

That said, unless some dark horse comes forward for the presidential nomination, no national candidate is getting my money or my time. Local grassroots candidates, who still stand for what the party SHOULD believe in, get all of that. The D-word at the top of the list? Get's a vote. So she/he can win the football game that is the race for President (rah! rah! and all that bull shit) That's it. Because representation at the highest levels in government is a big fat joke these days.

I will never call a name here. I will never call someone not a Democrat for supporting a candidate I don't particularly care for. I will never demand false loyalty to a candidate. I think that's the true difference. (for me, at least, and I know there are several others like me)

[RiverLover]

244. Great post.

Thank you!

[TheKentuckian]

155. No, it is not our common goal enrich the wealthy at the expense of workers.

It is not our common goal to propagate interventionist wars of aggression for wealth and power.

It is not our common goal to export our jobs to pad pockets.

It is not our common goal to loot the commons.

It isn't our common goal to privatize public education.

It is not our common goal to destabilize governments that don't play ball.

It is not our common goal to continue the stupid and failed drug war.

It is not our common goal to destroy regulation and oversight of business nor to turn it into a sham of "self regulation".

It is not our common goal to crush the wages of the American worker.

It is not our common goal to play global police force, particularly on our own budget destroying expense.

It is not our common goal to prop and expand Too Big to Fail companies.

It is not our common goal to cut Social Security nor does it appear to be a common goal to expand it.

It isn't a common goal to subvert and destroy enumerated rights for security.

It is not a common goal to whitewash and "look forward" and cover for torturing, murdering, destroying criminals.

It is not our common goal to frack up the nation and drill, baby, drill anywhere except the very tippy top of the list of places it is irresponsibly insane to do so.

It is not a common goal to set up a "just us" system where the rich and powerful are unaccountable.

Sure there are common goals like wanting everyone to be able to vote or acceptance that someone has to pay to keep the lights on in the government, that government has a role in society, that generally speaking that at least the women who can afford an abortion hold have access to the service (if they can't gets a little more sticky, many support Hyde) but pretending they all are is absurd in its apparent belief that any outcome is possible from about any policy.

No, I don't care one bit about the convictions of conservatives and corporatists other than they stop polluting the already too toxified nation with their nonsense not helping them fuck us over some more.
No, it isn't my job to help anyone oppose and destroy much of what I struggle for to be "unified", some folks need to unify with the fucking TeaPubliKlans and stop trying to assimilate us to their worldview even if they are pro choice or the targets of racism.

It is silly to work tirelessly to make the party come as close as possible to standing for nothing or everything and then turn around and be crying for absolute loyalty to the formless blob of nothing they created.

It is a LIE, you cannot logically represent everyone someone will be represented and someone is going along for the ride and "Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination. Never is it said to want more leftist voices...NEVER. It is wholly a guilt play to appeal to the liberal desire to be inclusive to advance contrary conservative interests.

If you have been called a Conservadem, a Thirdwayer, or a DINO it is probably because you are corporate enabling, interventionist, free trading conservative that due to being temporarily embarrassed, not being overly churchy, a conservative minority the TeaPubliKlans will make a token of but never truly accept, embrace corporate politicians, or are a willing enemy to our civil liberties with a lame as circle D by your name while spitting venom about "the far left" like a Rush or a Prager, calling people lame shit like "firebagger" and "emoprog" and talking a lot of stupid shit about rainbow farting unicorns and ponies (no idea what the equine fixations are about, maybe this crowd really grew up wanting ponies).

[RiverLover]

160. Awesome, Outstanding post!!!!!

Wish this post of yours, TheKentuckian, could be pinned on the front page!



Thank you. (Would love to see this as an OP at least. It deserves it own place rather than buried here)

[MissDeeds]

164. +1000000

Well said!

[Autumn]

166. Now here is another reply that should be a stand alone OP

Please make that an OP.

[HughBeaumont]

168. Yes to this.

Libertarian, Friedmanite and Free Traitor Dems have pushed the narrative far enough into "the common ground". It's time, damn it, that we pushed it BACK.

[Octafish]

181. Should be an OP, if not a college course.

Thank you for putting it into words:

It is silly to work tirelessly to make the party come as close as possible to standing for nothing or everything and then turn around and be crying for absolute loyalty to the formless blob of nothing they created.

And all the rest of what you wrote: Truth.

