It might suck, but the Democratic Party is the ONLY way forward

[CTLawGuy]

Here are some very simple reasons why:

1. Liberals leaving the Democrats will only result in the nomination of EVEN MORE conservative Democrats because only more moderate and conservative Democrats will remain to choose nominees.
2. It will also lead to more Republican victories if the vote on the left is split because in our system, you only need a plurality to win.
3. There will most likely NEVER be a viable liberal third party. This is because (a) only about 25% of the US electorate identifies itself as ideologically liberal (slim pickins), (b) a lot of those liberals will be wary to join a third party because of the considerations in points 1 and 2 above, and (c) it would take a Herculean effort to build a national organization, reputation and infrstructure that could run with the two major parties.
4. It will make the jobs of Democrats trying to enforce discipline through the primary process that much harder.

Building off of number 4, the way forward is for liberals to rely on the primary process. It will result in more liberal nominees, it will not split the general election vote on the left and we won't need to build a third party from scratch.

Take a cue from the Club For Growth on the right. We need an organization dedicated to enforcing discipline by sponsoring primary challenges to Democrats who, for example, vote against a public option. The Club for Growth strikes fear in the hearts of most Republican legislators. We need to strike the same fear in Max Baucus etc. Our fate is in our hands.

[whyverne]

1. Just use my little rationalization.

"The only party I hate more than the Democratic is the Republican, but I really hate the Republicans".

[still_one]

2. Only for the time being, and only because of the Supreme Court

However, If the leadership of the Democratic party in Congress refuses to distinguish themselves from the republicans on key issues such as healthcare, war, balance of power among the three branches of governement etc. then it really doesn't matter.

In fact, if the time comes where Federalist society judges such as Scalia and Alito are appointed by Democrats in power, then the Democrat party in my view will cease to exist

It should be realized that at one time, in this country, the Democrats were the party of segregation. It was only during the 20th century that started to change, and it was the Civil Rights Act under Kennedy/Johnson that left no ambiguity that the Democrats stood for equal and civil rights while the party of Lincoln, moved the other direction, and left no doubt where they stood after Nixon's scorch and burn policy to control the South

[karynnj]

7. I agree with your last two paragraphs, but disagree completely on the first

On healthcare, there is a major difference between the party's. Even looking at the Senate Finance committee, which has far more conservative Democrats than other committees, there is a husge divide between the two party's. The fact is that there has been just one Republican who has crossed to vote on the "Democratic" side and there are less than a third of the Democrats likely to vote with the Republicans.

Even on public option, the reasons are different. Baucus still - ignoring that even Snowe is not with him - is searching for his version of the Holy Grail, a bill with bipartisan support. He said that he was for the public option, that he had included it in his original proposal, but he wanted 60 votes. Conrad is looking at his state and finds the coop plan more in keeping with its values and somehow ignores that nothing stops people from forming a coop in ND and others choosing it. Both of these people - our worst on this issue on that committee (along with Lincoln, who didn't give a reason and later parroted Baucus'), are amazingly better than where the Republicans, other than Snowe were.

On war, you may be right that it will become less party line. Hearing people like George Will questioning escalating the war in Afghanistan is stunning - especially when some Democrats apparently support it.

[still_one]

15. Good points. My main emphasis was that things can change where a party may not

represent what it used to stand for

I don't think the Democratic party has reached that point, but look at what the republican party has become. They have essentially said they do not want moderates in their party?

Could that happen to the Democratic party where they do not give liberals a voice? I hope not, but things do change, and with the influence of lobbyists anything can happen

[Enthusiast]

52. You are correct.

But this isn't college football where uniforms are the primary difference. This is life. These votes will determine the future of the country. I simply will not vote for someone because it will say D beside their name. They must show me they are D.

[freddie mertz]

3. I used to think so. Lately I am not too sure.

We need a big housecleaning, especially in the Senate.

We also could use some real leadership from the White House.

So far, not so very good.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Then we are doomed.

I don't even disagree with anything you wrote, except it isn't going to happen. Absent a stunning collapse of our current system, we are locked into the kleptocracy. They've won.

A stunning collapse is obviously not that improbable an event. We were almost there one year ago. So we just have to go through hell to get to someplace better. Given our current situation, even without another Wall Street disaster, our 30 years of do nothing over catastrophic climate change and oil dependency has pretty much locked the world into a mid-term future of global catastrophe. Consequently I am quite optimistic about the prospects for real and meaningful change, kleptocracy abolishing change, 20-30 years out, I just most likely won't be around to see it, or will be far more of a drool-cup idiot than I am now.

Being doomed ain't so bad after all. Past doom is hope.

