When a Political Party will not defend my interests I will not defend that Party

[Tom Rinaldo]

I am ready to write off the Democratic Party as a cause that I am willing to invest any time, energy or money into. I am willing to see the Democratic Party lose power if that is what it must come to. I am a progressive who understands the necessity of compromising in order to maintain a winning coalition, but some compromises compromise the core of my convictions, and those I will not make. Health care insured by the government is not a radical proposition. Fire departments "insure" the "health" of our homes, and Fire Departments are not profit making entities. Yet the last time I checked there was no big outcry over the evil of socialized fire fighting.

I understand the need for compromises so I will accept the continuation of a "private option" for those who believe that huge profit making corporations show greater concern for their physical and financial health than a government run program like Medicare. Let those who choose to ignore privately employed "death panels" do so, they can have their status quo. Let those who fear government health care rationing, while they embrace private HMO's that routinely deny life saving treatments in order to fatten their profits, keep their cherished HMO's. But let me choose Medicare for myself. That is all I ask of the Democratic Party now. I want the right to choose who to trust my life to. I understand that the Republican Party does not want me to have that choice, and that is one of many reasons why I chose not to be a Republican. But I expect more from the Democratic Party if they expect anything more from me. And I know I am not alone.

This is not a time for pointing fingers or assigning blame. This is the time for getting the job done. I am not privy to high level back room strategy sessions, and I am not calling out Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama over the effectiveness of their leadership now. The ball is still in play and we can't yet say where it will ultimately land. What I can say though is how I will react if a "reform" becomes law that locks millions of Americans involuntarily into private health care plans that boost corporate profits while denying any meaningful public option to those of us who want one. If that is to be 21st Century Democratic Party legacy, if that becomes the culmination of the Democrat's pledge to reform health care in America, this is no longer the Democratic Party I signed up for. And I will not work for it, nor will I fear it's defeat at the polls.

I would rather stand ready to pick up the pieces after the fall than be complicit in the failure. I would rather disown the betrayal of what Democrats long stood for in America, than be an apologist for surrender. I would rather rebuild on our Party's true foundations than shore up a structure that can not be depended on when it really counts.

Now is when it counts and I am keeping score. No significant social advance in America has ever come easily. There has always been an element of class warfare in America and the ones who deny it are the the ones who excel most at it. The Democratic Party, with it's union allies, has long stood with those who believe that the health of our society is not measured by the wealth of the richest among us. It should know that the health of the private insurance industry is not more important than the publics health. There has always been fierce resistance to getting health care right from those who profit from how it's wrong. Why should now be any different? What may be different this tine is the Democratic Party. Millions of us are watching to find out.

[scheming daemons]

1. 80% of the party is defending your interest

10 out of 13 on the finance committee, for instance.


You going to throw that 80% out because of the 20%?


Wouldn't it be better to replace the 20% (via the primary process)?




You've got 80% of the Democratic party leadership agreeing with you.


But.. go ahead... go third party... help the GOP out.... and put those 80% that agree with you in minority status.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Yes, but the 10 to 20% make all the calls.

This is all kabuki theater.

My Gawd! All you need to do to become fully convinced is to listen to Shumer this evening talk out of both sides of his mouth.

They must think we are IDIOTS.

No VIABLE Public Option, I'm through! :grr:

[scheming daemons]

6. So how does going 3rd party help? That doesn't replace the 20%... and it hurts the 80%

...and it helps 100% of the GOP.

[ShortnFiery]

8. If we can NOT educate the constituents of those States or Districts, then let them

SADLY, we must let them go GOP and marginalize them.

The GOP did MUCH MORE with fewer legislators than the Progressive Democrats are doing today.

No, my party has moved TOO FAR to the right. Ideally, educate "the people" but dammit no more rabid (corporate) blue dogs. :(

[dotymed]

85. The least our party can do

is to reinstate THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, by doing this, we can
educate our citizens with all points of view on the issues.
Reagan, sold the truth to the highest bidder when he did away
with the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. The only way that we are going to
break the illusion that we are a "right of center"
society, is by letting the people have access to all
viewpoints and stopping the false image that the media
perpetuates. Sure, there is a minority (mainly undereducated
or wealthy people with vested interests) of people who are
represented by the current media depictions. They are a
minority. Corporate interests have a huge stake in convincing
the majority that they are actually the minority. Their
interests are purely selfish, that is how they control us. I
too, struggle with leaving the party, mainly because of
President Obama's refusal to consider reinstating the FAIRNESS
DOCTRINE and all of the pro-corporate and anti-citizen
legislation that he let stand and even encouraged. I felt that
we could make a difference by non-violent protests (especially
if we could get the millions of people who agree on
progressive issues, involved) now, I feel like we live in a
police state, after watching the "jack booted thugs"
brutalize their fellow citizens.  To "protect and
serve" was the original slogan of law enforcement, I
think that it should now be "to maintain the status
quo."
I really don't know if changing party affiliations, at this
point will help, as,unfortunately, there seems to be only one
party....the ruling party. IMO, that is what we need to worry
about...

[cliffordu]

74. BYE!!!!

[krawhitham]

102. +1

[Chulanowa]

3. But it sure does look like the 20% making all the decisions, doesn't it?

Hell, even the achievements of the 80% have been mostly defanged by these guys. And the majority of the party seems to have waited in line for that procedure.

[scheming daemons]

5. So.... replace the 20%.... going 3rd-party penalizes the 80%

Use the primary system.

[Chulanowa]

9. The 80% need some penalization

They coasted along with big smiles for Bush. They're coasting along with big smiles for the blue dogs. They're fat and complacent and with a very few shining examples to the contrary (made all the better by the company they're in) they don't give a shit about us.

No matter what your opinion of it at the moment, our party shouldn't be 80% dead weight.

And while we wait for those 20% to have their terms come up, well, they're still screwing us nicely. I don't think third party is the solution - Seriously, there's nothing more useless than America's minor parties. I think hauling these fucks out of office in a series of special elections, general strikes, and protest right outside their very doors, and then voting in someone with a modicum of usefulness is the key.

But then I'm am impatient little red, so...

[ShortnFiery]

10. Yes, far too many are gutless wonders with feet of clay. :(

The one's who have shown moral courage are often "primaried" by more conservative democrats.

[Chulanowa]

12. Ehn, I don't carry McKinney's water

There's taking a stand, and then there's jumping overboard. Cynthia raised some good points and wasn't COMPLETELY nuts, but...

