Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:20 AM Mar 2015

DC Centrists (DINOS - which are about 99% of them) Freak Out Over Elizabeth Warren

. . .

As the Democratic caucuses in Congress have shrunk, and as Warren’s influence has grown, the elite’s anxiety over her rise has become almost palpable. I’ve lost track of the number of times one centrist pundit or another has called her the Ted Cruz of the left (which is never intended as a compliment). It was just this week, in fact, that a new group of “centrist” Democrats, “The New Democrat Coalition,” announced its plans to keep control of the party out of Warren’s hands. It’s all very predictable; but if you’re familiar with Warren’s views and her record, it simply doesn’t make sense.

By way of illustration, take a look at the new profile of Warren published this week in Politico Magazine, which is hardly a hotbed of doctrinaire liberalism. Written by Glenn Thrush and Manu Raju, the piece bears most of the hallmarks of the Politico style, for better and worse. At no point during its thousands of words do Warren’s policy views get any more than the most cursory attention, and the only new information it provides is essentially gossip. (Former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Warren during her 2012 Senate bid because she has been mean to his banker buddies, for example.) But what’s most interesting about the piece is that even here, in the unofficial flagship magazine of elite Washington, the fundamentally non-radical approach Warren takes to politics is crystal clear.

Indeed, what we see Warren doing in the piece more than anything else is playing politics by the traditional means. Before her star-making performance as an overseer of the Wall Street bailouts, she spends years quietly but consistently building contacts in Washington and making powerful friends. When the White House decides it won’t go to bat for her to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she largely created, she doesn’t rail against them in the press or demand it appoint a radical in her stead. When Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid offers her a spot on the leadership team, she happily takes it, hoping to prove to anybody watching that she’s a “team player.” Hell, according to Politico, she’s even trying to find ways to compromise with Republicans in the Senate!

Given all of the above, reasonable person might ask why Matt Bai’s Washington finds Warren so threatening nevertheless. I’m not a mind-reader, of course, but I can offer two theories. The first and most obvious reason is that Washington is, to put it gently, a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably thanks to Wall Street. Maybe they’re lobbyists; maybe they work in free-market think tanks; maybe they’re employed by the defense industry, which benefits greatly from Wall Street’s largesse. Or maybe they’re government bureaucrats who find Warren’s opposition to the “revolving door” to be in profound conflict with their future plans.


THE REST OF THE STORY:

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/elizabeth_warren_causes_dc_freakout_why_the_liberal_hero_has_elite_washington_in_hysterics/
223 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DC Centrists (DINOS - which are about 99% of them) Freak Out Over Elizabeth Warren (Original Post) Triana Mar 2015 OP
The Statement (DINO, 'real Democrats,' etc.) Is Nonsense... wyldwolf Mar 2015 #1
Um, no. blackspade Mar 2015 #12
Um, yes wyldwolf Mar 2015 #14
Then say hello to Pres. Bush. We have one party dedicated to screwing working families, why have 2? whereisjustice Mar 2015 #20
No thanks. And here's why wyldwolf Mar 2015 #24
LOL. Enjoy your Bush. Once there was a guy who promised to walk with unions, end NSA spying, public whereisjustice Mar 2015 #27
^^^ Another example of the alternate universe 'progressives' live in ^^^ wyldwolf Mar 2015 #29
Only a right winger posing as Democrat would call police brutality and racism "liberal" issues whereisjustice Mar 2015 #31
You're a right winger posing as a Democrat? Shhh. Don't brag about it wyldwolf Mar 2015 #33
There's no mistake about who's the wing nut. And it's not me. whereisjustice Mar 2015 #39
It's definitely you. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #42
True he sticks out like a sore thumb. Rex Mar 2015 #71
I think this journalist knows him! RiverLover Mar 2015 #172
Always has. n/t QC Mar 2015 #189
Never even notice him until right after the Nov. 4th elections. Rex Mar 2015 #190
He disappears for years at a time and then shows up suddenly QC Mar 2015 #194
OOooohhh I C now. Rex Mar 2015 #197
No problem! n/t QC Mar 2015 #199
Center-right wing. Sadly we have some of those in the party. Rex Mar 2015 #37
Center right? More like full starboard. They come here from Fox to taunt liberals. whereisjustice Mar 2015 #41
I think you are right, they don't even hide or pretend they are progressives Rex Mar 2015 #45
Like small children without an adult to supervise them whereisjustice Mar 2015 #50
True, I guess they are enjoying Spring Break. Rex Mar 2015 #53
They come here from FOX disguised as liberals. But we can see through you. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #46
I assure you nobody on this site would accuse you of being a liberal or progressive. Rex Mar 2015 #51
Shows the incredible information perception you have. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #54
Coherent sentence much? Rex Mar 2015 #62
irrelevant reply much? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #68
Yes, they hijack the party and move it right. Broward Mar 2015 #147
Congratulations, and join the club of REAL Democrats around here (like me) being called... George II Mar 2015 #104
The thing is... wyldwolf Mar 2015 #107
"DU has become a cesspool of keyboard slacktivists" Rex Mar 2015 #109
Glad you've admitted you're one of them. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #112
So you admit to it then!? Rex Mar 2015 #114
I admit I'm glad you've admitted to being one. yes! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #121
About time you admit to it! Rex Mar 2015 #126
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #132
Nice projection there! Now I feel a great amount of pity for you. Rex Mar 2015 #152
You've mastered the Pee Wee Herman method of conversation. Congrats! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #158
I know you are but what am I? Rex Mar 2015 #163
I rest my case. You do it without even thinking. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #168
Yes flee like a coward. Rex Mar 2015 #177
Right. They can't make us into right wingers by continually saying so treestar Mar 2015 #180
Center right-wingers seem to be running around with their hair on fire! Rex Mar 2015 #186
But, at least you haven't been call the most evilest of invectives ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #183
Yes that big evil Third Way...I've never seen such poutrage over talking about neoliberals! Rex Mar 2015 #188
No, I typically laugh at it. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #204
Not yet. George II Mar 2015 #207
+1 zeemike Mar 2015 #48
Interesting that people think ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #195
The left? blackspade Mar 2015 #23
Which is irrelevant to the hysterically WRONG use of 'DINO.' wyldwolf Mar 2015 #25
In what way? blackspade Mar 2015 #26
hyperbole much? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #28
That is funny. blackspade Mar 2015 #38
The explain the history to me wyldwolf Mar 2015 #44
Professor is supposed to be some kind of insult? blackspade Mar 2015 #52
Teacher? Sage? Give us that history lesson wyldwolf Mar 2015 #55
I like teacher and sage as well. blackspade Mar 2015 #63
Your second reply and you still avoid answering. LOL. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #65
Your powers of projection are stellar. blackspade Mar 2015 #76
Your powers of irrelevancy and diversion are stellar. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #80
Those words, They don't mean what you think they mean. blackspade Mar 2015 #167
The power of triangulation. zeemike Mar 2015 #58
the hysterics of your irrelevant reply wyldwolf Mar 2015 #72
Well if you don't want an answer you should not ask the question. zeemike Mar 2015 #185
He is so cute using a big boy word over and over! Rex Mar 2015 #92
Every "progressive" candidate? I won't get into the Senate and House, not enough time, but A Simple Game Mar 2015 #200
Easy. Progressive candidates don't lie to the voters. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #202
lol, wait a minute-- Marr Mar 2015 #56
What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters wyldwolf Mar 2015 #59
No, sorry. Public polling has consistently shown broad and strong support for Marr Mar 2015 #84
We're not discussing 'public polling.' wyldwolf Mar 2015 #85
You just seem to be trolling, so I'm done. /nt Marr Mar 2015 #89
Facts annoy you, I understand. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #101
Yep, exactly. Rex Mar 2015 #193
Ha! I think I will, too. Marr Mar 2015 #209
Good post. cyberswede Mar 2015 #175
"The Left" you know, those of us who get pissed off when 6 cops can't handle an unarmed suspect whereisjustice Mar 2015 #30
+1000 blackspade Mar 2015 #40
Brilliant post. RiverLover Mar 2015 #116
Thanks! blackspade Mar 2015 #171
It's also pushed by the right ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #161
Thanks... +1... PosterChild Mar 2015 #21
Bull - Wallace was nominated overwhelmingly by the Delegates in the first round of voting Hestia Mar 2015 #157
Wallace left and ran third party for President. Read a history book. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #162
Excellent rejoinder. blackspade Mar 2015 #191
Nonsense, and offensive, and the subject line is itching for an argument! George II Mar 2015 #178
It's All About Money billhicks76 Mar 2015 #220
"(DC) is a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably thanks to Wall Street" RiverLover Mar 2015 #2
That was the part that nailed 'em. Triana Mar 2015 #8
Completely agree. Crooks can't go around letting reformists lead - too much money in graft. closeupready Mar 2015 #79
That is it exactly. It is the efforts of Wall St combined with the demands of the shareholders. raouldukelives Mar 2015 #88
Perhaps it is the backers of Warren who are the DINO's are freaking out. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #3
One of the commenters fredamae Mar 2015 #4
Yes, funded by the same oligarchs MsLeopard Mar 2015 #18
The leadership alone controls? treestar Mar 2015 #36
I kinda see it a bit differently fredamae Mar 2015 #66
They would not get re-elected treestar Mar 2015 #117
I believe we are seeing the fredamae Mar 2015 #187
Great post! +1 RiverLover Mar 2015 #192
+1 Jamaal510 Mar 2015 #215
K&R.... daleanime Mar 2015 #5
Interesting article, would you please post this in the Elizabeth Warren Group? Autumn Mar 2015 #6
When they call themselves the 'New Democrat Coalition'.... blackspade Mar 2015 #7
Exactly. Pfft. n/t Triana Mar 2015 #9
Wow! A Point that fredamae Mar 2015 #19
Hey Triana, RiverLover Mar 2015 #10
DONE! n/t Triana Mar 2015 #11
Awesome! RiverLover Mar 2015 #13
She is a threat to their income / payola / campaign money. L0oniX Mar 2015 #15
Bill Moyers is no longer the lone wolf on this issue. Love it! RiverLover Mar 2015 #16
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Enthusiast Mar 2015 #17
The New Democrats want your vote but refuse to represent, they feel they are entitled to your cash whereisjustice Mar 2015 #22
K&R for pissing off all the right people! Rex Mar 2015 #32
Fascinating how quickly they jump in, isn't it? Almost as if they receive some sort of signal. RufusTFirefly Mar 2015 #67
LOL! Rex Mar 2015 #108
Warren is not a threat except in the sense treestar Mar 2015 #34
^^ This ^^ wyldwolf Mar 2015 #35
you think only wall street CEOs should select a candidate, don't people get to choose? whereisjustice Mar 2015 #43
That's what we have primaries for wyldwolf Mar 2015 #47
Just like when HRC beat Obama with a wide lead...oh right Rex Mar 2015 #49
But Obama wasn't a 'progressive.' Obama: 'I am a New Democrat' wyldwolf Mar 2015 #57
Reality is he ran on a liberal platform to get voted into office. Rex Mar 2015 #60
How so? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #61
Coherent sentence much? Rex Mar 2015 #64
irrelevant reply much? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #69
avoidance of question much? wyldwolf Mar 2015 #70
Aww did I hurt it's feelings? Rex Mar 2015 #73
And you sink further into irrelevancy wyldwolf Mar 2015 #82
Wow you can use a big boy word a few times! Rex Mar 2015 #91
And you can be irrelevant consistently wyldwolf Mar 2015 #94
Awww I hurt it's little feelings! Rex Mar 2015 #95
Awww! I hurt it's little feelings! wyldwolf Mar 2015 #125
+1 treestar Mar 2015 #129
Why would you think that? treestar Mar 2015 #128
Center right-wingers seem to be running around with their hair on fire! Rex Mar 2015 #134
Now your replies are getting identical lol treestar Mar 2015 #149
You're just being unpleasant treestar Mar 2015 #124
Center right-wingers seem to be running around with their hair on fire! Rex Mar 2015 #130
Nonresponsive treestar Mar 2015 #136
Rex is good at posting irrelevant replies. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #140
It seems to be a hobby. eom treestar Mar 2015 #145
Exactly. Rex wants one appointed because one can't win electorally. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #137
Dream on. You just want your pony in the race and nobody elses, because you hate democracy. Rex Mar 2015 #170
Wow are you projecting ConservativeDemocrat Mar 2015 #221
That's the stinkiest pile of bull hockey posted lately. berni_mccoy Mar 2015 #74
Another centrist-right winger shows up to tell me I am wrong. Rex Mar 2015 #78
I would never do such a thing. berni_mccoy Mar 2015 #83
You should stop trying to read minds, you suck at it. Rex Mar 2015 #93
Of course you're right. Marr Mar 2015 #97
Shhhhh....reality and facts bother the center-right wing of the party. Rex Mar 2015 #106
True those claiming to be "betrayed" are not credible unless they treestar Mar 2015 #154
oh he ran from to the left in the primaries hfojvt Mar 2015 #205
Stop playing the victim treestar Mar 2015 #122
Aww did you get a sadz? Rex Mar 2015 #138
I'm not pissed off treestar Mar 2015 #142
Obviously you are irate, nobody asked you to chime in here. Rex Mar 2015 #150
I said I wasn't treestar Mar 2015 #160
Obviously you are very irate now. Rex Mar 2015 #165
This is really silly treestar Mar 2015 #173
Don't be annoyed at the fact that you are irate, just get it out of your system. Rex Mar 2015 #184
You're looking dumber and dumber treestar Mar 2015 #211
+1 treestar Mar 2015 #120
How did you extrapolate that from what I posted? treestar Mar 2015 #118
As a resident DINO (in many people's eyes) let me just say: your opinion doesn't matter brooklynite Mar 2015 #75
In that case, the "New Democrat Coalition" sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #182
...but the left WILL vote... brooklynite Mar 2015 #206
.++ KNR DirkGently Mar 2015 #77
You are correct as evidence keeps popping up in this thread! Rex Mar 2015 #81
you've certainly shown evidence wyldwolf Mar 2015 #87
Thank you for continuing to show your hatred for liberals and progressives! Rex Mar 2015 #90
Thank you for continuing to show your lack of knowledge wyldwolf Mar 2015 #98
See post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #99
See post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #102
So post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #110
"So" post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #113
See post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #115
See post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #119
See post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #123
See post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #127
See post #90 Rex Mar 2015 #131
See post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #133
See post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #139
See post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #141
See post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #144
See post #1 wyldwolf Mar 2015 #148
See post # 90 Rex Mar 2015 #156
Actually, it's not hatred. It's arrogance RufusTFirefly Mar 2015 #105
Well said! Rex Mar 2015 #111
When is that going to translate into votes? treestar Mar 2015 #164
The victim card again? treestar Mar 2015 #135
Repeat yourself much? You can take your center-right wing issues up with somebody that cares. Rex Mar 2015 #143
If I am repeating myself you are a pot calling the kettle black treestar Mar 2015 #151
Sure ya don't - you just never seem to notice things when it is inconvenient. Rex Mar 2015 #155
Meaningless. eom treestar Mar 2015 #166
Thank you for describing all your posts to me. Rex Mar 2015 #174
You know I intended to describe your posts treestar Mar 2015 #212
I actually have a theory about that wyldwolf Mar 2015 #146
They really want to lose so they have something to fight for. Rex Mar 2015 #159
+1 treestar Mar 2015 #169
She might actually behave like a real Democrat and fight for the middle class. We can't have that. GoneFishin Mar 2015 #86
Why does she refuse to run for President then? treestar Mar 2015 #176
Let's go people! Demand more from your representatives, don't sit back and let Wall Street whereisjustice Mar 2015 #96
Hillary is the ultimate "Not as Bad", neo-lib, politician. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #100
Ultimately, the election will be decided by something truly substantive RufusTFirefly Mar 2015 #153
If I were Democratic candidate, I'd run to a theater to see "American Sniper" Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2015 #217
Both Suck MosheFeingold Mar 2015 #198
Some people write because if they aren't stirring the pot... Historic NY Mar 2015 #103
As with other people of integrity and conviction, she would have a difficult time TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #179
There should be no more playing nice with these Democratic impostors. Broward Mar 2015 #181
I've been calling the DINOs part of the "Uniparty" MosheFeingold Mar 2015 #196
The problem with this framing is the fact that the largest caucus within the Democratic Party in Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #201
Interesting discussion there, well put. One word of caution in today's DU environment - DUCK!!! George II Mar 2015 #210
+1 Jamaal510 Mar 2015 #216
Another great post from you in what has to quite possibly be the dumbest most embarassing thread Number23 Mar 2015 #218
She talks about it pretty openly in her book. Bugenhagen Mar 2015 #223
Warren is a treasure for our party and nation. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #203
Here's an interesting development that should irk all those anti-"corporatists", etc..... George II Mar 2015 #208
K&R DeSwiss Mar 2015 #213
Kick (and to the thread in general, LBJ was a New Deal Democrat) Babel_17 Mar 2015 #214
When GREED rules all... nikto Mar 2015 #219
pretending to be morally pure. stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #222