[zipplewrath]

19. I'm in the same place

I understand the rationale, I've argued it myself. But this is absurd. We have Rahm on NPR practically bragging about cutting deals with big Pharma and other corporate interests. We have a continuing war in Iraq, an escalating war in Afghanistan, and unaccounted bailouts of the banking system. We have a president that is hesitant to investigate major war crimes of the previous administration, goes over to the CIA and tells the torturers that he "has their backs", and a speaker of the House that consistently told folks that "impeachment was off the table". We contribute and campaign so that the smallest of atrocities aren't continued, at the price of our core issues being dumped so that corporate America will continue to donate to the DLC. We have a DCCC and a DSCC that absolutely refuses to "allow" primaries, in cooperation with the White House now, so progressives don't even get a chance to "make their case" in DEMOCRATIC primaries.

It's got to stop some how and some way and the only 3 ways I can see is stop the money flowing, stop the votes flowing, or third parties.

[Lerkfish]

5. When I was in college, a roomate told me I HAD to support the PTL club on tv

since it was religious programming and if it went away, flawed as it was, there would be no religious programming (this was in the late seventies, so the argument made a little more sense back then)
to which I replied, "How about we just force them to make better religious programming instead of funding the horrible religious programming that already exists?"

[Vinca]

6. I'm beginning to think both parties are the same because

both have elected officials who are beholden to their corporate masters. The only real difference is we (the underlings) are independent thinkers while right wingers fall in line like sheep and do whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to do.

[bread_and_roses]

8. Electoral politics is not the answer - we're wasting our energy on it

The Leiberman situation shows how effective your #4 is - did not even Obama support that war-mongering old Neo-Lib DINO? Obama has clearly shown which side he's on with his Bankster Bail-Outs and Pharma deals. Scraps and bones left-over from the 1% feasting - that's the best we can hope for under this corrupt system.

Nothing will change until and unless we organize people while the Pols stew in their own DC sweat. The people are with "us" on health care, on taxing the rich, on support for the poor, on on on...that we get none of it shows how utterly ineffective our electoral process is in reining in the $$.

But its probably too late anyway - climatae catastrophe is far more likely to send us spiraling into tribal fuedalism or fascism than anything else. Oh, well.

[Dr Fate]

23. #4 only works if the DEM establishment actually supports the DEM nominee 100%. Not so with Lamont.

In fact, the DEM establishment seemed to give more support & comfort to the CONSERVATIVE 3rd PARTY, instead of their own nominee.

To be fair, Obama claimed support for Lamont after he won the nomination. Whether Obama did MORE campaiging & donating for Lamont than he did to Lieberman in the primary, I'm not sure.

My understanding is that Obama sent out emails in support of Lamont. I'm not sure what else he did, if anything.

I'm all for "working withing the party"-as it is always suggested when we are anticipating failure or making excuses in advance- but we need to be clear on what happened when we actually tried that.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. If They Can't Move The Ball Now, They Can't Move It Ever

Democratic President and heavy Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. If nothing can get done now, then the Party needs to be totally dismantled or replaced.

[Oregone]

10. Cept when they are going backwards, or spinning in a circle, or doing a circle jerk, etc.

[sybylla]

11. You make some very good points.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid they will be lost on those who are anti-party. It's the only game in town and it won't change until we take it over. But some would rather walk away and sneer impotently from the sidelines than fight for what's right.

[iceman66]

12. Consider the alternative.

The Democratic party may not be perfect, but the Republican party is downright criminal.

[Enthusiast]

55. Yeah, they have that built in protection.

But I'm not falling for it. If Democrats don't do the right thing they must be thrown from office even if replaced by worse Republicans. It is that simple.

[iceman66]

61. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Enthusiast]

68. The world makes no sense

when legislators vote against the interests of their constituency for monetary gain. Those anti-public option Democrats must be thrown from office.

[S_E_Fudd]

13. I don't think so...

First I don't think we are moving forward...maybe just moving backward slightly less rapidly...

Seems to me a committed minority can do more to halt the march to complete corporate control of the country than the timid and compliant majority we have now...

Hell the Republicans have only 40 members and they are in defacto control...

[dionysus]

14. a third party will never do anything but weaken either the dems or the repubs. untill we have a euro

style parliamentary govt or runoff voting, all the third party people are doing is wasting their time and weakening the dems.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Well the Dems are in power now. Let's see what they do about switching over to

a Parliamentary system and run-off voting (and publicly funded elections.)

I bet, though, that they will never do it because they want to amass power not share it in the interests of democracy. (They've been in power before and not gotten these things started let alone done.)

America, where I can have anything I want on my cheeseburger and can get any option on my new car, but am stuck with a crappy government system (until it completely dies and has to be rebuilt from scratch.)