[TheKentuckian]

186. Well, here is the OP. The course will take longer and thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026305399

[Octafish]

189. No whitewash and 'look forward' and cover for torturing, murdering, destroying criminals.

Democracy needs to hear the Truth. As the Corporate Owned News won't touch it, Democrats and those who believe in Democracy got to go to DU to find it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

194. Geez, *another* member of the Itty Bitty Hissyfit Committee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022632517

But now according to the BOGer who posted that delightful OP, division gets us nowhere. Hooray, all is right with the world!

To borrow from frylock: "Welcome to the big tent, mutherfuckers."

[TheKentuckian]

240. Good God in Heaven, how did I miss that?

Monstrous and vile folks maybe different than TeaPubliKlans but precious little better and maybe worse, they are supposed to perhaps know better.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

241. Yeah, that's definitely one of DU's banner threads.

Up there with the one that suggests that Harry Belafonte, who dared criticize Obama, has a brain-rotting venereal disease and is famous only for a *banana* song. And the one in which we learn that gays have "plenty of rights." Oh, and let's never forget the Latin America anal cyst comparison. Hamster Jane Puma Face. Or was it PUMA Jane Hamster Face?

This site went downhill -- FAST -- in 2008. But I still love it. For different reasons than pre-2008, though...

[One of the 99]

169. Great Post!!!

Too bad some are so blinded by their ideology that they fail to understand it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

174. We can all get along together if we shut the hell up and think the way Nance says to think.

I like the inclusiveness.

[Beausoir]

175. I'm gonna need a lot more

booze.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

180. I like the way you think.

The nice thing about the earth being round is that it's always happy hour somewhere.

[NanceGreggs]

188. What Nance thinks ...

... is that we should treat each other as fellow Dems, instead of as enemies based on labels.

Why is it that some people always take a call for unity as being told to shut up, or being told what to think?

[JoePhilly]

177. +100

[BlueCaliDem]

182. As always, an excellent post, Nance, but lost on those who can't see the bigger picture

because the world revolves around them and them alone, and that bigger picture is, the vast majority of people who choose to exercise their right to vote in this country and actually do so, aren't as far to the left as some posters on this message board demand they be. In fact, most are pretty much where President Obama and the Clintons are - left of center. It's why they, not people like Dennis Kucinich - or other Liberals of the past who ran in the primaries - win national elections.

[Douglas Carpenter]

187. As Chairman Mao once put it, "The people must speak freely and the reactionaries must be silenced."

[Vattel]

191. vapid

[zappaman]

192. The attacks on this thread are ridiculous.

Just pathetic.

[daredtowork]

193. Yet it seems to be the Third Way/DINOs, etc.

who are saying only their way can win, and EVERYONE ELSE is not even a Democrat if they don't toe the line.

[SMC22307]

195. Things slow over at Democrats for Progress?

Disagreement #1: Social Security is a huge component of the social safety net, and assists not just the "down-and-out." It's served middle-class families for decades, and all Democrats, especially those who identify as Third Wayers, better stand up to Republicans who wish to destroy New Deal programs.

Elizabeth Warren Calls Third Way 'Flatly Wrong' In Social Security Fight

I'm not making nice with "Democrats" who won't protect Social Security for all. Fuck that.

[Hekate]

196. Thanks for serving up a straw man so promptly. nt

[SMC22307]

201. "Economic Populism Is a Dead End for Democrats"

You agree with investment bankers' Third Way policy?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304337404579213923151169790

[NanceGreggs]

205. Actually, no, they're not.

And I'm wondering why you think that would be relevant.

Are the other sites that you post on slow today? Is that why you're here?

BTW, I think the "Third Wayer" accusation has gotten old, and extremely tiresome. Maybe you should come up with some new material, just to keep it interesting.

[RiverLover]

206. I think Third Wayers are getting old & tiresome~

The Democrats' 'Third Way' Quarrel Could Change Your Future

...One of this faction's key goals is to roll back three of the Democratic Party's signature achievements: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is a measure of their power and influence that they've been able to get so many Democratic politicians to support Social Security cuts when public opinion is so strongly against them. (This poll even shows that large majorities would pay more in payroll taxes in return for stronger Social Security benefits.)

In the words of a Latin phrase beloved by district attorneys everywhere, Cui bono? Who benefits?

There are only two populations in the United States who clearly stand to benefit from these cuts - high earners, who would avoid paying more taxes if the payroll tax cap is raised, and the Wall Street banks which would become even more profitable if they were able to manage more retirement funds.