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
1. The Statement (DINO, 'real Democrats,' etc.) Is Nonsense...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:29 AM
Mar 2015

... And On Several Levels. The terms bear very little relation with the actual states and history of the Democratic Party. The faction of the Democratic Party you appear to be aligned with 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.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
14. Um, yes
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:52 AM
Mar 2015

What is this 'dino' thing based on? Is it your belief the Democratic party is some oppressed minority that's been overun by pretenders? That theory is one the most politically and historically naive things the left pushes.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
24. No thanks. And here's why
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:37 AM
Mar 2015

There's precedent for Democrats like Clinton beating Republicans in national elections. There's precedent for 'progressives' like Warren and Sanders LOSING national elections to Republicans.

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
27. LOL. Enjoy your Bush. Once there was a guy who promised to walk with unions, end NSA spying, public
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:49 AM
Mar 2015

health option, on and on. Then, the DINO conservatives decided it would be best to take a giant shit on those who fought for those same values.

Instead of fighting for working families, conservatives in both parties are looking past the issues crippling opportunity and justice in the US. Instead of coming down hard on corporate abusers, municipal corruption, racism, police brutality, the Democratic Party looked away, not wanting to arouse suspicion of concern from Wall Street benefactors.

So, it isn't enough that right wingers threaten from the Republicans, right wingers threaten from the Democratic side.

Either start representing minorities, the non-rich, the environment and working people, or lose with Hillary.

Of course, being a right winger it really doesn't matter to you if Jeb gets elected, beneath it all, does it?







wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
29. ^^^ Another example of the alternate universe 'progressives' live in ^^^
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:50 AM
Mar 2015

Of course, you being a DINO, I don't expect you to see what a bubble you live in.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
172. I think this journalist knows him!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:19 PM
Mar 2015
...One way in which certain pundits sidestep this paralyzing objection is to insist that, if you read the fine print, Obama never really promised to do awesome big things in the first place. Therefore, expecting him to do awesome big things is a category error, as awesomeness simply wasn’t in his contract. This species of rationalization is so sweeping that one could use it to get George W. Bush himself off the hook. And that, I suspect, is largely the point: The main thing at stake here isn’t the reputation of the defended president at all, but rather the clear-eyed shrewdness of the pundit making the argument. Unlike the suckers who bought the Obama sales pitch back in ’08, he wasn’t fooled and, like all good courtiers of our new millennial Versailles, he knows never to take politicians seriously....