[dionysus]

24. "(until it completely dies and has to be rebuilt from scratch.)" unfortunately that's what it would

take.

the problem with 3rd parties with our system as it stands, is that you will be siphoning votes from one of the major parties. a liberal third party will siphon dems, and ensure the republicans never get defeated, and vice versa.

[treestar]

16. True. Look where purist idealism got the Repukes

Let them be the losers.

The primary challengers don't have to win, just get those ideas out there and keep them alive, like Kucinich does running for President - he doesn't expect to win.

And these ideas are good, unlike those of the far right wing nut batshit insane cases.

[WeDidIt]

17. I have to agree with you

but the more I look, the more I determine that this truth means we're already so fucked up there's no way to change anything and I might as well concentrate on family and say to hell with ever being involved in politics again (including voting because the way I see it, it's becoming clear that even bothering to vote is a complete waste of time, effort, and everything else).

[Orsino]

18. There's a lot of truth to that...

...but it's also what the Dem and GOP leadership desperately need us to believe, and so should be suspect.

I would enjoy seeing anti-trust principles applied to our political duopoly.

[invictus]

20. The Democrats are going to have to earn my vote by being progressive.

I will not support a corporatist-war party.

[CTLawGuy]

28. so you don't vote

and either a conservative dem gets nominated in the primary and elected, or a republican gets elected over a conservative democrat who got nominated because you didn't vote for the more liberal alternative in the primary. How does that help you? How does your action in not participating in the democratic primary help you?

[BzaDem]

33. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

The definition of an American election is a vote between the least bad. There are always going to be some who are going to be in denial about that.

[Dr Fate]

21. Oh, so now DEMS NEED Liberals? Fine, then support them now, and we have nothing to worry about.

Besides- it's not just "Liberals" who want meaningful reform. Moderates and TRUE centrists (not to be confused with corporate conservatives) want it too.

Also, anti war moderates & Liberals tried number 4 once (See Lamont vs. Liberman), but the the "centrist" establishment openly supported the CONSERVATIVE, pro-Bush 3rd party instead of their own legit DEM nominee.

Your post seems to anticiapte a situation where 1-4 will need to be considered. Seems we could avoid the whole thing be simply opposing conservatives & supporting reform- you know,like we are supposed to be doing.

I'm all for working within the party- but I'm tired of excuses in advance as a replacement for fighting in the present.

You cant have it both ways- you either need pro-reform support, or you dont. If "centrists" fail, blame them, not Liberals, moderates & true centrists who decide to look elsewhere.

If Liberals & moderates leave the party, then why dont you just get all Blue Dogs & conservatives who LIKE co-ops, insurance give aways, etc. to campaign, donate, & vote for DEMS?

Surely there must be MILLIONS of such people, right?

[CTLawGuy]

25. people have brought up Lamont/Lieberman

to refute point #4. However, that race was not the normal case.

-CT allows a primary loser to run as an independent. Not all states do so.
-The Rs put up a sacrificial lamb candidate that the R base abandoned. This likely had a part in allowing certain Dems to support lieberman. In most primary cases, the Rs would put up a serious candidate that most of the Rs would vote for in the general election. So even if the defeated incumbent ran as an indy, he or she would probably lose.
-Lieberman has a cozy relationship with Rs to begin with. He is more popular among Rs than most D incumbents. In most cases, conservative Ds represent a moderate and conservative D base and the Rs are very far right.

[Dr Fate]

26. That was me. So what recent primary examples should we look to as the template?

Also, I'm unclear on your point about "allowing certain DEMS to supprt Lieberman." DEM officials should have supported the LEGIT nominee instead of the conservative 3rd party whether the Rs put up a sacrifical lamb or not. Right?

What am I missing here- are you saying there are instances where we should "allow" support for 3rd parties? Is this exception just for Conservative 3rd parties?

I think Lamont/Lieberman is the perfect example of how "centrist" DEMS really feel about about progessives who "work within the system"- Progressive support is all well and good until they get uppity and start winning nominations. Then they start crying "this is an unfair purge" and "this is unrealistic ideological purity" and all that crap.

[CTLawGuy]

27. well

most dems at least feigned support for Lamont. And no I am not saying we should allow support for third parties. I am saying that because some dems (mostly southerners/conservatives--same thing--like Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and idiot Harold Ford, the only dem to lose a competitive senate seat in a huge dem year) were convinced that Lieberman was likely to win because of republican support, they felt that they could also support him without risk of a republican winning. If the R candidate were strong, they would likely have fallen in line behind the nominee.

I should point out it was because of support for third parties by the left that Bush got close enough to steal the election ...

[Dr Fate]

36. So you dont have an answer. Lamont/Lieberman is our template on how DEM primaires work....

....as to a progressive or moderate DEM running against a DLC/Blue DOg type.