Third Way is very much a creature of Wall Street (as is documented here.) Its banking connections help explain these positions. They also explain why the self-described "think tank" is constantly raising the alarm about Medicare costs without mentioning the recent slowdown in healthcare cost increases -- or, more tellingly, the negative effect private investors like those backing Third Way are having on our healthcare economy.

..."That Social Security plan was the final moment for us," said Kessler of Sen. Warren. "Final moment" is a telling turn of phrase. Polls show that the public wants more genuinely progressive policies than those it is receiving from the Democratic Party leadership. Sen. Warren's popularity seems like a harbinger of that party's potential moved to the left -- a move that would render the "have it both ways" cynicism of the Third Way crowd obsolete.

Economically they're already obsolete. The Clinton/Third Way/DLC ideology -- which typically markets itself as "centrism," even though its economic policies are far to the right of public opinion -- was thoroughly discredited by the financial crisis of 2008. That crisis was caused in large part by Wall Street deregulation which they pushed, and it exacerbated the growing wage inequality and loss of social mobility which has devastated middle class and lower-income Americans....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-democrats-third-way-q_b_4410394.html

[NanceGreggs]

209. I think that calling anyone who disagrees with you ...

... a "Third Wayer" is demonstrative of a need to use labels in lieu of contributing anything of substance to the political conversation.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

213. Just in time, *fresh* ideas from the New Democrat Coalition!

Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing

The Third Way isn't going anywhere, unfortunately. And you do know it's a *thing,* right? 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20036 at the Farragut North Metro.

Leaders at three centrist groups — the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the New Democrat Network (NDN) and Third Way — arranged a series of meetings with moderates after the disastrous midterm elections to "discuss the future of the party," according to a source close to the NDC.

Sucks for us that they didn't learn anything from the shellackings of 2010 and 2014.

[Hekate]

197. It's really good to have you back, Nance. So many posters are jumping right in to prove your point!

I'd laugh if it didn't hurt so much.

[NanceGreggs]

204. Thanks, Hekate ...

But I don't really consider myself "back". The DU I once felt a part of no longer exists.

And, yes, you're right - there are many who have taken the opportunity to prove my point.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't remember any of this labeling of Dems back in DU's heyday. I don't remember posters calling each other "Third Wayers", "ConservaDems", "DINOs", etc. There were no "purity tests" applied to fellow DUers, no discussion about where one stood on the political spectrum. We were all just "Democrats", or like-minded liberals/progressives who might not be party members, but who embraced the same ideals.

IMHO, this labeling BS was introduced to this site by outsiders who were looking to cause infighting and divisiveness among Dems - and, sad to say, many actual Dems jumped on their bandwagon. Mission accomplished.

As I just responded on another thread on this topic, there is no productive or meaningful discussion to be had amongst posters who are more interested in labels than they are in actually communicating with each other. Pigeon-holing everyone into neat little boxes will shut down real conversation in record time - which seems to be the goal, inadvertent or otherwise.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

212. When did "firebagger," "emoprog," "emotarian," poutragers"...

get introduced to DU? 2008 forward. All from Crap Blogs (Spandan, smartypants, et al.) introduced by select BOGers and cheered by bandwagon-jumping others. You left that "labeling BS" out in your post above.

[grasswire]

228. ! nt

[Marr]

235. +1

[Rex]

208. Very well done.

[NanceGreggs]

210. And I thank you for saying so. n/t

[Martin Eden]

218. Nance, you have good intentions but you are sadly mistaken.

You wrote:

We embrace all who have the same goals: political compromise that moves the nation forward rather than backward, diplomacy in foreign affairs over an immediate call for aggressive action, support of social safety nets that assist the down-and-out, support of legislation that ensures every individual’s right to vote, to marry who they love, to have their voices heard, along with a commitment to change what must be changed in order to see that those goals are not obstructed nor ignored.

Some of us are conservative on some issues; some of us are extremely liberal on the same issues. Some of us have a different perspective on how to achieve our commonly-held goals, but the goals themselves are common to us all.

Some of us see one potential candidate or another as representative of our own thoughts on how best to accomplish what we desire to be achieved. All of us want those accomplishments to be realized; we only differ as to how they are more expediently made reality.

Those who seek to divide Democrats by focusing on their differences rather than their commonality of purpose have an agenda – and that agenda only serves one purpose: divide and conquer. And that divide-and-conquer stance benefits only one party – the Republicans.