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpedoed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wall_street/
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
190. Never even notice him until right after the Nov. 4th elections.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:27 PM
Mar 2015

He came in here shouting at liberals and calling them all sorts of names.

QC

(26,371 posts)
194. He disappears for years at a time and then shows up suddenly
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:32 PM
Mar 2015

when there's a chance to fight, like during primary season.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
45. I think you are right, they don't even hide or pretend they are progressives
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:05 AM
Mar 2015

and say so in their posts.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
53. True, I guess they are enjoying Spring Break.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:13 AM
Mar 2015

While all the other kids go out and play, they sit on daddy's PC and get kicks out of annoying adults.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
51. I assure you nobody on this site would accuse you of being a liberal or progressive.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:13 AM
Mar 2015

You've even said so yourself.

Broward

(1,976 posts)
147. Yes, they hijack the party and move it right.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:13 PM
Mar 2015

Then, they accuse you of not being a Dem because you oppose the rightward shift. Funny how that works. They are right wingers disguised as Dems. Until we wrest the Party from them, we're screwed.

George II

(67,782 posts)
104. Congratulations, and join the club of REAL Democrats around here (like me) being called...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:48 AM
Mar 2015

...a "conservative". This crowd here has really grown nasty and offensive.

Just earlier today I too was called a "conservative".

In the last week or two I've been called "anti-woman" because I support Hillary Clinton instead of Elizabeth Warren. I've been called anti-Semitic because I don't support Bernie Sanders. I've been called "anti-gay" because I don't like the way Glenn Greenwald operates, etc.

This isn't too far from being called "DINO" because we don't fall on our faces and support the candidate(s) that the accusers support.

It's ridiculous, and getting very disturbing.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
107. The thing is...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:54 AM
Mar 2015

Apparently no one who runs DU thinks it's disturbing or distasteful. DU has become a cesspool of keyboard slacktivists - the left's version of juvenile Ayn Randians.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
109. "DU has become a cesspool of keyboard slacktivists"
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:56 AM
Mar 2015

Yes and we wish you and your little merry band of travelers would stop. Nice try at pretending it is someone else!

Response to Rex (Reply #126)

treestar

(82,383 posts)
180. Right. They can't make us into right wingers by continually saying so
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:22 PM
Mar 2015

Real right wingers exist to contradict that.

It's like they are blaming us for the party not being progressive enough for their tastes, which means that they are just mad that we don't share their opinions. And this kind of name calling is supposed to get us to support their candidate? Dumb.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
186. Center right-wingers seem to be running around with their hair on fire!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

Oh no!? Does that correct description bother you two that much!? Maybe try not to be so center-right wing so much then. Simple.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
188. Yes that big evil Third Way...I've never seen such poutrage over talking about neoliberals!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:26 PM
Mar 2015

You would think someone was nervous about it.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
195. Interesting that people think ...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:33 PM
Mar 2015

HRC will result in a bush Presidency.

Correct me if I am wrong but the thought seems to be:

A Warren or Sanders nomination will pull the Democratic base + liberals/progressives, and will result in a Warren or Sanders win; but, a HRC nomination will pull the Democratic base + liberals/progressives (because all "non-DINOs" swear that they always vote for the Democratic nominee), will result in a HRC loss?!?

I suspect the "Non-DINOs" are broadcasting their intentions.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
23. The left?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:37 AM
Mar 2015

Ha. That's rich.
What you think of the as the 'left' are just mainstream Democrats that want a return to the FDR era policies that made this nation thrive.
What is naive is the idea that the right leaning centrists and their corporate puppet masters are interested in an egalitarian democracy.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
26. In what way?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:44 AM
Mar 2015

Are you saying that the corporate controlled right leaning centrists that control the Democratic Party are actually New Dealers?
Is that why you object to the return to FDR era policies?

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
28. hyperbole much?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:49 AM
Mar 2015
Is that why you object to the return to FDR era policies?

Who said that?

Are you saying that the corporate controlled right leaning centrists that control the Democratic Party are actually New Dealers?

Irrelevant. To agree with your statement would mean anything other than 'New Dealers' are not real Democrats, which is ridiculous.

Your reverence to the FDR era is just one of the ways your perception of party history is wrong. That era only realistically existed for 25 years - a drip in the bucket of Democratic party history.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
38. That is funny.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:01 AM
Mar 2015

Your understanding of Democratic Party history is obviously a bit soft.
And reverence for FDR era policies? Damn fucking skippy.
The New Deal policies that made us a thriving nation from the 40s to 1980 have been systematically dismantled by rethugs and their enablers in the Democratic Party.
It was our party that destroyed one of the last and strongest backstops to corporate greed by repealing the Glass-Stegal act. Now even 'centrist' democrats are on board with cutting Social Security and the rest of the social safety net....

So, what other kinds of Democrats are you speaking of?
Obviously not the ones interested in a liberal democracy and social justice, with strong union representation, strong financial and corporate regulations, and progressive taxation.
So, again, what Democrats are you referring to?

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
44. The explain the history to me
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:04 AM
Mar 2015

Explain to me how every 'progressive' candidate either loses national elections in landslides or never gets out of the primaries.

Waiting for you, Professor.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
58. The power of triangulation.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:17 AM
Mar 2015

That's the answer, it is a really simple game...one that has been played on us in the past and will be played again until we get it...if we ever do.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
200. Every "progressive" candidate? I won't get into the Senate and House, not enough time, but
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:40 PM
Mar 2015

are you talking about people like Presidents Roosevelt, Ted and Frank? Then that Truman fellow. How about President Eisenhower by today's standards he was pretty liberal wasn't he? Then there was that Kennedy fellow that was President for a short while. After Kennedy was President Johnson, I doubt many call him a conservative. If you forget the part about being a crook Nixon was at least a moderate along with President Ford. Then my personal favorite, President Carter. OK after that, not so much but as far as I can see your every 'progressive' candidate loses bucket seems to have a hole in it.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
202. Easy. Progressive candidates don't lie to the voters.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:41 PM
Mar 2015

Those in the 'center' are far more willing to use rhetoric that doesn't accurately represent how they intend to actually act in office, so they trick lefties into voting for them, which, along with their votes from the centrists, allow them to get past the lefties in primaries. That, and, of course, the fact that big money loves it some centrist candidates, so the money goes with the more rightward candidates.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
56. lol, wait a minute--
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:16 AM
Mar 2015

Are you saying that, because the Democratic Party has been in the hands of right-of-center corporate infiltrators for so long, they are, by definition "Democrats"?