I should point out it was because of support for a third party by the DLC and conservative DEMS that Lieberman got close enough to put our Senate in the precarious position of keeping a Sarah Pailin supporting traitor happy- where we have to be further to the right to get things done.

Funny, isnt it?- The most recent example of 3rd parties screwing things up for DEMS comes from the DLC, not Nader or "the far left" boogie man.

Also- if the DEM establishment and the DLC had been LOYAL to their party and put ALL of their weight behind the LEGIT DEM nominee, and denied all funds & comfort to the conservative 3rd party- the Republicans may have been forced to run a different kind of race.

As it is, the DLC decided it was easier or more in line with their values to just to support a conservative 3rd party.

Funny- because your OP suggests thay party loyalty is key- but you seem to find room for exception when it comes to Joe's conservative, Pro-Bush, 3rd party run.


For the record- I never supported Nader or a 3rd party- I never crafted excuses for people who supported them either. Maybe you need to look to yourself and DLCers on the dangers of all that.

[CTLawGuy]

70. where do you get this idea...

that I APPROVED of the Dems support of Lieberman as an indy? I was furious, absolutely furious about it. I never said that such behavior was acceptable anywhere. I said that's what the people who supported Lieberman were probably thinking.

The reason we don't have a "template" other than that is because 2006 was the first time we really tried. Though I suppose that because in 1968 man had never walked on the moon, we shouldn't have bothered trying in 1969. No "template" there. And I suppose because in 2007, a black man had never been elected president, Obama should not have run-there was no way he could have won. No "template" there either. And Howard Dean's 50 state strategy didn't have a "template", so I suppose we shouldn't have done that either.

So there's my answer to your "template" bullshit.

[Dr Fate]

76. You said that certain DEMS were "allowed" to support a conservative 3rd party.

I never said you approved of it, but you did indicate it was "allowed"- so apparently you did say that such behavior was acceptable in certain quarters of the Conservative wing of our party.

My point stands- Liberman/Lamont is the only template we have so far-when we nominate a progressive, the DLC simply runs the loser as a conservative 3rd party.

You have not given us any convinving arguments that DLC types would not take a similar approach today. Lamont/Lieberman is what we have to go on.

[CTLawGuy]

32. let me ask you another question

Before the 80s and 90s, the Republican party was controlled by its own version of the DLC. They accepted the New Deal regime and even expanded the role of government (Nixon created the EPA for example). People like Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist were incensed by this.

Then at some point the far right took over the party by pushing far right candidates in the parimary at every level of office, especially at the local level (e.g. school board). These local level candidates then would move up and become candidates for higher office. Now, the R pary is controlled by the far right and the moderates, formerly in control, are marginalized.

How successful do you think the far righties would have been in doing what they wanted to do, if instead they formed their own RW third party rather than working within the R party? Less, more or the same?

[Dr Fate]

35. Shouldnt you answer my questions first? 2 of them went unanswered.

So here they are again:

1) What to you mean by certain DEMS being "allowed" to support Joe's 3rd party run? Specifically, I'm asking whether you are saying that there are certain instances where DEMS should be "allowed" to support 3rd parties...

2) Please, by all means, give me an example of a recent primary battle between a Liberal DEM and a conservative DEM that we should use as our template for "working within the party."

Lieberman seems to be the only example from the last 20 years or so that I can recall. If that is the case, I am right- the Lamont/Lieberman race is the example we have of how "working within the system" really works.

Also- I reject the notion that progressives & pro-reform moderates are akin to the "far right" of the 1980's. People who want healthcare reform are not like freaking tea baggers. Give me a break.

Comparing our good, hard working DEM base to the far right is just more of that 3rd way, "Let's attack our base so we look moderate" bullshit from the 90's.

Also- I never said I was for supporting a 3rd party- In fact, *you* are the one who suggested that supporting Joe's 3rd party run was "allowed" by the DEM establishment in certain instances, not me.

I'm just setting the record straight on what happened when progressives & moderates tried to work within the primaries. When we did, the conservative DEM establishment opposed it by RUNNING THEIR OWN 3RD party. How ironic!

Now- please answer my 2 questions, re posted for your convienence at the top of this post.