Nance,

The political compromise we've seen over the last 30 years has moved the goalposts steadily to the right. The Democratic Party is occupying much of the space of the old Republican Party, while the latter has moved to the extreme right. This steady rightward movement does not move our nation forward towards the goals we all ostensibly embrace -- it pushes some of the most critically important goals further out of reach. Progress in marriage equality is more than offset by collusion with Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and the National Security State. Today's Democratic Party has failed to lead the charge to reverse economic inequality; is not standing up against perpetual war; and is not actively trying to stop or reverse the overreach of intrusive government surveillance.

Our leading candidate for POTUS is not a champion for turning around the Democrat Party's steady movement in that direction. On the contrary; she epitomizes that movement with her Wall Street ties and hawkish record on foreign policy.

What is the purpose of the Democratic Party? If it is to move our country forward not backward, then meaningful change is imperative. We need a standard bearer who will reverse the steady rightward movement, not keep us on that course.

You could not possibly be more mistaken in your statement that those who oppose HRC have an agenda to divide and conquer, benefiting the Republicans.

We're not trying to divide the Democratic Party; we're trying to save it and keep it from being co-opted by the Plutocracy. If the rightward movement is not stopped, we all lose regardless of electoral outcomes

You may disagree about how HRC has been characterized, and you'd be correct in saying today's Republicans are worse. But when you accuse Democrats on the Left of having an agenda to "divide and conquer" the Democratic Party to benefit the Republicans, you are engaging in the kind of behavior you accuse others of in your OP.

[NanceGreggs]

223. The OP was not abut Hillary ...

... or any other politician.

I said nothing about "those who oppose HRC having an agenda to divide and conquer, benefiting the Republicans." Not even close.

I did not say a single word about "accusing Democrats on the Left of having an agenda to 'divide and conquer'."

But it was really thoughtful of you to compose an entire essay about things I didn't say

[Martin Eden]

237. I quoted you directly about "divide and conquer"

You explicitly stated that was the agenda. The only way you weren't directing that at Democrats on the Left is if your OP wasn't aimed at anyone on this board who isn't a rightwing plant.

If you come right out and state clearly your OP was entirely about forces outside the progressive/Democratic sphere of politics, then I will admit I misunderstood your post entirely. To be perfectly honest, I understood it as criticism of all the infighting that's going on within the "big tent" of the Democratic Party. Again, if it wasn't, I misunderstood you.

But if it was, please don't pretend that Hillary Clinton isn't the primary bone of contention around which most of the current infighting rages.

[NanceGreggs]

242. Think about it.

Who benefits when Democrats are encouraged to fight among themselves? Who benefits when Democrats are encouraged to see each other as enemies? Who benefits when Democrats talk about "purging" the party of leftists, centrists, moderates, etc.?

Hint: It's NOT the Democratic Party.

This site has become infested with RW trolls. They agitate, they provoke infighting, they have nothing positive to say about any Democrat. Everything wrong in the world is Obama's fault, Pelosi's fault, Reid's fault, etc. Nothing is ever the fault of Republicans.

They host groups, they sit on juries. And sadly, they have enthusiastic followers among the easily-manipulated here - and there are many who fall into that category.

Better Believe It was the perfect case in point. Many of us saw him for who he was from the beginning - but we were told by his many fans that he was a "great progressive voice", and his constant attacks on Democrats were merely representative of the disappointment towards the Party that many were feeling. Three years and 18,000 posts later, he finally outed himself as a RWer, who had been posting RW talking points under the guise of being just another "disappointed Dem" who wanted to "take his party back" from the clutches of "the party PTB who were "selling out their fellow Democrats" to "Wall Street", "the corporations", and the "1%". Sound familiar?

Just look at the threads here on any given day. There are more attacks on Democrats than there are Republicans. There are more attacks on fellow DUers than there are on members of the GOP.

One by one, Dems who were held in high regard here are thrown under the bus. And the easily-led jump on the bandwagon the minute they see their DU friends do so. Posters are encouraged to identify themselves as part of smaller and smaller factions: FDR Dems, far left Dems, LBJ Dems, the Warren-wing Dems, the Democratic wing of the Party dems - divide and conquer. And amazingly enough, these posters actually talk about ridding the Party of those who don't pass their purity tests. Seriously now, who benefits from the Dem Party actually being smaller, with less voters and supporters? And these people have actually convinced themselves that if they purge everyone from the party they don't like - large swaths of people - they can get their candidates-of-choice elected with absolute ease.

The fact that any call for civility or - heaven forefend, actual unity - is met with "don't tell me to STFU, don't tell me what to think," etc. - when many of those posters are literally being manipulated day in and day out by the RWers they've come to accept as "true progressives", simply because they know which "buzz words" to use as bait to fish in the sheep.