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
59. What is repudiated at the polls by the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic voters
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:19 AM
Mar 2015

... is not the Democratic party.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
84. No, sorry. Public polling has consistently shown broad and strong support for
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:33 AM
Mar 2015

traditional liberal policies. That's just true. It's why Obama won so handily-- especially the first time around. Whatever you may think of his actual politics, he speaks like a traditional Democrat on the campaign trail.

Our well-to-the-right-of-center "New Democrats" are pushing to cut traditional liberal policies. They are unabashedly Republican on fiscal issues-- and proudly embrace the word "conservative". And they do not, contrary to your assertions, do so great at the polls either. The Blue Dogs were trounced in the last elections, for instance-- and just about every other loss we've seen in the last 20 years (and there have been many) can be laid squarely at the feet of the conservative Democrats who were in control of the party.

DINOs have done as well as they have because of massive Wall Street/big business funding and cynical triangulation politics. That's it. The public does not cheer for Third Way policy. It just doesn't.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
193. Yep, exactly.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:32 PM
Mar 2015

And tag teaming with a few buddies. Funny watching them implode over the term 'center-right wing' after years and years of them liberal bashing!

I think I will use that term from now on to describe our Good Friends on the Right of the party.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
209. Ha! I think I will, too.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:18 PM
Mar 2015

And yeah, I'm not really clear on what they're taking offense at. If you regularly use the phrase, "The Left" as a pejorative, well... you're kind of by definition, the right. Or at the very least, the center right... right?

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
30. "The Left" you know, those of us who get pissed off when 6 cops can't handle an unarmed suspect
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:51 AM
Mar 2015

(who happens to be black) without shooting him dead.

The ones who get pissed off when Goldman Sachs walks away from trillion dollar fraud.

The ones who don't think torture is a patriotic act.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
161. It's also pushed by the right ...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:16 PM
Mar 2015

you are quite correct. The term/phrase just translates into: "Those Democrats (republicans) are not doing what I want them to do." And there seems to be a direct relationship between the distance away from the mainstream of the party and the loudness, and frequency, of the claim.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
21. Thanks... +1...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:32 AM
Mar 2015

... I don't mind people advocating their own position, even if it is a minority position with which I disagree. But it's irksome when they attempt to deligitimise those who disagree with denigrating smears like DINO. A bit arrogant also.

 

Hestia

(3,818 posts)
157. Bull - Wallace was nominated overwhelmingly by the Delegates in the first round of voting
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:16 PM
Mar 2015

but the corrupt chair of the Democratic Convention disallowed the vote and it went into further rounds until Truman came out on top - and what an idiot he was.

Wallace practically by himself helped the farmers within the Dust Bowl years. A lot policies he instigated are still in effect today, Water Conservation Corps; planting of trees around fields as a windscreen, etc.

The problem with Wallace was that he was a self-made millionaire who developed a strain of corn that is still planted today with the help of George Washington Carver. He couldn't be bought. Truman was a pauper and could be.

Watch Oliver Stone's "An Untold History of the U.S" for further information. Our world would be totally different if Eugene Wallace had been elected, because he would have been president after FDR's death. He was the Peace Candidate.

 

billhicks76

(5,082 posts)
220. It's All About Money
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:08 AM
Mar 2015

You again lol. But you're very astute to pointing pot the Wallace fight. Very interesting history. But I believe it wasn't a miserable failure. Things were very closely divided. And big money won and a war changed everything. But we live in the age of communication now and it's harder for them to fool us. Why do you think 911 was used as an excuse to exercise complete control of the population and the screws turned down harder to create a police state here? They are afraid and for good reason...most people have woken up. The tipping point has already occurred. Your analysis is outdated...Obama couldn't have gotten anywhere in 1948 either right? There is Hell to pay for the betrayals that have happened within our own party. The people would have no problem putting many of these politicians on a sinking ship. Warren appeals to many. She also has conservative credentials as a reformed Reaganite. She isn't a communist or a socialist or a hippie. She is a realist. And much more of a fighter than a Mondale,Dukakis or McGovern.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
2. "(DC) is a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably thanks to Wall Street"
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:31 AM
Mar 2015
The first and most obvious reason is that Washington is, to put it gently, a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably thanks to Wall Street. Maybe they’re lobbyists; maybe they work in free-market think tanks; maybe they’re employed by the defense industry, which benefits greatly from Wall Street’s largesse. Or maybe they’re government bureaucrats who find Warren’s opposition to the “revolving door” to be in profound conflict with their future plans.


Great article. Thank you!!



raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
88. That is it exactly. It is the efforts of Wall St combined with the demands of the shareholders.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:38 AM
Mar 2015

Shareholders don't care where the profit comes from, they just put the money in with the knowledge that the corporations will do whatever it takes to bring them a return. Up to and including breaking the law and/or creating new ones.

And so they do, and thus, the disconnect.

Those of us who cling tightly to the idea that ones life can be used to make things better for all life, that being a liberal to them demands exactly that, avoid Wall St like the plague it most assuredly is.

Those concerned more with personal comforts than being an instrument for change turn a blind eye to the damage they do at every turn to our democracy, environment, civil liberties, security and future and then do an about face and claim to support the same things they spend each day weakening. That, in effect, is the lifeblood of a DINO.

Every dollar in it is a vote for more of the same. Every dollar an affront to democracy. Every dollar a barrier to addressing reality. Some of us think things are fine, some are ignorant and some feel the time to truly make a difference is swiftly coming to an end.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
3. Perhaps it is the backers of Warren who are the DINO's are freaking out.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:39 AM
Mar 2015

I am not freaking out over Warren running. She is a very nice lady, very good in her expertise, is making a good senator. The DNC is in a very lucky spot, we have many potential candidates for lots of offices, it is our responsibility of getting these potentials elected.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
4. One of the commenters
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:41 AM
Mar 2015

points out that if there were a Elizabeth Warren 50 years ago...she would have been considered "a Centrist Dem".

I totally agree. That demonstrates how Freeking Far to the Right the "leadership" has dragged the party over the decades.
I'm over the Third Way Dems, Blue Dogs and New Dem Coalition Bull Shit, just more splinter groups formed and funded with RW money?

MsLeopard

(1,265 posts)
18. Yes, funded by the same oligarchs
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:09 AM
Mar 2015

who fund all of them, of both parties. We're just given the illusion of "choice" in our "elections." The entire game is rigged to benefit just one group of people, and how much of our lives they control is quite stunning.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
36. The leadership alone controls?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:57 AM
Mar 2015

Or do the voters control the leadership?

I always object to this idea that we are sheep following the leaders and that they can control what we think. If the country moved rightward, then accept that fact rather than merely blaming the leaders. If they had that kind of control, they would ignore the blaming anyway.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
66. I kinda see it a bit differently
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:21 AM
Mar 2015

imo-clearly Dem leadership Doesn't Want to be led by the base and Will Not "be controlled" by the base/voters.
Look at the past few election cycles.....they Still - even After 2010/2014 Will Not Listen and continue down the Same path, with the Same people-doing the same crap......and no, I don't believe they're hoping for different results from "us".....I think that ship is sailed and "we" have been dismissed because we are Not "sheepish" any longer.
I believe they're Possibly hoping to draw enough disenfranchised GOP Moderates to bail them out at the polls...So, perhaps in theory - that's how it's supposed to work, but that is Not our real-time experience..............yet.

If you look at individual Initiatives that were passed by the people just this past two election cycles (most notably 2014) it is fairly clear to many, the country Turned Sharply Left, Not Right as we are Told it has....hoping the "sheep" who hear that nonsense will just get in line, as we've done for basically 35 years.
All, just my opinion, of course

treestar

(82,383 posts)
117. They would not get re-elected
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:02 PM
Mar 2015

This view makes the idea of representative Democracy look hopeless. The leaders reflect the voters. It's not crap to call people sheep if you are saying they think what the leaders tell them to and can't change who the leaders are if they don't agree.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
187. I believe we are seeing the
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

beginning of what I hope will be the return of "base" participation in our party. I believe we are in the beginning processes of "leading leadership", now.

They, do however-seem to object.
I don't mean to sound gloomy over democracy, but if we continue to turn our backs on the problem(s) out of apathy, disgust and any of the other myriad of individual rationales.....democracy is endangered.
Democracy needs "the people's care and nurture" to thrive.
So many Have walked away. So many are Turned away.
We need to, collectively, fix that.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
192. Great post! +1
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:30 PM
Mar 2015

I like your posts fredamae. This is one of many I've seen...

Thanks for your insights and ability to convey them well!!! ^^^This is SO true!

Autumn

(45,107 posts)
6. Interesting article, would you please post this in the Elizabeth Warren Group?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:43 AM
Mar 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1265

It's nice to have any and all things about her in one handy place.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
7. When they call themselves the 'New Democrat Coalition'....
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:43 AM
Mar 2015

You know it is a front group for corporations and the DC Elite.
Otherwise it would have been the New Democratic Coalition....

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
10. Hey Triana,
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:46 AM
Mar 2015

Thanks again for posting this. If you have time, would you mind cross posting it in the Elizabeth Warren Group?

(I'm so happy to see Salon give this hiding in plain sight issue some coverage!!!)

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
16. Bill Moyers is no longer the lone wolf on this issue. Love it!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:05 AM
Mar 2015

Dec 2013

Elizabeth Warren, Third Way and the Battle Over American Liberalism

...But beneath that veneer of tranquility, longstanding political and philosophical differences over the role the government should play in our economy continue to divide Clintonian “New Democrats” from those who embrace a more traditional New Deal style of liberalism. Many observers expect that a day of reckoning between these groups is coming as we approach the 2016 elections.

The contours of that debate are already being drawn. Last week, Third Way — a “centrist” Democratic group with a board of trustees full of Wall Streeters — attacked proposals to expand Social Security and warned Democrats against adopting a “populist” economic agenda. That led to a high-profile dustup with Sen. Elizabeth Warren. ...

http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/11/elizabeth-warren-third-way-and-the-battle-over-american-liberalism/

Thank you Salon!!

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
22. The New Democrats want your vote but refuse to represent, they feel they are entitled to your cash
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:33 AM
Mar 2015

your vote, your principals. In return they get massively wealthy and pass legislation that works against working families.

That's our New Improved Democratic Party. Much more efficient way to siphon off wealth from the lower classes.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Warren is not a threat except in the sense
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 10:56 AM
Mar 2015

that she or anyone who causes a break in the party inadvertently helps the Republicans.

Maybe that is why she chooses not to run. I don't think she is an anti-Democratic as some of her supporters are.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
47. That's what we have primaries for
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:07 AM
Mar 2015

But since "progressives" can't win, they want their candidates to be appointed.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
49. Just like when HRC beat Obama with a wide lead...oh right
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:11 AM
Mar 2015

she didn't. And why did Obama win? He ran on a liberal platform. Sorry, but your hatred for progressives has nothing to do with reality.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
57. But Obama wasn't a 'progressive.' Obama: 'I am a New Democrat'
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:16 AM
Mar 2015

One New Democrat beat another. Very little daylight in their policies and Senate votes.

Reality. LOL.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
91. Wow you can use a big boy word a few times!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:41 AM
Mar 2015

Seriously THANK YOU for showing the forum how much you are NOT a liberal or progressive! It just drives more and more votes toward Warren and Sanders!

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
94. And you can be irrelevant consistently
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:44 AM
Mar 2015

Seriously, THANK YOU for showing the forum what a light weight you are.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
128. Why would you think that?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:07 PM
Mar 2015

LOL, people are so dumb that to spite another poster they are going to vote for a candidate they wouldn't otherwise want? You're getting below 7th grade at this point.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
124. You're just being unpleasant
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:06 PM
Mar 2015

In order to avoid a question.

Reality is there won't be a progressive candidate until a majority of the Democrats want that (however you define it).

treestar

(82,383 posts)
136. Nonresponsive
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:10 PM
Mar 2015

Why would my hair be on fire? I'm a Democrat and I'll be happy with the nominee, whoever it is.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
170. Dream on. You just want your pony in the race and nobody elses, because you hate democracy.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:19 PM
Mar 2015

Not any real new news to anyone paying attention.

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
221. Wow are you projecting
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:44 AM
Mar 2015

...the only "if I don't get the candidate I really really really want, I'm holding my breath until I turn blue, taking my ball and going home" are people like you.

I'm for Clinton, but I'll support the Democratic nominee whoever it is. And I won't speak ill of those nominees other than Clinton either. I'll just comment on their relative merits and electability.

Will you do the same for the candidate of your choice? Will you vote for the Democratic nominee?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
74. That's the stinkiest pile of bull hockey posted lately.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:25 AM
Mar 2015

Obama never claimed to run a progressive campaign.

He had aggressive responses militarily. Said he would launch strikes into Pakistan if necessary to get Bin Laden (which he did).
He also said he modeled himself after Reagan, which Clinton used to club him with during the campaign.

Most people who are anti-Obama now claim to be progressives here also attacked him during the primary.

You can pretend what you want, but Obama represented who and what he was quite well without pandering to the far left (which is why most on the far left don't like him).