[CTLawGuy]

72. let me be clear

I NEVER, in ANY post, approved of the scumbag trash so-called "democrats" who supported Lieberman as an independent. I was in fact beside myself with fury about it. I said that they were "allowed" to (i.e. they felt it wouldn't cost the Dems a seat) simply because they felt that he was a lock to win as an independent, because the Republicans, who helped elected him the first time in 1988 BTW, were going to abandon their sacrificial lamb candidate for him. I think these Dems support of him as an independent makes them no better than Nader supporters in 2000...

the CT 2006 race is an unusual example, and just because it didn't ultimately work out doesn't mean that the strategy is bad. CT is an extremely democratic state, the fact that Lieberman is as conservative as he is and still manages to stay in office (mostly through Republican support) is nothing short of an anomaly. Are you going to tell me that the Rs would put up a joke candidate say against Max Baucus in red state MT? Against Blanche Lincoln in right wing fundamentalist AR? Against Evan Bayh in conservative IN?

As to your second question about a template, no there is no template, because we have never tried this strategy on a broad scale.

I guess you wouldn't have wanted the moon mission in 1969 for lack of a "template"
Or Obama to have run for president because there was no "template" of a black person winning the presidency.
And no woman should run for the presidency again because the only "templates" ended up in failure. Im sure you'd agree with that.
And I'm sure Britain didn't have a "template" for NHS.

So if you must have ironclad proof that a strategy works, then you won't be for this strategy. Sorry.


So now I have answered both your questions, now answer mine. Would the RW have been as successful had they formed a 3rd party rather than working within the R party?

(BTW I did NOT compare the RWs to us in any way other than to show an example of a more ideological faction in a party taking power from a more moderate faction. So spare me your outrage.)

[Dr Fate]

79. Thanks. I'll happily answer your question: No.

Easy for me to answer, since I'm not advocating starting a 3rd party- I'm advocating that we only give money & support to real Democrats.

We dont really disagree that we have to TRY in the primaries- but I just want us all to be clear on what happened when we did try- much of the DEM leadership supported the conservative 3rd party. So this business of "well, at least you have the primaries" is often just a way to keep us in line.

I think you have a good points in paragraph 2 as well-maybe the R's would not put up Joke candidates against those Senators- seems that like me, you are anticiapting that the DEM leadership will indeed back them up as 3rd parties if those senators lose a primary.

Glad we are slowly coming to some agreement here.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Electing Democrats doesn't work. Electing Left-kind of Democrats is what we must do.

Give time and money to progressive candidates. Do not lift a finger to help Blue Dogs or any elected official that chooses corporations over people.

[ShortnFiery]

30. +1

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

31. We elected Democratic Congress in 2006. and what was the first thing that happened?

Our new Speaker Pelosi put impeachment "off the table" and she got Rep. John Conyers to drop any action on the Downing Street memos.

The Democratic Establishment must be made as fearful of the Democratic base as the GOP is of theirs.

[Inuca]

47. And on the other hand

that much decried decision MAY have contributed to bringing us Obama's decisive victory and significantly larger majorities in both houses (yes, yes, I know, what good are they, etc., etc. ANswer: even the frustrating and very annoying Baucus is so much better than having Grassley in that position I cannot find words to describe it). I am not saying she was right to do that, I just don't know. But I DO know that effective politics is not a pure art form.

[Dr Fate]

40. Exactly. I wont give directly to the DNC or the DCC anymore- just good, solid individual DEMS

Let the "centrist" activists reach into their wallets & pound the pavement for those yahoos.

LOL! I wish them luck with that one. I've never met a "centrist" political worker in my life.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. Our problem is and always will be disproportionate representation in the Senate.

As it stands now, liberals can win a very progressive House just by shoring up strongholds. The Senate, however, punishes states with high population density because of its 2 Senator/state system. For liberals to take control of the Senate, they need to win every state in their strongholds (MA, CA, IL, NJ, PA, MD, DE, CT, RI, VT, ME, MI, MN, WA, OR, WI, and HI.) And they'd have to do it with lock-solid liberals running. But that's only 34 Senators. This means we need to steal another 15-20 solid liberals from somewhere in order to truly push an agenda.

That's a herculean task when you consider the sheer number of solidly red states out there. I count 24 states from which I'd be completely shocked to get a solid liberal, meaning 48 seats are totally off the board. Sure, we might get a Democrats here and there, but they're going to be Baucus, Ben Nelson, or Mary Landrieu. Essentially, we'd have to grab solid liberals with at least half of the other 18 seats in truly "swing" states just to have a chance at pushing a purist agenda.

This is why A) it's far easier for Republicans to rule with an iron fist and B) why we have to figure out how to make due with blue dogs.

People get sick of hearing it, but the numbers really aren't there. I'm not sure how many times we need to do this.

[Inuca]

48. THIS is something I have a major problem with

but then I am foreign-born and maybe even after more than 30 years in the US I still do not fully understand this "state thing". In my view, no matter what the esteemed founding fathers may have put in the Constitution, in this day & age it is absurd to have CA and RI equally represented in the Senate. I understand the arguments about the smaller states having their rights defended, but still... I do not recall what the exact numbers, but I remember reading BEFORE the 2006 election , when the dems were still the minority, a comparison about the number of people that had elected the D senators vs, those that had voted for an R senator. Definitely more for the Ds, and by quite a striking margin.