I was here during the 2008 primaries, and we fought like rabid dogs: the Obama people, the Clinton people, the Edwards people, the Biden people. But no one ever called someone in another candidate camp a "non progressive, a centrist, a DINO, a ConservaDem." No one questioned another's Dem credentials on the basis of which candidate they supported. Now take a look around - the incessant labeling and name-calling has far overshadowed the issues we should be discussing. If you're for Clinton, you're a Third Wayer; if you're for Warren, you're too far left to be taken seriously; if you're for Sanders, you're a lefty extremist. And on it goes.

Again, who benefits from Democrats being at each other's throats - especially in the lead-up to a presidential election? Who benefits from a "Democratic-supporting website" being so entrenched in vitriol, posters are leaving every day?

DU is rapidly becoming Discussionist. The TOS means nothing, rules that used to keep out disruptors are rarely enforced, juries hide posts based on who is part of their "group" and who isn't, and RW propaganda is spewed by trolls posing as "disappointed Dems".

It breaks my heart. DU was my virtual home for many, many years. I argued with fellow Dems here; I debated with them, I discussed important issues with them, I learned from them, I laughed with them, I cried with them. But there was never a question that we were all Democrats with common goals, and even the most heated arguments were about issues, and not about where a poster stood on the left-right spectrum of the Democratic Party.

Now it's just another generic political message board where anti-Dem rhetoric is applauded as "true progressive/liberal" idealism, and being part of one clique or another matters far more than anything else.

My OP wasn't about leftists, progressives, moderates, centrists. It wasn't about Hillary, or Warren, or Sanders. It was about DU and what it's become. My only consolation is that what I see on DU is no longer representative of the Democratic Party. The Big Tent still exists, and all who want to move the country towards true equality, liberty and a better life for all citizens are still welcomed with open arms.

[Martin Eden]

243. Thank you for that long and thoughtful post

I really do appreciate you taking the time to express and clarify your views.

I did not know DU was so thoroughly infested with RW trolls who can post for years and gain followers without being outed and tombstoned.

Nevertheless I still have doubts it's as pervasive as you describe, and it's very hard for me to believe the notion that so many of the prevailing views expressed by lifelong progressives such as myself are the product of RW instigation. Perhaps some of the incivility, but not what we see and understand with our own eyes and minds -- that the political goalposts in this country have been moving steadily to the right for decades and the Democratic Party has moved along with it.

Corporate money is supplanting representative democracy, and both parties are caught up in an inherently corrupt electoral process. If the American people through the Democratic Party do not produce and elect leaders whose mission it is to change this course, participation within the established political process will be increasingly meaningless and ineffective.

You did not address that at all in your post, perhaps because you consider it off-topic. But it cannot be ignored. As much as it breaks your heart to see what DU has devolved into (I was brought here in 2002 by my good friend Scubadude, who has since left this site) it is orders of magnitude more heartbreaking to see what our country and the Democratic Party is devolving into. We are passionate about substantive change that is critically needed to improve the lives of real people. Eventually we get to the point and yell Enough! -- no more status quo! To dismiss this as a "purity test" or the influence of RW trolls is IMHO unfair, untrue, and divisive.

We want the same things, though we may disagree as to how on earth they can be achieved. Frustration reaches the boiling point. Life (what we see on the news) imitates art in the theater of the absurd, the ignorant, and the cruel. The Democratic Underground has some value as a source of information, but notsomuch as a tool for effecting change. Nor, with increasing evidence, is it a community of mutual respect in which disagreement in the discussion of ideas benefits the participants by increasing understanding through exposure of diverse experience and views. It's more of a contentious battleground, but not entirely without good people interested in honest interaction.

Yes, we have to find a way to work together or we will accomplish nothing. A great man once said A House divided against itself cannot stand. This not only applies to DU; we see it at the national level across the entire spectrum. The American people as a whole are in bitterly divided camps because, I believe, the Powers That Be want it that way and have engineered it. A People divided against themselves cannot stand together for their own common interests. While the Left and Right are at each others throats, the Plutocracy further consolidates their grip on wealth and power.

You see in DU a microcosm of that larger paradigm, and on that I think we mostly agree.

[NanceGreggs]

246. And now it is my turn ...

... to thank you for your thoughtful response. However, we will have to agree to disagree.

"... it's very hard for me to believe the notion that so many of the prevailing views expressed by lifelong progressives such as myself are the product of RW instigation."