Well, I'd still take her over either of those fucking prolapsed colons in the first picture, so, guess i can't say too much.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Yes, she can get a little over the top. But she's a scrapper - we need more of them. eom

[Armstead]

20. I think Gephardt would be fighting for singhle payer if he were there now

yes he sold us down the river on iraq....But Gephardt did fight for the people on most donmestic issues.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. Gephardt did what he had to do on Iraq.

Speaking from my personal interactions with him, I don't think he ever really agreed with the war. I volunteered for his 2004 campaign and worked professionally in the same building as his headquarters, so I got to see him a fair amount. We like to forget where we were as a nation in 2002-2003. There was vocal opposition to the war, yes, but there was a boatload of support for it too. As a leader of the party, positioning us in stark opposition to Iraq risked having the party in the wilderness for another decade had things actually turned out well there. Politically, it was the responsible thing for a party leader to do, unlike "oppose everything" Boehner, who risks the same thing with his actions on health care for his party.

I firmly believe that we would not have a Democratic President today, nor would we have a Democratic majority in either chamber had Gephardt and Daschle not taken the positions they had - regardless of how the war ultimately turned out.

[Dr Fate]

60. And now that we have a DEM majority, is "did what he had to do" still going to be the excuse?

Looks that way.

"We had to support the conservatives who were 100% wrong and oppose the base that was 100% right"- is going to be the excuse whether there is a DEM majority or a GOP majority.

We LOST the 2002 election cycle DESPITE our support for a war based on lies. (Funny, DEMS were able to "find the votes" for that one, huh?)

We LOST in 2004 b/c of the perception that Kerry "flip flopped" on the war. Enough of the swing-voting public knew the war was BS at that point, and maybe we could have won in 2004 if the public had seen DEMS as being consistent on that issue.

I'm not sure that you are even right- if DEMS had FOUGHT to make the public aware of the facts, we might have actaully have more popularity and power than now.

I see a similar situation with a half-ass approach to Health care reform: If it fails, then "we did what we had to do" will surely be the centrist excuse.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. The hell with Gephardt's "political considerations"

How many millions of Iraqis DIED because of spineless Dems voting for the IWR?

The majority Dems were chicken, no two ways about it. Hillary Clinton had New Yorkers by the hundreds of thousands telling her to vote "no" and she still voted "yes." Other Dems in liberal districts did the same.

It was pure strategizing with no consideration for the ethics and morals of the situation. (Invading a country that hasn't attacked you is "waging aggressive war," which is a WAR CRIME according to the Nuremberg standards.)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

91. Gephardt wasn't going to stop the war, nor were any other Democrats.

So I'm not sure how relevant any of that is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. They could have at least gone on record against it

and denied the Republicanites one of their favorite talking points: "Look at all the Democrats who voted for the IWR."

If the Dems had refused to vote for the IWR, the Iraq War would have been a purely Republican mess.

Where would we be as a nation if people spoke up only when they had a sure chance of succeeding?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. What, precisely, did that buy Republicans?

Not a damn thing.

Conversely, what if Saddam really did have a stockpile of WMDs? Sure, the intel wasn't supporting the hypothesis, but what if we were wrong? We certainly could've been, and Saddam was belligerent enough for it to be true. Remember - at the time, our strongest argument was to push for more inspections and let that process carry out further before charging into war.

So where would the party have been had we opposed the war and yet WMDs were found? Quite possibly eradicated, but minimally in an extreme minority status. All just to be on the record? I'm sorry, but that would be utterly irresponsible for someone charged specifically with leading the party to do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Saddam didn't have any launchers capable of reaching the U.S.

even if he did have WMDs. It was the old Republican FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! tactic at work.

Sure, I had a tiny bit of doubt in my mind, but the minute the U.S. forces were able to walk into Baghdad without being gassed, irradiated, poisoned, or infected with anthrax, I knew that Bush's justification was a crock.

After all, if you have WMD, what better time to use them than when you're being invaded?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

97. You're not saying anything I disagree with there.

I'm only saying that I don't take issue with Gephardt or Daschle for not being willing to lay the party on the line for a roll of the dice when there wasn't a whole lot of benefit to do so. They played it safe, which was the right move. You might argue it wasn't the most moral play in the world, but I could even counter that throwing away an entire liberal agenda for decades would be an even more morally inferior play. At a minimum, I would think you could recognize that it was not so simple as "caving."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. So morality never enters into it? It's all a game?

The Dems lost a lot more respect from their base than they gained from the Republicans. A lot of us really had to hold our noses to vote for Kerry after his IWR vote, and I wonder if showing a bit more guts (voters like guts) could have won him an uncheatable margin of victory.

Paul Wellstone's poll numbers went UP after he voted against the IWR, even though the Beltway pundits were telling him that the voters would reject him for his position.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

109. Morality isn't a factor at all if the action means nothing either way.

Which it did mean nothing. Again - Bush was going to war with or without Democrats. There was nothing anyone could do to stop him. Just being on record is really a meaningless gesture, which is in and of itself a posturing game for most politicians. Wellstone was an exception, which is why we laud him, but don't forget - it might have cost him that election. If that were to be the case en masse for Democrats, that would've put the nation in even greater peril than we experienced. It's not a "game" - but it's also not as simple as taking every vote in a vacuum of all other circumstances either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. "You might lose the election" was the ploy that the Republicanites used

to cause the Dems to chicken out. In other words, they were more worried about some imaginary electorate that was demanding war in Iraq, which meant that they were out of touch with their constituents, who were mostly either opposed to the war or indifferent to it. The actively pro-war population was about the size of the Tea Baggers.

The entire Oregon Democratic delegation voted "no," and all of them were re-elected. (Wyden wasn't up for re-election, but the Congresscritters were.)

Because too many other Dems chickened out (not only then, but since Reagan's time), over 5,000 Americans and countless Iraqis are dead and Iraq lies in ruins.

Because too many Dems chickened out, the Dems own this war along with the Republicanites.

As for "endangering the liberal agenda," what liberal agenda? Continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Caving in to the insurance companies on health care? Letting the banks have anything they want without requiring reforms? "Reforming" the credit card industry in ways that allow them to continue many of their abuses? Making signing statements?

If the Republicanites had a majority like this, we'd be full-out fascist already. With an overwhelming majority, the Dems can't even fight fascist tendencies effectively.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

111. With what mechanism were we going to stop Bush from going to war?

Until you can answer that question, not a single thing in your last post means a thing.

