General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDC Centrists (DINOS - which are about 99% of them) Freak Out Over Elizabeth Warren
As the Democratic caucuses in Congress have shrunk, and as Warrens influence has grown, the elites anxiety over her rise has become almost palpable. Ive 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 Warrens hands. Its all very predictable; but if youre familiar with Warrens views and her record, it simply doesnt 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 Warrens 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 whats 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 wont go to bat for her to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she largely created, she doesnt 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 shes a team player. Hell, according to Politico, shes even trying to find ways to compromise with Republicans in the Senate!
Given all of the above, reasonable person might ask why Matt Bais Washington finds Warren so threatening nevertheless. Im 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 theyre lobbyists; maybe they work in free-market think tanks; maybe theyre employed by the defense industry, which benefits greatly from Wall Streets largesse. Or maybe theyre government bureaucrats who find Warrens 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/
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... 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.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)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.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)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)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)Of course, you being a DINO, I don't expect you to see what a bubble you live in.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)He/she.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)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)He came in here shouting at liberals and calling them all sorts of names.
QC
(26,371 posts)when there's a chance to fight, like during primary season.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thank you for that insight!
Rex
(65,616 posts)They love Reaganomics.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)and say so in their posts.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)While all the other kids go out and play, they sit on daddy's PC and get kicks out of annoying adults.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You've even said so yourself.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)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)...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)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)Yes and we wish you and your little merry band of travelers would stop. Nice try at pretending it is someone else!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)THANKS!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)THANKS!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thanks!
Response to Rex (Reply #126)
Post removed
Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You are so easy!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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)Oh no!? Does that correct description bother you two that much!? Maybe try not to be so center-right wing so much then. Simple.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a Third Wayer!!!
Rex
(65,616 posts)You would think someone was nervous about it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I wonder if people will ever catch on to the game.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)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.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)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)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)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)Explain to me how every 'progressive' candidate either loses national elections in landslides or never gets out of the primaries.
Waiting for you, Professor.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)But professor will do just fine.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Brava!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)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.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)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)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)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)... is not the Democratic party.
Marr
(20,317 posts)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.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Election Polls - as in, where people cast their votes.
Marr
(20,317 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)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)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?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)(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.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Exactly.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Spot on.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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)... 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)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.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)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)Great article. Thank you!!
Triana
(22,666 posts)Perfect.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)It's nice to have any and all things about her in one handy place.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)You know it is a front group for corporations and the DC Elite.
Otherwise it would have been the New Democratic Coalition....
Triana
(22,666 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)I totally missed (right before my own eyes)!
Thank you!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)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!!!)
Triana
(22,666 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thanks!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)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!!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yay, Elizabeth!
Boo, Dinos!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)But since "progressives" can't win, they want their candidates to be appointed.
Rex
(65,616 posts)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)One New Democrat beat another. Very little daylight in their policies and Senate votes.
Reality. LOL.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Sorry Charlie.
Iraq?
What else.
Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)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)Seriously, THANK YOU for showing the forum what a light weight you are.
Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Straight downhill!
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and none of them are responsive to the point made.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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).
Rex
(65,616 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Why would my hair be on fire? I'm a Democrat and I'll be happy with the nominee, whoever it is.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Not any real new news to anyone paying attention.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...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)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).
Rex
(65,616 posts)Hohohohoho...
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)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)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)supported him back in the first primary.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)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)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)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)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)Seriously why are you so mad? Facts and reality just piss you off to no end?
treestar
(82,383 posts)You appear to think repeating something over and over can make it true. You're the one outside of reality.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Really, calm down...facts aren't something to get upset about.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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)I really don't care, your tag team buddy just fled so I guess you are on your own now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
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)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)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)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)...because, only here in the blogosphere does the left thump its chest and pronounce that it will "NEVER VOTE FOR (fill in the blanks)".
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Why Democratic voters never embrace 'progressives' in national elections.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I LOVE it! Please keep it up!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)The KnowNothing party could use a few like you.
Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)EDIT -
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)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.
Rex
(65,616 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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)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)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Don't know who "my boy" is.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thanks for that ironic moment!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Yes your posts to me are totally meaningless, on that we both agree.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You've left them there for all to see.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)"progressives' like Rex need to feel like Martyrs. They really want to lose so they have something to fight for.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You are projecting again!
Note all the claiming to be a victim - those big bad centrists are not voting the right way! That's mean!!!!!!!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)tell you who you are allowed to vote for!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)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)Like, who wears an American flag lapel pin more often.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)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.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I concur. No more Uniparty!
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)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)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)The corporatists, including those that call themselves Dems, are part of the problem not the solution.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)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)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.
George II
(67,782 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)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)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.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)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)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.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Anything ANTI-GREED is labeled as subversive.
That's our America.