In 2009, I believe it was, Skinner announced a change to the TOS. What had always been "constructive criticism of Dems is acceptable on DU" was changed to "any and all criticism of Dems is now acceptable."

The floodgates were then opened, and RWers signed up in droves - in the same way Democrats would have signed up at FreeRepublic, had they announced that "any and all criticism" of Bush, Cheney, et al were permissable during that administration.

The trolls announced their sudden presence on DU by stating they had been staunch Obama supporters, but had now realized they had been misled. They proclaimed their "disappointment" in Obama, and that statement alone led to their being welcomed by many here as "fellow true progressives" who were also unhappy with Obama. It was a hail-fellow-well-met moment - a classic example of thinking that anyone who declared their "disappointment" was one of their own.

(You will notice that new DU registrants no longer bother with explanations about how they came to be "disappointed" - they simply begin with Obama/Dem-bashing from their first post.)

That is how posters like Better Believe It were immediately embraced as a "fellow progressive", i.e. - you don't like Obama? Neither do I! We must be on the same political page!

As I've said, there are many here who are easily manipulated. I have seen posters literally change their opinion on major issues from one thread to another, ever cognizant of what "everyone else is thinking" instead of thinking for themselves. That is simply the way of the world in internet message board terms - people having to see what those who they identify with have to say, and jumping on the bandwagon along with them.

I do not see DU as a microcosm of anything more than that kind of mindset. It is certainly not representative of Democrats in RL - and, sad to say, in its earliest days, DU was exactly that.

When I see buzz words like "the PTB", or "the Party has moved to the right", "the plutocracy", etc., I am reminded of just how disconnected DU has become from on-the-ground reality. The accomplishments of this president and the Party have been progressive/liberal in the extreme - from healthcare reform to a recognition of LGBT rights, and everything in between. If anything, the goalposts have been moved further towards liberal ideals, rather than away from them. And the Democrats, as always, have led the way.

So despite the fact that we disagree, I have nonetheless enjoyed this exchange - which we have managed to engage in without labeling each other, without name-calling, and without spewing vitriol at each other despite our differences of opinion.

[Bobbie Jo]

245. Bra-Fucking-Vo!

Damn, Ms. Greggs, you just nailed that shit to the door!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Marr]

224. You should be directing this at Hillary fans and other "moderates".

They're the ones with a record of abandoning the party when they don't get their way.

[NanceGreggs]

226. And here we go again, folks.

The Label-maker is wielded yet again!

But just on the one point: It's hard to take seriously the notion that "Hillary fans and other moderates" are the ones who abandon the party when they don't get their own way.

We've been seen many posts from those who "will not vote for Hillary if she is the Dem candidate". Exactly how many Hillary supporters have you seen declare that they won't vote for the Democratic candidate if that candidate turns out to be Warren, or Sanders - or anyone else other than HRC?

[Marr]

230. You're comparing a few posts on DU to actual elections.

Self-described "moderates" have repeatedly proven themselves to be unreliable voters. They peel away and go right back to the Republicans when they don't get their way, or when they just get bored.

[NanceGreggs]

231. Yeah, okay. Whatever. n/t

[Marr]

233. It's true. No one says "Centrists" aren't welcome to vote Democratic.

It's their insistence that they be in charge of the party that so many disagree with. Right now we're seeing lots of these calls for solidarity from centrists, because they assume their darling is going to be the candidate. If she isn't, I expect a lot of Hillary fans will do what they did last time Hillary lost a primary-- the same thing the party establishment did when it had to choose between Lieberman and Lamont; they'll give the party the finger.

[BainsBane]

234. Self-desecribed moderates

are not who you are talking about though. You are talking bout people you have labeled moderate because they don't share your antipathy toward a single member of the political elite.

2008 had the largest voter turnout in quite a while, so your assumption is not backed up by polling data. Conversely, we have people who claim to be "left" (something I question), who proudly announced they were not voting in 2014, which had low voter turnout. Those posts combined with polling data refute your assertion.

[whereisjustice]

229. Moderates would rather have a Republican president than compromise with liberals eom

[Marr]

232. Yep-- and it's not surprising. They are, by definition, barely Democrats.

They flit right back to the Republican party when they appear to be winning, or they have a flashier candidate, or they promise $1 more in tax cuts. Self-described "centrists" are welcome on the boat of course, but why they feel entitled to steering the fucking thing is beyond me.

[NanceGreggs]

236. ...

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here, and pretend you were actually trying to be funny.