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
83. I would never do such a thing.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:32 AM
Mar 2015

There are those who don't believe in Climate Change. You can't convince them either. I would never attempt to convince you.

I'm simply pointing out facts that counter the bullshit you posted so others aren't so easily taken in by your propaganda.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
97. Of course you're right.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:45 AM
Mar 2015

Obama's rhetoric was meant to give the impression of a traditional Democrat, and it's completely absurd to see people denying that here. I mean, had had his name taken off the DLC roster for a reason. On many issues, most notably health care, his rhetoric was to the left of Clinton's-- while his eventual policies were identical. Who can forget that line about 'just mandating home ownership to solve homelessness'?

In my humble opinion, the biggest reason he beat Hillary Clinton was that she had a long track record, and so could not speak in that 'fill in the blanks with whatever you hope I am' style that Obama was so good at.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
106. Shhhhh....reality and facts bother the center-right wing of the party.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:53 AM
Mar 2015

I voted for the guy, because of his campaign promises. I guess they forget what he said in 2008 to get elected.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
154. True those claiming to be "betrayed" are not credible unless they
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:15 PM
Mar 2015

supported him back in the first primary.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
205. oh he ran from to the left in the primaries
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:46 PM
Mar 2015

He was the anti-war candidate to Hillary's IWR vote

He ran a press release touting his anti-poverty creds (to blunt the Edwards campaign).

Plus, clearly he generated HOPE in the left. Because we KNEW Clinton was a DLCer. DFA endorsed ABC in the Iowa caucus - including Obama. The Nation magazine endorsed him over Hillary. The "liberal lion" endorsed him.

Here he is in a debate, smacking Hillary - from the left

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

here he is claiming that he will help fundamentally change Washington DC

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/146

treestar

(82,383 posts)
122. Stop playing the victim
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:05 PM
Mar 2015

Nobody has to hate progressives to realize they have not swayed enough of the Democratic party to get the presidential nomination from the primary voters.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
138. Aww did you get a sadz?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:10 PM
Mar 2015

I knew my posts would be like a flame to a moth. So easy to piss off center-right wingers these days!

treestar

(82,383 posts)
142. I'm not pissed off
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:12 PM
Mar 2015

Or sad. You are, apparently. Deal with reality. Because we do does not mean we "hate" you. You're the ones with the sad.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
150. Obviously you are irate, nobody asked you to chime in here.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:13 PM
Mar 2015

Seriously why are you so mad? Facts and reality just piss you off to no end?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
160. I said I wasn't
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:16 PM
Mar 2015

You appear to think repeating something over and over can make it true. You're the one outside of reality.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
165. Obviously you are very irate now.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:17 PM
Mar 2015

Really, calm down...facts aren't something to get upset about.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
173. This is really silly
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:20 PM
Mar 2015

I said I'm not irate. You keep saying I am. Yet you have shown no intemperate verbiage in my posts.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
184. Don't be annoyed at the fact that you are irate, just get it out of your system.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:23 PM
Mar 2015

I really don't care, your tag team buddy just fled so I guess you are on your own now.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
211. You're looking dumber and dumber
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 04:08 PM
Mar 2015

show one post where I am "irate." One would think that would include cursing or intemperate language at the very least. Capital letters. Calling you a fucking idiot. Or something.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
120. +1
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:04 PM
Mar 2015

The progressives have yet to win out among the Democrats. Demanding that "the party" somehow deliver a progressive candidate as if it is not the primary voters deciding, is delusional.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
118. How did you extrapolate that from what I posted?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:03 PM
Mar 2015

You might be responding to someone else?

The voters choose the candidate - in the primary, the Democratic voters choose the candidate. A lot of them will think in terms of who can beat the Republican.

brooklynite

(94,598 posts)
75. As a resident DINO (in many people's eyes) let me just say: your opinion doesn't matter
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:25 AM
Mar 2015

Now, before you get upset, let me be clear about what I mean. You are certainly welcome to hold and express your opinion that anyone to the right of "progressive" isn't a REAL Democrat. It's just completely ignorant of politics in the REAL world where REAL Democratic voters vote for REAL Democratic candidates without consideration of what the blogosphere says. Complain all you want about, say, Hillary Clinton, but a twice-elected US Senator who got 17 million Democratic Primary votes in 2008 and was the Secretary of State for a popular Democratic President is a Democrat, and more specifically, a Democrat popular with a wide range of Democratic voters, including liberals and centrists. Which also explains why a "REAL" Democrat like, say, Elizabeth Warren, would support her Presidential campaign. So, spout all you want about DINOs behind the safety of your keyboard: it won't make a bit of difference.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
182. In that case, the "New Democrat Coalition"
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:23 PM
Mar 2015

won't mind if the left will not vote, right?

Since the left is sooo outnumbered, your "REAL Democratic
candidates will not need it. Good to know.

brooklynite

(94,598 posts)
206. ...but the left WILL vote...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 01:04 PM
Mar 2015

...because, only here in the blogosphere does the left thump its chest and pronounce that it will "NEVER VOTE FOR (fill in the blanks)".

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
87. you've certainly shown evidence
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:37 AM
Mar 2015

Why Democratic voters never embrace 'progressives' in national elections.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
90. Thank you for continuing to show your hatred for liberals and progressives!
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:40 AM
Mar 2015

I LOVE it! Please keep it up!

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
98. Thank you for continuing to show your lack of knowledge
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:45 AM
Mar 2015

The KnowNothing party could use a few like you.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
105. Actually, it's not hatred. It's arrogance
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:49 AM
Mar 2015

When you know you control the prime channels of communication, you can afford to be smug.
Unfortunately, this corporate stranglehold on the dominant discourse is frequently mistaken for public opinion.

Those who speak disparagingly of the "blogosphere" do so because, however imperfect it may be, it comes closer to representing unfiltered opinion than the pre-screened, spoon-fed, corporate-controlled information that qualifies for the free press these days.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
164. When is that going to translate into votes?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:17 PM
Mar 2015

Apparently it is not that easy.

Telling people they are Corporate Controlled because they like Hillary is not going to work.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
135. The victim card again?
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:09 PM
Mar 2015

Nobody "hates" you. They just think Hillary Clinton is a liberal and a real Democrat. Elizabeth Warren likely thinks so to - therefore she hates you too?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
143. Repeat yourself much? You can take your center-right wing issues up with somebody that cares.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:12 PM
Mar 2015

Yeah your boy exposed himself today, no big deal most of us knew he hated progressives. He even says it many times over. I guess you don't pay attention to that. How odd.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
155. Sure ya don't - you just never seem to notice things when it is inconvenient.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:15 PM
Mar 2015

Thanks for that ironic moment!

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
174. Thank you for describing all your posts to me.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:20 PM
Mar 2015

Yes your posts to me are totally meaningless, on that we both agree.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
146. I actually have a theory about that
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:12 PM
Mar 2015

"progressives' like Rex need to feel like Martyrs. They really want to lose so they have something to fight for.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
169. +1
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:19 PM
Mar 2015

Note all the claiming to be a victim - those big bad centrists are not voting the right way! That's mean!!!!!!!

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
96. Let's go people! Demand more from your representatives, don't sit back and let Wall Street
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:45 AM
Mar 2015

tell you who you are allowed to vote for!

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
100. Hillary is the ultimate "Not as Bad", neo-lib, politician.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:46 AM
Mar 2015

If Jeb Bush wins the Republican nomination they'll both be shouting "Not as Bad" at each other and accusing each other of being worse.

And, during the primaries their acolytes will be advertising that their candidate is the only one who can "win" against the other.

I'll have neither.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
153. Ultimately, the election will be decided by something truly substantive
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:14 PM
Mar 2015

Like, who wears an American flag lapel pin more often.

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,790 posts)
217. If I were Democratic candidate, I'd run to a theater to see "American Sniper"
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:10 AM
Mar 2015

While in the theater, I'd be sure to sing "God Bless the USA", and I'd use my smartphone to send $50 to the Wounded Warrior Project. I'd walk out of the theater and immediately attend a prayer meeting.

Mind you ... none of this will help. The GOP will still accuse the candidate of being a closet Muslim; however, it'll be interesting to see exactly how they pull that off.

Historic NY

(37,451 posts)
103. Some people write because if they aren't stirring the pot...
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:48 AM
Mar 2015

with a shit stick they don't get clicks or read.

President Obama said pretty much the same thing as cited in Q2 in this article in his "you didn't build that" speech...

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
179. As with other people of integrity and conviction, she would have a difficult time
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

making it to the Presidency. The hyenas would tear her apart, on all sides. She'd be discredited, diminished, every gaffe or misstep blown up. This is because she is pretty firm and consistent in what she says and does, not because she's radical and can be written off as a nut--that is what's threatening. The people who make it to the top are shape-shifters, signal flexibility or a willingness to play ball. Yes, I include Obama in that category. Not that I think he's a bad guy or lacks integrity, but he was never going to knock over anyone's cart, he was mostly centrist, and wasn't going to do anything crazy, and the kingmakers/PTB knew that.

Broward

(1,976 posts)
181. There should be no more playing nice with these Democratic impostors.
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:23 PM
Mar 2015

The corporatists, including those that call themselves Dems, are part of the problem not the solution.

MosheFeingold

(3,051 posts)
196. I've been calling the DINOs part of the "Uniparty"
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:33 PM
Mar 2015

Basically, all the elites, regardless if Republican or Democrat are oligarchs whose goal is to remain and power, obtain money and favor for themselves and buddies. No principals, no morals.

Bushies, Romney, Clintons, McCain, Reid, Christie, John Kerry are all part of the Uniparty. Pelosi probably is too, but I am not sure.

Warren scares the Uniparty members to death.

I even respect the Republican outsiders (regardless if I think they are a wingnut or not -- 99.999% are, sadly) more than a Democrat Uniparty member because at least they have some sort of moral compass and are not necessarily out just for themselves. (Now this does not make them not dangerous and not wrong, just not a complete crook -- bit like Bill Maher's statements regarding terrorists -- yeah, they are nuts, but they were brace in their twisted way). I'd probably put Rand Paul and the libertarian wing of the Republicans here. They're wrong, but intellectually consistent and not just out to screw people for their personal benefit like, say, Christie or Jeb Bush.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
201. The problem with this framing is the fact that the largest caucus within the Democratic Party in
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:40 PM
Mar 2015

the Congress is the Progressive Caucus with 69 members. While Elizabeth Warren is not a member, Senator Sanders is, and he is among a few founding caucus members who remain in Congress. Sanders and the others founded the Progressive Caucus in 1992, when Elizabeth Warren was still a Republican. So the whole trope that all the other Democrats are 'DINOS' while the only true Democrat is one who was still voting for George Bush when my Rep helped found the Progressive Caucus is a bit annoying because it dismisses many great and long term Democrats as if they did not even exist.
People keep saying 'she's pulling all the other Democrats to the left' but very clearly something pulled Warren to the left and that's what I'd really like to hear about. Because she was on the right. For ages. When many, many other Democrats were doing progressive things, she was a supply side Republican. How that transformation of view point came about would be of interest. Telling me that a George Bush voter is pulling the Progressive and Black Caucuses to the left just makes me laugh.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
218. Another great post from you in what has to quite possibly be the dumbest most embarassing thread
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:16 AM
Mar 2015

in the last five years of DU.

And I don't mean the info that the OP posted, I mean the moronic response from upthread.

Telling me that a George Bush voter is pulling the Progressive and Black Caucuses to the left just makes me laugh.

That is definitely food for thought.

Bugenhagen

(151 posts)
223. She talks about it pretty openly in her book.
Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:14 AM
Mar 2015

If I tried to summarize I'd do it badly. It was completely believable for me though. I know lots of people in my red state that are generally left leaning on most issues you'd put to them, but they aren't actively political and hereabouts its easier to register republican and go with the flow. I'm not saying that's her story, just what I see.


George II

(67,782 posts)
208. Here's an interesting development that should irk all those anti-"corporatists", etc.....
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 02:04 PM
Mar 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026317367

White House, Elizabeth Warren team up to roll back GOP state dominance

By Kenneth P. Vogel - 3/5/15 5:50 AM EST


The Obama administration and top congressional liberals this week are formally embracing a new big-money effort to turn back the Republican tide in the states ahead of a pivotal series of elections that could determine which party controls redistricting and voting rules in many states.

A delegation of about 20 Democratic state legislators from around the country representing a group called the State Innovation Exchange is planning to huddle on Thursday and Friday with administration officials in the White House, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the Hill and with policy experts at the Center for American Progress.

I wonder where all that "big money" is going to come from?

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
214. Kick (and to the thread in general, LBJ was a New Deal Democrat)
Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:14 PM
Mar 2015

Kennedy built on the new deal.
P.S. Truman wasn't owned by anyone and he had to scramble to make an honest living after leaving the White House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Post-presidency

Once out of office, Truman quickly decided that he did not wish to be on any corporate payroll, believing that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the nation's highest office. He also turned down numerous offers for commercial endorsements.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»DC Centrists (DINOS - whi...