So yes, I agree with you. And people that automatically start crying (typing actually) "primary Baucus out", "find a primary opponent for Conrad", etc. should know their facts a bit better. Especially for these two, very senior and I would guess guaranteed to be re-elected for as long as they want. Unfortunately, Ben Nelson that I cannot stand is probably in the same category, or getting there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. There's a reason they're called "states" and not provinces.

The original 13 states were very, very divided over the notion that they would be unified as a single nation. Many of them rather prefered the idea of being wholly independent of one other, but quickly realized that they would get swallowed up by the likes of Britain or France - economically or militarily - if they were to actually try doing that. The first iteration of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, in fact, looked and functioned a bit like today's European Union. It had extremely limited powers and was basically just a loosely knit group of nations that came together in times of crisis. It ran this way - very dysfunctionally - for about 10 years, until the U.S. Constitution was ratified granting the federal government actual powers that superseded those of the states. However, in order to reach that point, there had to be compromises made to ensure that small states wouldn't get overrun (again, they still saw themselves more as independent nations at the time).

Unfortunately, we've operated under these same pretexts ever since. We desperately need to get with the times. In no way do we view ourselves as 50 loosely knit group of independent nations - we need to stop governing as though we are.

Side note: Did you know that although the U.S gained recognized independence in 1783 under the Treaty of Paris, George Washington (recognized as our first President) didn't take the office until 1789? The

[Inuca]

56. Thanks for the bit of history

not all of it familiar. ANd I definitely agree, we DO need to get with the times.

[jenmito]

37. I agree. The reason the Repubs. are in lockstep all the time is because they are a small-tent party

now. The reason the Dems. AREN'T in lockstep is because we are a large-tent party. Of course, that means there will be disappointments for those of us who don't agree with the conservadems and vice versa, but theh alternative is that we are in the minority. That means a Repub. Majority Leader in the Senate and a Repub. Speaker of the House. They get to set the agenda. I'd rather have all liberal Democrats, but I'd also rather have majorities in the House and Senate than not.

[Dr Fate]

38. Give me an example of the "vice versa"...

...where conservative DEMS were disppointed that they had lose on a mjor issue and give in to Liberals.

Is there a major issue where this was the case? Seems to me that it's always Liberals & pro-reform moderates who are doing the compromising and ending up disappointed.

[jenmito]

39. Since I'm not a conservadem, I don't know what they'd consider

a disappointment. Maybe they're upset that there may be a public option in the final health care bill or that Obama is doing his best to close Gitmo.

[Dr Fate]

41. In that case, with all due respect, maybe you are wrong. There is no "vice versa"

It's mainly just the Liberals & true moderates who do all the compromising and end up disappointed.

As to the major issues (war, economy, healthcare, corporate regulation, holding Bush accountable)- it's the Liberals who end up disappointed and it's the conservative DEMS who generally get their way- and almost always for the worse (see the war, economy, healthcare, corporate regulation, holding Bush accountable)...

Respectfully-"may be" and "doing his best" are not really things for conservative DEMS to get too upset about at this point- but we shall see.

[jenmito]

42. Well, the "may be" works both ways...

it may be that we DO still get a public option, yet so many people are disappointed that there WON'T be one (since the "liberal" media says it's dead). It's still very early in Obama's admin.

[Dr Fate]

43. Fair enough- but I was asking for modern examples, not predictions for the future.

As it is, it looks like we dont really have any examples of your "vice versa" claim- all of the compromise and disappointment seems to fall on the left and pro-reform moderate wing- especially when we are talking about the really major issues of the day.

[jenmito]

44. All of the examples you cited-

war, economy, healthcare, corporate regulation, holding Bush accountable-are works in progress, so both sides could be disappointed in them depending on their opinion of how the things are going.

Why should we (the liberals) be disappointed in how Obama's handling the war, for example? If I were a conservadem, maybe I'd feel disappointed that Obama called for a timeline to get our troops out of Iraq, or that he's not blindly following McChrystal's call for additional troops.

[Dr Fate]

45. Going to Iraq, Bush's tax cuts, "off the table", etc refer to past examples, not works in progress.

And in all the *said & done* examples from the past that I can think of, it was Liberals & moderates who wound up doing all the compromising and being disappointed, never the conservative DEMS who seem to control the party.

You seem to be arguing that this pattern will change soon enough, and who knows, you might be right.

Still, I was asking for examples of it actually occurring over the past several years- not your predictions as to various "works in progress" where Liberals & moderates may or may not finally get their "vice versa" scenario.