As for the last part of your post, my response is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8677655&mesg_id=8679564

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. If stopping the war was impossible (and who knows what would have happened

if the Dems had stood united for the second time in living memory--as when they stood united against Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security), voting against the war would have been a message to Bush, "OK, have it your way, but you Republicanites OWN this war all on your own."

Furthermore, I maintain that it is worth taking a moral stand even if you're going to fail.

Right after Pearl Harbor, the Portland City Council voted unanimously to revoke the business licenses of all Japanese-Americans. In the preceding testimony, the vast majority of Caucasians were all for the move. Only one Caucasian spoke against it, the Episcopal bishop of Oregon. Was he wrong to speak up, even though he knew that his pleas were unlikely to succeed?

What ethical and moral principles would you compromise for political expediency?

Do you even understand what it is to take an ethical position, even when it's inconvenient or invites criticism?

Don't you realize that if the Dems had put up a fight against Reagan instead of getting all squishy and bipartisan, we wouldn't be in half the trouble we are now?

Some things are right; others are wrong. If you ignore these facts just because you want to be on the winning side or you're afraid you might be defeated, then I have to wonder what principles you do hold inviolable.

If there were another terrorist incident and the Republicanites put forth a bill to intern all Muslims and the Tea Baggers were screaming, would you advise a Dem politician to go along with the hysteria because to do otherwise might endanger his chances of being re-elected, or would you urge him to take a stand against bigotry?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

113. The Bishop represented only his ward and himself.

You'll have to do far better than that. And when I worked on the Hill, I worked for a Congressman that did vote against the war, and I remain very proud of him for that. But he was also in a very safe district and was not a party leader. His vote meant nothing except to himself and his small group of constituents. Gephardt and Daschle had a much, much bigger set of responsibilities to handle.

And as far as that message to Bush went - so what? It was his war anyway. While it might've been used ineffectively by Republicans, they owned the war 100% regardless of how Democrats voted. So again - what difference - what tangible difference would that have made?

You can ride your high horse all you want because you don't represent anyone but yourself. You have no responsibility. You have no constituents. Not everyone is so lucky. Absolutism has no place in governing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. Gephardt and Daschle had a responsibility to represent the whole nation

and across the country as a whole, there was no clamoring for war. Even some Senators from areas that were strongly anti-war voted for this war crime.

So yes, they failed in their responsibility to make a moral statement.

By the way, Episcopal Bishops don't have "wards." Only Mormons have wards, and an Episcopal bishop is a much bigger deal than a Mormon bishop, who simply presides over a small area.

Episcopal Bishops have dioceses headquartered at cathedrals, and in his case, he represented all the Episcopalians in either the whole state of Oregon or the western half of it (I don't know exactly when the diocese of Eastern Oregon was established, so I don't know whether it was the whole state at that time or just the most populous half.)

[winyanstaz]

75. I have always like McKinney and thought she was brave...

We need more like her.

[dotymed]

87. I supported Cynthia McKinney also.

I hope she runs for and wins a "comeback" election.
IMO, she really hurt herself, when she aligned herself with
the "hip-hop legislature" and ran as a third party
candidate for President. I can't blame her for leaving the
confines of the Democratic party, she may have to return in
order to make a "comeback", if she wants to. I see
her more as an Independent than anything, whatever she does,
she is needed in the Congress.

[Oregone]

17. Unless the 80% are using the 20% to get a free pass

They get to smile to their base and don't have to really do anything, except pretend to fight. The "Blue Dogs" are also playing to those that admire their "fiscal conservative" nature. Everyone wins, but you lose.

[Dr Fate]

50. I'm starting to see it that way too. +1

n/t

[rhett o rick]

70. Where have you been? YOU CAN'T PRIMARY AN INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT.

Maybe Lieberman but even he still made it back to the Senate.

Please read: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090928/nichols

We must fight our fight in the primaries with an organization outside the Democratic Party

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. You misunderstand me somewhat

I have been a team player. I have supported the National Democratic Party. I have worked hard to elect centrist Democrats with whom I disagreed with on many issues, in order to help build a Democratic majority in Congress. I will not go third party but I will no longer work to support the Democratic Party as an institution if it fails to do one of the following two things; 1) Deliver real health care reform or 2) Go down fighting hard rather than looking for some way to call whatever compromise is the course of least resistance a victory.

[Chulanowa]

11. And that's the worst damn thing

I could accept failure, honestly. So long as they put forth effort and try to get it passed, I can be okay with it flopping. it happens. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be angry if they had given it their best.

But it was our team that nailed the amendment's feet to the floor before the race. it was motherfuckers in our party, getting our money and our votes, carrying our image that sabotaged this thing for their personal profit.

Republicans dicking us all over is nothing new. it's shitty, but nobody - even Republican voters - expect any better out of them. But this is outright betrayal.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Kennedy regretted not compromising on health care when he had the chance.

It was said to be one of his greatest regrets as a legislator.

Is compromise really that bad? Is nothing really better than something?

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. It depends on the compromise, doesn't it?

The public option is itself a compromise which I support.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. But it's not.

That's the problem - you're operating on an assumption that single payer was ever a viable starting point. It wasn't. It never was. It was a deal breaker and a conversation ender.

You can operate from the idea that the public option is a compromise for YOU, but it's not a compromise in the greater scheme of things. And unfortunately (for all of us, frankly) the greater scheme is the more important one here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. A compromise is arriving at a position that people with different views can accept and live with

Compromises are made all of the time in order to win the support of a significant active minority of people who feel strongly about a specific matter in order to add their numbers to a larger coalition working on a bigger picture.

How on earth could Republicans demand any consideration of their views otherwise after suffering large electoral defeats. Obama stands willing to negotiate reasonable compromises with the defeated Republican minority.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. They are defeated, but they are not destroyed.

You have to realize that tens of millions of Americans share the Republican point of view. Mandate or not (and Bush's tantrums about his own mandate not withstanding, Obama's mandate is not massive, historically), Obama stands willing to negotiate not necessarily with Republicans, but with the people that still vote for Republicans. That's a very important distinction to make here. The Republicans in charge may be petulent children, but lots of people are voting for those petulent children. And as every President at least pays lip service to, a President is the leader of all Americans, not just the ones that voted for him. Obama, perhaps naively, actually meant what he said there, and it's hard to find fault with him for at least trying to be that.

Large electoral defeats or not, there are a lot of people out there that will be effected by this that are not Democrats. Would it be shrewd politics to do things like Bush did and ram things through after marginal victories? Perhaps, but Bush wasn't a leader. Today, we need a leader, not a political cutthroat. We need some long-term thinking in this country, not short-term immediate victories. That's exactly the kind of thinking that's lead us where we are today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. In a nutshell; I support a Private Option.

But not a private mandate. Providing for a "Public Option" is an example of offering meaningful but realistic poltical leadership. The vast majority of the public would quickly accept it with less than the very limited controversy attached to medicare now. And the free market would still function for those who want it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. ...and I agree.

And for what it's worth, it seems most insiders at this point feel we'll get some form of a public option through reconciliation. Might not be what we wanted, but progress is progress.

[babylonsister]

14. Thanks for trying. VERY rough night. nt

[DaLittle Kitty]

80. You Are So Naive!

Please :think:

[DaLittle Kitty]

81. Parties Are OWNED By CORPORATYE America! Health Care Faux Debate CLEARLY Illustrates THIS!

Pleaseeee :think:

[pokercat999]

86. Is it going third party or founding an Anti-Corporate Party?

80% of the Democratic party "leadership" can play the game IF they know their "efforts" will be defeated before they start. They can put up the "good fight" with a wink to their corporate masters and still collect the money.

In private they say "let them eat cake". It's time this comes to an end, Democrats need to put up or go away.

Medicare for anyone that wants it at an appropriate cost or I'm with the poster and done with them.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. K&R...Hi Mr Ronaldo....I feel your pain.

:hi:

[Cant trust em]

13. I agree. The institution isn't worth my time anymore.

I'll still support individual democrats, but the days of my identifying myself as a democrat are over.

[BootinUp]

16. I can certainly agree

that the results today from the Senate Finance committee suck big time, I think it is worth pointing out that even if that bill went all the way through as is, some of the new regulations would prevent many of the most egregious practices such as denial of coverage, caps on coverage, etc from continuing. Todays result does not surprise me, these Senators have been saying for some time they would basically block any attempt to have a public option. The end result of a half assed bill will be a failure at controlling costs and the congress will have to deal with it again as more and more people will not be able to afford the coverage or the cost in terms of deficits will continue climbing faster than inflation. I still think this will be an important step in the process of getting the full reform that is needed but the fight will not end with this bill as far as I can tell.

[lamp_shade]

18. You'll need to start your own party then, because NO political party is going

to defend ALL of your interests.

[BzaDem]

19. Question: Why do you feel entitled to getting what you want (your "core convictions")?

You seem to premise your entire post by assuming that you are somehow entitled to get your core convictions. Why do you make that assumption? Has it ever occured to you that you might not get what you want, now or ever? That if you get your wish (that the Democratic party implodes, whose pieces will have to be picked up and eventually regain power), you still might not get what you want? Do you even consider the possibility that what you want is simply unattainable, even after several cycles of boom-bust for the Democratic party?

Today's Senate Finance committee vote made blindingly clear that a Medicare-style public option will not even get 50 votes in the Senate. So your wish of buying into Medicare is dead on arrival. Of course, this has been obvious since at least March, but for those who were in denial until now, this vote makes it as clear as day. You asserting that a Medicare-style public option was your "compromise" (as if that were somehow relevant) doesn't change a damn thing. I could take any position on any issue and call it a comporomise from some other position. That doesn't change anything.

Your "reframing" of the debate doesn't change what is politically viable. The Democratic party won the election in 2008. But by the same token, the progressives lost the election of 2008. As unfortunate as it is, progressives make up a minority of both houses of Congress. You seem to act so surprised that progressive policies are not being enacted despite the fact that progressives lost. And instead of wanting to work harder for progressives candidates in 2010 and beyond (so some day, they may actually make a majority), you are pledging to work less and/or leave the party. Doesn't that seem a bit silly to you? It does to me.

I support a strong public option. But I am not going to blame progressives if we don't get one, since they are in the minority. I am going to work harder for the Democratic party (especially for progressive-minded candidates). I am not going to say "to hell with the Democratic party" because the progressives happen to lose this election. That sounds to me very much like the screaming of a five-year old when he doesn't get what he wants. The five-year old, confronted with the seeming tension between "I really want something" and "I am not going to get something," tries to resolve said tension by screaming. I am going to continue to work for the one party that has the potential of enacting causes I support, not throw it under the bus.

[Armstead]

21. Yiou have a point BUT we have to stop enabling this massive sell out

A majority of people (except the insurance oligarchs and 1/3 of the population who are right wing nuts) WANT at least the ability to buy into a public Medicare style plan.

So why is it not "politically viable"?

Because too many of the Democrats are either Cowards or Corrupt or both.

This is not a matter of someone wanting to get exactly what he wants. This is yet another example in which a problem and a solution are eminently Obvious...And yet, the Democratic leadership is either unwilling or unable to achieve that clear solution and -- worse yet -- is going to impose some monstrous mix of Nanny State Mandates and Corporate Giveaway.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Let's stop with the whole "the majority wants it" routine.

You can cobble together any which poll you choose and determine that - I won't dispute it. But you have to look at what the totality of the numbers are saying - which is that honestly, when it comes right down to it, the vast majority of people have no fucking clue what they want. They wouldn't know a "good" health care plan if it hit them in the face. I still remember one poll that asked people if they liked Obama's plan and only 36% or so said yes. Then they read the details of Obama's plan, unattributed to Obama, and 52% approved of it. Let's face it - If Jesus himself came down from heaven and endorsed a plan, they still wouldn't really know why.

And that's really the problem when it comes right down to it - American ignorance. Did you know that Pew did a study in July that showed 53% of the country thinks a laser is a sound beam? I shit you not. This is what we have to work with here, people.

Why is this a problem? Because Republicans are expert fear mongerers. We can put together a plan that meets every desire expressed in a poll as being positive, but because people have no fucking clue, Republicans can tell them that the bill is going to kill grandma, and at least some people will believe it. In fact, enough people will believe it that it will kill the bill that technically has enough support to pass.

[Dr Fate]

53. We know that they DO NOT want to be mandated to BUY private insurance.

If DEMS fail to explain & fight for real reform, that is their fault, not the fault of voters.

It still points to DEMS either failing on purpose in a staged "good cop/bad cop" act or worse, actually being too incompetent to exaplin & fight for their beliefs...

[Armstead]

90. Amen -- Forcing the worst of both worlds on the public is ridiculous

[Armstead]

89. You make a good ;point --- BUT.....

That is no excuse for inaction.

I suspect if Social Security or Medicare -- or even the Federal Hishway System -- were being proposed, there woiuld be the same type of confusion, ignorance and misinformation about them.

"Spending my money to build roads in the middle of nowhere? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It's kind of Commnunistic. What's the benefit of that?"

Health reform is no different -- especially a voluntary public option. The job of leadership is to cut through the crap and the smpkescreens, explain the concept simply and keep hammering at it, and then just doing it.

Eventually, once it is in place, most people would accept it, and eventually it would be seen as a beneficial part of the "fabric of society" (as Sen. Grassley reluctantly described Medicare the other day).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

92. We lived in a different society back then.

When SS and medicare were passed, we didn't have 24 hour news cycles, we didn't have blogs, and the general flow of information was like mud. That insulated politicians heavily, giving them more freedom to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing. I don't think we were any smarter then than we are now. I just think we're given far more opportunities to prove our stupidity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. We're not talking about a team sport here; we're talking about the future of America

Are the Dems going to stand up for the corporations or for the ordinary people who are unemployed, without medical care, without adequate housing?

For mindless militarism or for seeking peaceful solutions whenever possible or just plain butting out of countries whose only "sin" is not playing nice with American business?

For bigotry or for butting out of people's private lives?

For mindless consumption and waste of resources or for rethinking our definition of the good life?

There is no use in having a second party if so many of its members play along with the first?

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Go back to the wording of my OP post:

"I will not defend a Political Party that...". This isn't a matter of my feeling entitled to anything. Anything meaningful in the way of social change that benefits those whom the status quo dis-empowers is always only won by fighting tooth and nail for it. I am talking about who I am willing to fight along side of, whose back I am willing to cover at my own expense in that process. I see the Right in this country fighting tooth and nail for what is important to it. I am watching the Democratic Party now to see how it responds.

I think you are dead wrong in your numbers. The public option will get over 50 votes in the Senate if the Democratic leadership pushes for it. There may even be 60 votes for closure of a Republican filibuster if President Obama and the Democratic leadership makes a strong case for allowing an up or down vote to happen. The Republicans have already written the case for that from when they were in power and did things like ram through Bush's tax cuts for the rich with less support than the Public Option has today.

This is an opinion board so it is fine for you to express yours that I am sounding like a five year old. I think I am sounding like an adult who is free to decide where both his loyalties and priorities lie. The Democratic Party is not "entitled" to my unwavering determined support, nor can even I deliver that to them if I tried to in the face of a Democratic retreat from standing for the campaign pledges that brought Obama to power. My heart simply would not be into it and that is a cold hard fact that brings with it cold hard consequences. Trying to pretend otherwise would be foolish and naive.

Because real health care reform goes to the heart of why I need a Democratic Party that is willing to stand up for me when the chips are down, if the leadership of that Party backs down when a handful of corporate funded Democrats demand that they do so, then that leadership is not worthy of my loyalty. They will have my vote when they deserve it, which will be vastly more often than today's Republican Party, but I will not remain co-dependent to their pandering to the Right addiction. If it requires an intervention from progressive activists in the form of denial of support in order for the national Democratic Party to reevaluate it's priorities and reassert it's spine, than so be it. Single Payer health insurance may be a died in the wool progressive cause, but a public option isn't. A public option is more mainstream today than anything the Republican Party proposes.

If it is not allowed to fix what is really broken, I don't want the national Democratic Party falsely claiming that legislation it backed did just that. That would doom the chance for getting real reform for at least another decade. If Blanche Lincoln loses in 2010, not only in a primary but in the General Election also, let the perception flourish that she lost BECAUSE much of the base of the Democratic Party abandoned her, rather than letting Republicans continue to claim that centrist Democrats lose by refusing to move further Right. That may be our only real chance for reclaiming and rebuilding the Democratic Party.

[freddie mertz]

36. Thank you for your eloquence on this matter.

It's a bitter time and we are being asked to swallow a bitter pill by people who have just not earned the right to insist on it.

I will support INDIVIDUAL Democratic candidates but will no longer support the national Party with donations.

Unless they provide assurances that NO money will go the corrupt coffers of the likes of Blanche Lincoln, and even if they could, why waste the money on the national effort when the PArty itself seems to have few if my core principles.

I will retain my registration (which I have held since 1971/72) in order to vote in Dem primaries against Dinos and sell-outs and FOR true progressives.

But that will be it from now on.

[BzaDem]

64. You are talking about a public option. I am talking about a Medicare-type public option.

A public option tied to Medicare couldn't even make it out one of the committees in the house. Of course, it also failed in a 15-8 vote in the Senate finance committee. There might be enough support for a public option not tied to Medicare. That is very unlikely, but it is still at least possible. That indeed might be the compromise in the end. But that would not allow you to "buy into Medicare" as you demand. It would allow you to buy into a government plan that has to sustain itself through premiums and maintain a reserve fund, and would not have the negotiating leverage of Medicare.

The reality is, passing something like this now will allow us to eventually tie it to Medicare. If we can pass healthcare reform that isn't everything we want, it will still help us tremendously in 2010. We might even gain seats in the Senate, and that would allow us to strengthen the public option in 2011. Even if we didn't gain enough seats in 2011, it would be much easier in a future Congres to simply change the public option (tie it to Medicare), than it would be to create a new Medicare public option from scratch. Look at Social Security: it started out as a program that was awful and had huge exceptions for who it covered. It got strengthened as time went on into the great program that it is today.

You, on the other hand, would rather us cede Republicans power in 2010 (which would be what would happen if we don't pass any healthcare bill at all). Not only would that extend the day where we have today's majority back (or greater), but it means we wouldn't have gotten any closer to the goal. How is that not totally irrational? What evidence do you have for your proposition that passing a weak public option today would somehow make it any harder (instead of much easier) to pass a strong one later?

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. To be perhaps clearer

I would accept a Schumer amendment type public option acceptable for Democrats to make a stand for in the final bill.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Why do you feel the Party is entitled to support

from people who simply do not support their policies? The chairman opposes any form of family rights for GLBT people. Including civil unions. So how exactly are they entitled to support form those they oppose?
You have it all backwards entitlements wise. You seem to think the Party is entitled to my vote no matter what they do, and that is simply not the deal. You might wish it were, but the deal is I have a vote, come get it or lose it.

[Dinger]

22. Me Too Tom

K & R

[stray cat]

23. So 8 years under Gore would have been identical to the last 8 years under Bush?

do you really think the GOP as it currently stands is going to give you more of what you want or even the same? The lesser of two evils is still the lesser evil.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. If continued capitulation leads to continuing erosion of core Democratic values a line must be drawn

Either that or the lesser of two evils will continually become more evil without any other viable choices.

[Orsino]

35. I will only opine that we stand to lose much more by not opposing Republicans...

...than we can gain by not supporting Democrats.

But yes, everyone must be willing to draw a line somewhere, and today's Democratic leadership is goddamned discouraging to those of us on the left. They're a conundrum: quaking in terror at the thinness of their majority, while at the same time cavalier about ignoring progressives.

[high density]

26. We know the GOP won't give us what we want. We saw that play out recently.

We're finding out that the Democrats, at least the 20% that seem to "matter" in DC, also will not give us what we want.

When the choices are bad vs. a little less bad, it is understandable why people become disconnected from the political process. Obama brought out record numbers of new people into the party, yet the Democrats as an institution are pissing that away at a record pace. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot be as unified as the Republicans were a few years ago and show people we're going a different direction. Glenn Beck and the 23%-ers don't like it? Who gives a shit about them, they certainly didn't give a shit about us four years ago. Yet the focus apparently remains on pleasing the media, pleasing the DC establishment, pleasing the Republicans. "Bipartisanship" at all costs, even when it gets no votes from the opposition. Did we not learn with the stimulus? That was an excellent example of the cutthroat Republicans. Take a bill from the Dems, maliciously water it down, and then let the Democrats own it. That helps nobody but the Republicans.

The Democratic Party extends its hand out every month to me with a mailing begging for cash. I love the idea of being unified for common goals, most of which I agree with. I support that. However I do not see this party implementing what it has talked about. Instead I see Obama sitting in the oval office with a pen in his hand, ready to sign legislation, while the turds in Congress are thinking of new ways to please the corporate elite and secure their own futures and stuff their coffers.

It's time for the Democrats wise up and stop being used as tool of the Republicans. Write a good bill, up or down vote, and then get the President to sign it. The Republicans just want us to fail so they can play the blame game in every election cycle.

[quakerboy]

77. 8 years of Clinton lead to 8 years of Bush

And if we go back and do it again, we will slide that much further. The country is in a worse place than when Carter took over. If we do this cycle again, where will we be?

[Autumn]

28. Thank you for your post.

I am sorry that the wants of a few of the party are all that is important when the need of the people are so great. I will no longer excuse them

[S_E_Fudd]

29. I agree...better to have an honest and effective opposition...

Than be weak and complicit while in power...

The senate is in defacto Republican control...makes little difference whether or not they are in administrative control as well...

[Forkboy]

37. Sadly, the Dems are the only game in town.

They're the only political party that has the ability to move forward on the issues I care about. If third parties were viable in the United States I'd have bolted from the Party long ago. But they aren't viable under our system, and won't be anytime in the foreseeable future. That leaves me with the options of no party, which is rather pointless as I'll end up voting Dem 99% of the time anyways, or the Dems, who may suck in many ways, but who also are the only ones out there that can do anything for us, even if it's only small steps forward.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. I would not go third party if this Democratic Party fails now

But it takes the left way for granted and too often caves to the right under fire. Above I used addiction treatment terminology; I am no longer willing to remain co-dependent to a slow continual drift away from Democratic core values by my Party out of blind loyalty or a mantra that "things could always be worse". Maybe it needs "tough love" from the left

There is a huge difference between voting Democratic and being a Democrat. When I believe it is my party I will sweat blood for it. If it continues to cave I will not.

[Forkboy]

42. I understand.

Been in the same boat for about a decade now. The party disappoints me far more often than not, I just see no other viable alternatives. We're between a rock and a hard place, and many Dems in power know it. We could walk, but that doesn't help us either. It's a sucky feeling, and one I have no good answer for.

[treestar]

38. To what extent is this the case?

You could end up a party of one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. When does a Party end and a cross section begin?

There is and must always be a struggle to define what it means to be a Democrat rather than just an American citizen. Yes the Party is diverse, but by definition it is not as diverse as the public as a whole. People CHOOSE to be Democrats and there has to be some points of unity to distinguish one Party from another or we might as well all be Independents.

If continued capitulation on core ideals leads to continuing erosion of core Democratic values a line needs to be drawn. If not than there will be a continued rightwood shift as only the Right keeps pushing and the Left keeps compromising.

[treestar]

43. True, but I still see the Democrats as more liberal and likely to lead to

more liberal policies in the future than the Republicans. Tat there is little or no difference - I can't buy that. The Blue Dogs piss me off, true, but they aren't advocating nothing or trying to get us into war with Iran. At some point, we take the country we have.

[uponit7771]

39. Yeap, a logical decision

[dkf]

45. Trusting a corporation with your life is the crazy choice, not choosing the Government.

I don't know how these insurance companies convinced these people that corporations are the best stewards of their health. What a crazy proposition. Bunch of morons.

[David Zephyr]

46. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[invictus]

48. K&R

[zulchzulu]

51. The Republicans love this attitude

Give up. Throw the baby out with the bath water.

If anything, this is the BEST time to be out there working for the Democratic Party. It's not over. We have a lot of work to do. The other choices are SHIT.

I vote for Greens in local races if they are good candidates. As for national politics, it's either the Democratic Party or the other third parties that have absolutely NO CHANCE of ever getting anywhere near any reasonable power.

It's the reality of our time and place. Be a fighting Democrat and work toward kicking out the Blue Dogs or get out of the way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. The Republicans embrace this attitude for themselves far more than I advocate it for "us"

"The squeeky wheel gets the greece" is their 11th commandment. It is how they continue to push the nation toward the right despite an astonishing series of conservitive policy failures.

[Dr Fate]

56. Actually, Republicans love the attitude of the Blue Dogs & "centrists"

The "I'm going to leave the DEMS" attitude is a RESPONSE to the Blue Dog attitude, is it not?

Republicans love how the "centrists" do the work of the GOP for them, and at the same time, they drive true believers out of our party.

See how the "Blue Dog" attitude is a win-win for the Republicans?

If pro-reform voters leave the party due to centrist failures, I'll blame the centrists, not the pro-reform progressives & moderates.

Simple solution: DEMS can support their base and be for true reform, then there is nothing to worry about.

I'll bash the "centrists" & conservatives, not voters who oppose them.

[zulchzulu]

62. The only way to get a good Democratic Party is to vote out the Blue Dogs

The only way to do that is to have someone who is progressive beat them. Giving up on the party and letting MORE Blue Dogs arise from the muck is the certain way to keep the Democratic Party less progressive.

Hence the "Blue Dog" attitude is a win-win for the Republicans because we won't get rid of the Blue Dogs.

:hi:

[Dr Fate]

63. I'm not sure Blue Dogs will ever get elected as DEMS if progressives leave the party in droves.

After all, it's not Republicans who go out and campaign for them when election times comes- Blue Dogs get their campaign support from DEM organizations that are supported by Unions, Liberal activists, etc.

But I hear what you are saying- we can get similar results if we just refuse to give money or support to anyone but real DEMS.

You realize that this means no more money or door knocking for the DNC, or any other org. that funnels money to the DLC or Blue Dogs, right?

I think this what most people ultimately mean when they say they are "leaving the party"- they will still vote for & support certain DEMS, but not others.

I just find it funny- on one hand, the Blue Dogs cry: "We have to vote with conservatives, our constituents want us to"- but when it comes campaign time, they don't ask their Republican "constituents" for help- they ask me.

In any event, most progressives will still support & vote for progressive DEMS even if the Blue Dogs alienate them from the rest of the party.

Bottom Line: If DEMS do the right thing, there is nothing to worry about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Exactly. Without progressive support most Blue Dogs are toast

If they can't or won't even meet us in the middle OF THE DEMOCRATIC Party when push comes to shove on the issues that count most, they should no longer count on progressives to help them beat off openly Republican candidates. If progressives refuse to give support to the most rigidly blue dog Democrats, when they lose their loss can be pinned on their having alienated the Democratic base rather than the current hack mantra that, no matter how conservatively they voted in Congress, they still were too liberal to hold onto those seats. That is the conventional thinking that we enable with our continued support of Democrats who stab us in the back.

[Dawgs]

54. Great. Another win for the Republicans.

You sound like Baucus. Instead of fighting, you're giving up.

Nice.

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

57. Yep- another Blue Dog/centrist failure that we can blame on a "wacky far left" boogy man.

To be fair, "failure" might be the wrong word-Baucus is not "giving up"- he's fighting moderates & Liberals tooth & nail, in fact.

If Republicans win, it wont be the fault of anyone ont he left- but the fault of the "centrists" who are driving the strategy & goals here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Do you recognize political co-dependency ?

When it really matters limits must be set, and when they are they must he backed up with action if they are ignored. Otherwise the identified negative behavior just continues unchecked. I will fight hard for the Democratic Party if it will fight half as hard for us.

[Bonobo]

59. This is one of the greatest posts ever. Kicked and Recommended!

We must not lose sight of the truth. Demanding affordable health care that reflects the democratic ideals of our nation is not a radical thing. We have let the corporate entities make a mockery of egalitarianism. It is time to strike back or give up the country for dead. They are now hyenas picking at the dead and ruined of this economy. If you think that is an exaggeration, remember that the major banks made record profits (was it 38 billion?) last year and much of that was on overdraft charges.

We are now being had by members of our own party. If it is to remain OUR party, they must be removed or a new party started in its place.

[depakid]

61. Don't look now but the Republicrats are out to shield the banskters and fraudsters from regulation-

AGAIN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4083832

[tomp]

73. don't look now, but the dems are going to help them. nt

[hay rick]

66. Agree with the sentiment.

I want the Democrats to OPPOSE a bill without a strong public option. You can call a bill with tiny co-ops and some kind of mandate "reform" but you can also call an ostrich an eagle.

Not passing a "reform" bill will be a failure, but passing a bill which increases insurance company revenues and profits while seeking only to reduce the rate of increase of health care spending will be a much greater- and more blameworthy- failure.

As much as I despise Ralph Nader for his exercise in ego-fueled electoral sabotage in 2000, I think our current two-party system has ceased functioning in a constructive way and I am open to schism if that is what it takes to create a party that is capable of even entertaining progressive legislation.

[bertman]

67. I'm with you, Tom.

Recommend.

[placton]

68. Mr. Obama is the paradigm of the "80%"

lip service, broken promises and nooooooo action - but many dems and many DUers tell us we have to be "practical" - barf - that really means it's ok to sell us out.

[tooeyeten]

69. Contact the White House

Call, write, email, whatever it takes, let them know, let "millions of us" notify them we're watching and we're not happy!

[boppers]

71. I am a true Scotsman.

I will not defend false scotsmen.

[roody]

72. Public financing of elections.

[quakerboy]

78. I will not leave the values I hold

But the party may leave me. And those who stand where I do will have my back, as I have theirs.

[elleng]

79. Sorry you're so upset, Tom.

Of course I understand. Never registered Dem until I had opportunity to vote for Wes in Dem primary, and certainly didn't expect much from Dems after. But I am now willing to see what comes of the health care deal, which I'm not prepared to call 'fiasco' yet.

My thoughts are with you.

Ellen

[Kermitt Gribble]

82. I regret that I'm too late to rec this thread.

I'm happy to give it a big kick, though!

"I would rather stand ready to pick up the pieces after the fall than be complicit in the failure. I would rather disown the betrayal of what Democrats long stood for in America, than be an apologist for surrender. I would rather rebuild on our Party's true foundations than shore up a structure that can not be depended on when it really counts. " -- Excellent statement!!

You are not alone, Tom Rinaldo.

[joeycola]

83. I would rec. if I could but too late. Thanks for the post. Bravo!!

[droidamus2]

84. Here's a proposition

If the 'blue dogs' are a small minority, especially in the Senate, wouldn't it be possible with strong leadership (something sadly missing in the Democratic Party) to backbench them. By that I mean remove them from any meaningful control of any committees. Spread them out so they can not take control of any committee by voting as a block. Tell them that if they are not willing to stand with the party on the big agenda items they will be relegated to minor roles on minor committees. Before you say 'but theirs the seniority thing', I don't care about seniority part of leadership is to get their people in the position to control things and get the legislation passed.

Back to the original OP, I think there are many Democrats, myself included, that are old enough to have seen what was accomplished in the days when social security, medicare, civil rights when the party really pushed for what it believed was right. I became a voter after most of those programs had already been established. Since then I have been told over and over that the Democrats would push for 'liberal/progressive' legislation that would move this country forward (in my opinion) but when push came to shove I have seen them over and over capitulate to either the Republicans or the rightwing of their own party. The idea that refusing to give my emotional and financial support to the Democrats until I see some backbone is the same as supporting the Republicans is just wrong. I will still work against Republicans and what they stand for just not through the Democratic Party. To me this idea of compromise/lesser of two evils, if both the right and left went along with it, would ultimately give us on the equivalent of one centrist party that never does anything to rock the boat. I am not demanding that I get everything I want that is not realistic but I am saying that if the party is not willing to fight for the big agenda items that I think are the most important then I cannot in good conscience directly aid them in their party efforts.

To end this rant, how is it 'compromise' if the left or the Democrats are the only one asked to change their positions? That is not compromise that is capitulation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. That's an interesting idea

Working to dilute the power of Blue Dog Democrats if they oppose the Democratic leadership on too many key Democratic priorities. It would bring howls of protest from them of course and the leadership would have to be very firm in it's resolve to stand strong. Based on what happened, or let's say did not happen, to Lieberman it does not seem likely. But that was back when perhaps some assumed that 60 Democratic Senators most likely ensured 60 Democratic votes (or damn near to it) on crucial votes for Democrats in the Senate. If in fact that is not the case, the case for appeasement weakens significantly. The bottom line standard then shifts to maintaining 50 solid votes (with VP Biden as the 51st vote) in order to guarentee that Democrats retain control of the Senate leadership and committee chairs etc.

How many compromises should be made to keep 60 Democratic Senators if 5 of those votes are essentially undependable anyway when the rubber hits the road? Perhaps it would be better to learn how to govern as effectively as possible with 53 dependable votes with little remaining need to weaken our own positions in order to maintain so called "Party unity".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. I'm with you--I was 13 when the Civil Rights Act was passed

It caused Southerners (and many Northerners) to defect from the Democratic Party, and it was NOT an easy win, but it was the right thing to do.

While the Democratic Party was far from perfect in those days, they still had some sense that you do certain things just because they're right.

Do you think Medicare was non-controversial? Hell, no. I recall TV commercials saying that it was unnecessary because there were other sources of funding for the elderly poor.

I wonder what some of the posters today would have said if they had been around in the 1960s: "We'll alienate the Southern Democrats if we push for a Civil Rights Act. The "Negroes" will just have to wait another 100 years. It's not politically feasible."

[anonymous171]

98. Agreed. If there is no public option, then I will not be voting for O in 2012.

Actions have consequences. We need to show Obama and the party that throwing the far/moderate left under the buss is not a winning strategy.

[Butch350]

99. So. What party ARE YOU moving over to?

I'd rather read the lyrics to "nowhere man".

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. Well it's obvious you didn't read the whole OP and my follow up posts...

Don't you already have Nowhere Man memorized by now?

[Odin2005]

103. Why don't you try to primary the Blue Dogs instead, you know, something HELPFUL?

Rather than sabotaging the whole party?

[Dr Fate]

104. We tried that when we nominated Lamont. The party still supported Liberman (I-3rd Party)

I'm not against your idea, but lets keep the record straight on what really happens when we try that.

The "centrists" will just holler "This is an unfair purge- the far-out leftists just want ideological purity..." and then many powerful, established DEMS will proceed to back the losing nominee as a conservative, 3rd party run.

I'm not saying we should not keep trying, but let's use recent history in order to be clear on exactly how it will really play out.

Centrists will continue to do all they can to keep "the far left" that they disdain out of the process of selecting potential nominees, etc.

Also, many of the Blue Dogs who are screwing things up are not even up for re-election anytime soon.

[Odin2005]

107. Conservatives re-elected Loserman.

The actual Republican candidate was in 3rd place.

[Dr Fate]

108. Conservatives in our own party ran his campaign, gave him money and support.

If our own party had shunned and totally ignored him, while backing the LEGIT DEM nominee 100%, the Republicans would have had to run a serious candidate against Lamont. In that case- ALL the DEM and MOST of the Moderate votes would have gone to the DEM, not the the conservative 3rd party disguised as an "Independent Democrat."

The results would have been different had the "centrists" been loyal to their own party instead of to a conservative 3rd party. Lamont needed the DEM machine & all of our big names 100% behind him, but too much of it backed Joe.

You do not offer up any evidence that a more current primary battle against a "centrist" would not play out the same way- so we are still back at square one either way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Motivation is a fickle friend

I believe this OP qualifies as "fair warning", and providing that now can be helpful to the whole party. It is human nature to work hardest for things that you really believe in. The Democratic Party is at risk right now of losing a lot of passionate energy from a large number of activists who may or may not officially "leave" the Party in the wake of botched health care reform, but who would no longer be there for the Party in the same manner that they have been over the last several years; years that brought the Democratic Party back into power.

[budkin]

105. We just need to weed out the 10 or so Dems in the Senate that are corporate robots

and then all will be good.

[stevenleser]

117. Your concern is noted

:eyes:

[geckosfeet]

118. WTF. It hasn't been a year. Instant gratification only happpens in hour long tv shows.

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. No it hasn't been a year, it's been over 60 years

Universal health care is the major promise to middle and working class Americans that the Democratic Party is long past over due delivering on. There have been a few "installment payments made", the last major one being Medicare. The Democratic Party was dead set on the value of government provided health care then. They didn't settle for providing a public option for medicare instead, let alone a mandated private exchange.

If you re-read my OP you will find that I made a specific point of NOT being critical now of either Obama or the Democratic leadership in Congress. The job may still get done right. I was also not critical of the pace at which reform legislation is moving through Congress. I even said I would not be critical of our Democratic leadership if they fought hard for real reform and lost. What I fear is getting the job done WRONG, while claiming it is real reform.

Edited to add: The Democrats got a shot to get it right when Clinton took office and failed. It took another 15 years for Democrats to convincingly enough win a national election with health care reform openly on the agenda to try for it again. These opportunities are rare and fleeting but we have one now. It's time to get the job done without making so called health care reform just another form of corporate welfare.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. You kicked this 4 days after the last prior post for that comment?

Welcome to DU even if you didn't make a point worth discussing.

[inna]

123. check out this one, she kicked it from Sept 16:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8656737&mesg_id=8686617

she did it with multiple threads tonight, all kicked with her post saying "should've voted 4 hillary". :shrug:

whatever.

[DonCoquixote]

122. haha

Hillary, who made a plan that was in many ways worse than HR 3200? Hillary, who turned right wing the minute she got power? Please. How do people expect the woman who helped make Wal-Mart the power that it is become a flaming Liberal is beyond me.