[jenmito]

46. So you're talking about BEFORE Obama became president?

Why are you talking about the past several years? They're not OBAMA'S fault.

[Dr Fate]

51. I'm giving you recent, actual examples of Blue Dogs screwing us over, not predictions.

Should we just ignore their recent actions & the outcomes? I think not- I prefer to learn from very recent history.

You are the one who made the claim that Blue Dogs are often disappointed when they have to compromise with moderates & Liberals- and I asked you for an example of that ever occurring, not your predictions of examples that may or may not exist at some point in the future.

Even as to the current debate on healthcare, it's been Liberals & pro-reform DEMS who have compromised away most of what they wanted (starting with single payer, and now a strong public option seems to be going away too), and who seem to be the most disappointed in the process-meanwhile, Blue Dogs seem to head the most powerful committees and they seem to be steering things their way at every turn.

I'll meet you half way- you might be right about the future- maybe Liberals & moderates will get there way a little more at some point in the future- we shall see.

[jenmito]

54. My post you first responded to said this:

"...The reason the Dems. AREN'T in lockstep is because we are a large-tent party. Of course, that means there will be disappointments for those of us who don't agree with the conservadems and vice versa, but the alternative is that we are in the minority..."

I wasn't talking about past administrations. So in THIS admin., which I'm talking about, what should we be disappointed in?

[Dr Fate]

57. Fair enough- you are predicting what might happen- and I'm telling you what did indeed happen.

I just assumed that you might have at least ONE actual, said & done (not a work in progress where a crystal ball is needed) example from recent history that backs up your prediction (History repeating itself as it does)- my bad for assuming.

[LatteLibertine]

49. Exactly

Both parties are mostly involved in crony capitalism and corporatism (popular usage).

If you aren't among the most wealthy you have no real representation. Ever since the financial market bail out this has been becoming more clear to me.

Republicans tell conservatives what they wish to hear before an election and Democrats do the same to liberals. After they get in office most of them take up the cause of the highest bidder.

[Enthusiast]

53. Oh yeah,

you're right, it does suck.

[Umbral]

58. So we're fucked!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/stewart-destroys-dems-for_n_305948.html

[old mark]

59. We must take over the Democratic party from the centerists,

push it all way to the left instead of moving right as it was before Obama's election. We helped get him elected - we must organize ourselves and get power in the party.
Good post.Thanks.
mark

[Dr Fate]

60. LOL! I have a feeling the OP did not mean it quite that way.

I'm not sure the OP wants us to take power away from conservat- er, I mean "centrists", or push anythng "way to the left."

The OP did not really say anything specific about removing conservat- err, I mean "centrists" or moving the party leftward at all- he basically just told everyone to get in line BEHIND the centrists b/c that is your only choice for slow, incremental change.

At least that's the over all theme I'm getting from this thread. It's just a call for us to be loyal to centrists, no matter how awful they are- not a call to actually take power away from conservat-errr, I mean "centrists."

Conserv, err I mean Centrists know that they cant get elected w/o the help of the DEM machine- the foot soldiers being mostly Liberals & moderates, Unions, etc- so they need us to keep supporting them.

The last thing DLC/Blue Dogs want us to do is to support INDIVIDUAL DEM progressives and leave them to find conservative activists to make donations & campaign for them- aint happening. There cant be too many conservative activist who would campaign for DEMS.

They need us. Cannot get elected without us.

He did mention Liberal nominees in point #4, but that point has been called into serious question in my responses seen above.

Even still, I agree with your post!

[old mark]

63. I know what he is saying, but this is OUR party even if they need an

occasional kick in the ass to remember it. We should be loyal to the Democratic Party, but we must also exert our ideas using it. There are enough "centerists" so that we really don't have to worry about them....are they going to go over to the GOP snakehandler/moran/terrorist/sheepfuckers?
If so, let them go.

mark

[Dr Fate]

64. I'm with ya. n/t

n/t

[CTLawGuy]

73. then you didn't read the OP very closely

you missed this part: "We need an organization dedicated to enforcing discipline by sponsoring primary challenges to Democrats who, for example, vote against a public option. The Club for Growth strikes fear in the hearts of most Republican legislators. We need to strike the same fear in Max Baucus etc. Our fate is in our hands."


No I am not saying we should just fall in line behind centrists/conservatives-I'll come out and say it). The primary strategy is the ONLY strategy for keeping those conservatives in line that doesn't do us long term harm. It's the only one that doesn't ensure nearly permanent Republican control of our government while the left/center sits divided into a weakened Dem party and a weak third party. There's a reason that Gingrich & Co. worked within the Republican party (and NOOOO I am not comparing us to them).

[Dr Fate]

77. I did, and you said nothing specific about removing "centrists" or moving the party leftward.

So maybe I was just making sure that Old Mark was not putting words in your mouth. ;)

And I still say that your strategy of working within the primaries is flawed.

I agree that we still have to try- but I know that the leaders of our party will do anything to stop it- even it means supporting the loser's 3rd party run.

[martymar64]

62. So your answer is to happily accept mediocrity?

If so, then we are screwed.

[Dr Fate]

66. Fall in line behind the Joe Lieberman wing, then suck it up and hope for the best.

But here is the real answer:

Keep supporting LIBERAL & moderate, pro reform Democrats, and refuse all support to conserva-centrists and anyone who gives money to "centrist" DEMS.

Here is the dirty little secret the OP forgot to tell you- "centrists" CANNOT get elected as Democrats without Liberals, Progressive DEM activists, Unions, etc giving money & support to the DNC, DCC, etc.

They NEED us, but if you look at it, we really dont need them at all.

If progressives go this route- progressive DEMS will still get elected & nominated, and Blue Dogs will either have to switch to GOP or a Conservative 3rd party, rely on "centrist" DEM activists to fund them & campaign for them (LOL! Such activists hardly even exist-and would be more likely to support the GOP), or simply just dry up and go away.

Of course, they will tell you- "but you will never get far lefties elected in that state." They leave out the fact that we CAN still elect pro-reform moderates who are much better than the current conservatives...

The first step is to DRY UP all funds and support to the usual "centrist" Lieberman types.

Pass it on!

[Dinger]

75. + Infinity

Excellent post.:)

[CTLawGuy]

74. please show

using examples from the OP, how you came to that conclusion about what I was saying.
Thanks!

[Dr Fate]

78. My post deals with what you did NOT say.

So I'm not sure how I'm supposed use examples from your OP in order to find what I see as omissions in your OP.

Besides, I'm not limited to your OP in trying to discern the theme of this thread- In your follow up posts on this thread, I noted your "3rd Way" style comparison of our good DEM base to the corrupt far right, and bringing up the 10 year old "Nader" boogey man, while rationalizing the much more recent "allowed" (your words) DEM support for Lieberman's conservative 3rd party.

Sorry if I read you wrong, but much of it sounded like the usual DLC type talking points to me.

In a nut shell: Your OP seems to tell us that we need "centrist" or conservative DEMS, I'm saying that we dont- the real way to approach this is to realize that it is they who need us.

[Liberty Lover]

65. Don't follow parties, follow principles

The problem with both the Democratic party and the Republican party is that people who originally joined them because they agreed with their principles, changed with them as the parties changed their principles. Principles and ideologies didn't remain constant, party allegiances did. At some stage you've got to abandon the political party you voted for all your life if their principles stray too far from yours. If the Democrats don't represent true progressives, then why should true progressives follow the Democrats? Same for true conservatives in the Republican party. You've got to put your principles above winning elections.

[WatchWhatISay]

67. And when Ron changes his principles from, say wanting govt to stay out of our lives

to wanting govt to control womens uteruses (uteri?), will you stick with Ron then?

[MadHound]

69. If that's the case, then we're screwed,

Luckily that's not the case. There is a purpose for third parties, namely to keep the other two honest. By threatening to split the vote a third party on the left forces the Dems to be accountable to the left. This is how we wound up with Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. The Socialists threatened to split FDR's vote in his first reelection, so he snagged a couple of planks from the Socialist party and we wound up with two of the most enduring federal programs in our country.

Then there is the ultimate cynic, and I'm becoming one quickly. Namely, go third part, let it all go to hell and then rebuild. The Democrats/Republicans have become no more than corporate sock puppets in our two party/same corporate master system of government. On more and more of the issues I care about there is little or no difference between the two parties. So it has now come down to simply saying fuck it, vote for the party that matches my ideals best, and let the country go straight down the tubes. We can then rebuild it in a better image.

But frankly it is attitudes like yours that has led to the decline in both the party and country that we've seen over the past forty years. It has kept too many liberals from pursuing real change, instead syphoning off their energy into a political game that has ultimately lost ground for the left, not gained it. In a democracy government runs best when people vote for the party that best represents their interests. That party, at least in my case, is no longer the Democratic party. I've closed my eyes and voted against my interests for far too long. The Democrats will have to earn my vote and support from here on out, and frankly they are failing miserably right now. Again, if this attitude catches on, fine. Either the Democrats will listen and change their stance or they won't and go the way of the Whigs. Ultimately, in the end, change will come, it's just a matter of whether it will come the hard way or easily. That's up to the Democrats.

[ShortnFiery]

71. Yes! Well put.

:thumbsup: