What the hell has happened to the Democratic Party ??

[kentuck]

They are acting like a bunch of right-wing Republicans. They are on TV debating the issue of abortion and threatening to not vote with the Party if the "unborn" is not protected. Like their brethren right-wingers, they are not persuaded by the facts.

Then there are others that are radical fiscal conservatives and refuse to vote with the Democrats on healthcare reform if it costs one penny more. They call themselves "Blue Dogs". Of course, they had no problem voting for Bush's trillion dollar taxcuts or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of it paid for.

Even with their huge majority. the Democrats cannot get 216 votes in the House to vote with their President. And they call themselves "Democrats"??

They have left the Democratic leadership looking for other ways to pass the President's healthcare reform bill. They are talking about "deem and pass" and "reconciliation". Chances are if they follow thru on these strategies, they will be challenged in the court as unconstitutional. And the Democrats will probably lose the argument.

Because of "pro-lifers", "blue dogs", and right-wingers within the Democratic Party, the President and the leadership are too impotent to lead the Party forward. When did this happen? When was the Party so totally infiltrated by these right-wingers that it now stands for nothing? Nothing.

[Mari333]

1. everyone has shifted rightwards

what used to be a republican is now a fascist nazi zealot
what used to be a democrat is now similar to a moderate republican


Martin Luther King would be considered a 'radical leftist ' now.

[EFerrari]

3. So would Richard Nixon. n/t

[Mari333]

7. yes.

[Lasher]

14. And so would Ike.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Flaming Liberal

[progressoid]

59. Sad but true.

[joeybee12]

19. +1

More liberal than probably 99% of our elected Democrats today.

[SteveM]

43. Teddy Roosevelt is a virtual Lenin to modern GOPers.

The Democratic Party MUST not offend corporate power, and MUST disassociate from its "leftist" enclaves (anything to the left of Truman). This is why they will condemn what's left of the mythical "left" as much as the Republicans: they don't want ANY remaining liberal, progressive, lefty influence within the Party.

As for reproductive rights, I have said for many years that this is the one issue that the Dems have not retreated significantly from since the DLC took control of the Party in the 70s. Now, that issue will be jettisoned. They need corporate money, and they are afraid (always afraid) of the GOP; after all, the GOP is the ONLY true party in this country, having the ability to not only win elections and hold power (even when in the minority), but the ability to discipline their own so that they may comport with its ideology. They are highly intelligent, better educated in politics, infinitely more aggressive and far more energetic in pushing their ideology (mainly because they have one).

[EFerrari]

48. Yes, I agree with all of that. A lot of people may not realize it

but we're at a benchmark right now. The corporations have won a significant victory using the so called opposition party.

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. Did you see any of Glenn BecKKK's rant at the CPAC Klan rally?

I think that lunatic actually hates Teddy Roosevelt more than he hates Obama.

[readmoreoften]

72. And FDR would be a Lenin to modern Democrats. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. MLK actually was considered a "radical leftist" by many during the '60s.

It's true that even Nixon now seems liberal in some respects, compared to what now passes for Republicans. But there was some serious wingnuttery going on in those days, too. While that wingnuttery has now gone mainstream, it's always been there.

[EFerrari]

35. Well, you're counting Hoover who called anyone he didn't like a communist.

:)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. Just like Glenn Beck.

Except that Beck calls people he doesn't like Communists *and* fascists. Simultaneously. :rofl: Wotta maroon.

[EFerrari]

46. LOL.

:)

[rurallib]

16. in the late 60- early 70s I was considered 'moderate'

now I am a radical lefty enemy of Murica. My views have changed little.
Funny thing is, most of my views were shaped by the Catholic Church's teachings on social justice. Seldom hear anything about that any more.

[EFerrari]

34. Ditto! We're "radicals" by today's measure. n/t

[tavalon]

47. I was always a radical born to the wrong time

I'm no more radical than I was, but my party left me in the dust when they took a sharp right turn. Nowadays, Socialist seems to fit me better and funny thing, I'm not the least bit scared of being called a socialist. I'm sad there aren't more of us out there with the socialist bent.

[EFerrari]

50. I may just have to update all my labels because if Barack Obama is

a centrist Democrat, then I must either be a socialist or the Queen of England. :(

[tavalon]

62. Queen Elizabeth

That works for me! :evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

67. LOL. That would make me the name sake of the queen that put together

the first corporation! :hi:

[kath]

71. yeah, all that Sermon on the Mount and "whatosoever you do to the least of these" stuff is just SOOO

frickin' passé. You're only supposed to care about the unborn. Once a person passed through the birth control, well fuck 'em. They're on their own.

[DrDan]

2. the sad part is that the "movement forward" being held up is

nothing better than a "moderate" step - far from liberal progress.

[dmallind]

4. L:ess than 1/3 of Blue Dogs are against this bill

Why the asumption is always that BDs are the problem I have no idea.

[dionysus]

5. i think it's called southern\midwestern dems. they'd be considered RW to anyone in the norteast.

[FarCenter]

8. The Democratic party has never been unified on the abortion issue

There have always been a large number of Democrats from largely Catholic ethnic groups, such as the Irish, Italian, and Polish urban worker contingents, who have been pro-life.

Remember the "Reagan Democrats", who were socially conservative Democrats that voted for Reagan?

[MineralMan]

9. Nothing has "happened." Democrats who get elected in

conservative districts are conservative. If they were not, they would not be elected. It is that simple. How would you suggest that be changed? I know the answer, but it's not easy. Education is the answer, and economic recovery. Neither is easy.

Even Kucinich had to take a very, very soft position on choice, for example, to get elected in his district. He's said and done many things to placate conservative attitudes there. It comes with the job of being a politician.

As long as members of Congress are elected in their districts, they will have to satisfy the electorate in those districts. We should be neither surprised about it nor should we expect anything different.

[EFerrari]

12. No, the poster is right. The whole country has shifted rightward.

And that's in part thanks to the DLC whose brilliant idea was to compete with Republicans as Republicans.

[MineralMan]

24. Clearly, I disagree. So, here's an experiment. Take a congressional

district seat that is currently held by a Democrat you think is too far right. See if you can get a progressive elected there. Choose any district and spend as much money as you like. You will surely fail.

The thing is that I'm a socialist in my ideal politics. My views are probably far to the left of yours. But, I also realize that socialism is not possible in the US at this time. Not even close. So, I practice realpolitik. I have no choice. Sometimes, it works, and we get an Al Franken in by a nose. Most often, it fails, due to poor education of the electorate.

The country is not moving to the Right. It is just not moving to the left quickly enough to suit me or many others. Wishing for it will not make it so. Whining about it will not make it so. There is only one thing that will make it so, and we're not very good at that thing. Long term educational efforts are the only thing that will work in this country. The only thing.

[zipplewrath]

29. Okay Florida's 8th district

Congressman Grayson. Formerly held by Rick Keller. Is Grayson progressive enough for you?

Now, what was your point?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. I agree with you.

Many progressives' approach to Blue Dog/DLC politicians seems to be to complain about them and demand that more progressives come forward to run against them. Problem is, you could run all the liberal/progressives in the world against these guys and they wouldn't get elected. Dennis Kucinich couldn't get elected dogcatcher in some ostensibly Democratic districts.

And the reason is that for the most part liberals and progressives have done a lousy job of "selling" their politics to the voters. We have simply failed to convince people that they are getting screwed by conservatives and that a more liberal approach would actually help them. Instead, the conservatives effectively manipulate voters with fear and misinformation. We will never get rid of DLC/Blue Dogs unless we drastically improve and sell the liberal message.

[MineralMan]

38. Thanks. You get my point exactly.

[EFerrari]

56. I don't think that's true any more. I used to. It's by design.

It just so happens that liberals became tongue tied and inarticulate about the same time the DLC took over the party.

Take Obama. He's an excellent communicator. He could sell anything -- if he wanted to. But he doesn't. He's the "yes, but" president. His cover is that progressive change is too radical. He does a great job of selling THAT.

There's nothing wrong with the liberal message except the absence of actual liberals in leadership. lol

[EFerrari]

40. San Francisco re-elected Nancy Pelosi and I am not a socialist.

That's precisely what I mean. lol

[SteveM]

45. Yep, I've been involved in politics since the early 60s. This is true.

[Tailormyst]

10. It was purchased by the rich, along with the republican party.

Now they play both bases off one another and are laughing all the way to the bank. They steal and steal and then elections come and they scream "OMG GAYS AND ABORTIONS, YOU MUST VOTE" OR THE ENEMY WILL:

A) make you all have abortions and same sex relationships

OR

b) make same sex relationships punishable by death and will lock up any woman who thinks about having an abortion.

OR

c) Will nominate USSCJ who will do the above things.

Then while we all fight over that, they continue robbing us blind.

[RKP5637]

17. +1000, n/t

[RKP5637]

11. And now the DLC controls the democratic party. I wish we had a new party that

was the old democratic party I used to know. It seems long gone. I just quit giving to the DNC, as I figure they can now get their money from corporations, they don't need me. I want to see public financing, but we'll never see that... instead we will now really have corporations and highly monied interests running the country thanks to the new SC ruling.

This place is sadly turning into a toilet IMO. This country today has nothing to do about people, it's all now exclusively about money and usury in USA, Inc. The majority of citizens are cheap pawns of the corporate structure with a fascist government.

[NoPasaran]

15. Feel free to start one

:dem:

[RKP5637]

20. I joined the Coffee Party to see what that's all about. n/t

[readmoreoften]

73. Right, because that's how it works.

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

25. So, start a new party. In 40-60 years you might actually make

that work. On a shorter schedule, though, don't set your expectations too high, or you'll just be even more disappointed.

[RKP5637]

27. Quite true! Frankly, the country is too uneducated in many areas and

proud of their ignorance and lack of education. They react best to having their hot buttons pushed rather than sound logic and a way forward. Hence, the US muddles along IMO, under robotic control and propaganda, many unable or unwilling to separate this from truth.

[Cal33]

13. Democrats don't have strong leadership in congress. Obama

still remains to be seen. He is bright, and an intellectual. But a strong
leader also needs to have other qualities in addition.

[RKP5637]

23. Obama is smart and an intellectual. I think he truly believes logic and reason for the

best solution will achieve results, but I often think he underestimates what fools he has to deal with for support. As I've always said, the democrats are their own worst enemy IMO.

[pundaint]

49. He doesn't underestimate you. He sold you out every step of the health insurance capitulation con

and you think he was the one struggling. He continues Republican policies enthusiastically, and curbs Democratic pLatform actions. He pushes policies he ridiculed to get your vote. Wake up, he's just not into democrats.

[RKP5637]

54. IMO he is a true DLC'er. n/t

[PA Democrat]

18. They have become addicted to corporate money?

It seems that the more corporate money flows into politics the less work done for we the people.

[RKP5637]

26. We the people are at the bottom of the list, "if" we even make the list. We are an

inconvenience to the elite wealth and power brokers of the new USA, Inc. Forget congress, it's just another bought and brokered corporation.

[QC]

21. When the Republicans turned to batshit loonies,

sane but still decidedly conservative Republicans became Democrats.

[notesdev]

22. That's the problem with the mega-bill approach

You put together something that's "comprehensive", the list of objections/special interests and so on will also be comprehensive, and in all the horse trading that follows everyone is left angry and disappointed.

What I want to know is: Why was an incremental approach to reform rejected out of hand? Why can't we fix one thing at a time and debate the merits of one change at a time?

[MineralMan]

28. Sadly, that's how Congress operates.

Everyone has to add something. Everyone has to put conditions in the bill. Everyone wants something to take back home and say, "See, I did this for you."

There's no way that's ever going to change, I'm afraid. It's American politics.

A simple bill from Congress is a contradiction in terms.

[RKP5637]

31. This was my thought too. Under commit and over achieve, do it a piece at a

time, that minimizes the controversies (rather than all in one big bucket) yet allows a slow but steady progression forward. Now we have all or none.

[GreenArrow]

30. It's the natural result of a "big tent" philosphy

When everyone is invited in, there ends up being no unifying principle to hold them together outside of their label. Right now the tent is full of venomous snakes, scorpions, rats and vermin of all description, with filth and ordure everywhere. While nominally cleaner than the Republican's tent, it's still a nasty place.

[branders seine]

33. Democrats 2010 = Republicans 1982

[laughingliberal]

36. When the Republican party went bat shit crazy off the charts to the right

a lot of Republicans left. And they infiltrated the Democratic party. Add to them the Reagan Democrats who came back to the Democratic party but still support Reaganism and you have an answer to what happened to our party. Co-opted by the center righties.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely." Lord Acton

[kctim]

39. Nothing really

There have always been pro-life Democrats and they have always debated the issue.
There have always been fiscally conservative Democrats and they have always hated higher taxes.

So what the hell has happened? The far left has come to believe that the Democratic Party is an all or nothing party and ALL must be in lockstep 100% of the time. Vote with Democrats 97% of the time? Doesn't matter, you are not a Democrat because you dare not vote with them 100% of the time.

It is a very impractical and even impossible standard.

[EFerrari]

52. There is no far left in the Democrat party and your "lockstep" argument is baloney.

[kctim]

58. Really?

Then you should have no problem explaining:

Why the majority of Democrats are pro-choice, while only a minority believe govt should pay for it?
Why the majority of Democrats do not like high taxes, while only a minority believe they should be higher?
Why the majority of Democrats are pro 2nd Amendment, while only a minority want arms banned?
Why the majority of Democrats are against gay-marriage, while only a minority are for it?
Why the majority of Democrats are for HCR, while only a minority are for total govt takeover of it?
Why a senator can vote with Democrats 97% of the time, but a minority say he is not a "real" Democrat and should be "primaried" for daring to vote differently on one issue?

Granted, everybody holds a "far left" position on an issue or two, but those are the ones who understand most people don't hold that same view so they see the need for compromise. Others however, hold those views on all, or most, positions and refuse to see the need for compromise.

[EFerrari]

60. I think you should read the Democratic Party platform.

On the other hand, I also think Obama should read the Democratic Party Platform. :)

[kctim]

66. Oh I have

Mind sharing where it says that the extreme position is required on every issue in order to be a Democrat? The part of it that promotes single payer as the only option? The part about govt paid abortions? The getting rid of the 2nd Amendment part? Maybe the part about raises taxes on all of us?

Perhaps all Democrats should read what the platform really does say so that some of us don't think it says just what we want it to say.

[EFerrari]

69. I think you're projecting something all over me

but since it doesn't cohere, I can't tell what it is.

Most of the public supports a government run health care system. Most of the public supports a woman's right to choose. Most of the public supports equality. I have no idea where the majority is on the 2nd Amendment and I have no position on it myself. I just stay out of the way of gun nuts. And we are already paying higher taxes by default via all those tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

There is nothing "exterme" about those positions if the majority of Americans hold them. Maybe you need to look up "extreme", too.

[kctim]

75. No need to look it up

The far left takes public for an issue to mean public support for their position and that is clearly not the case.

Yes, it is said that most of the public supports a govt run health care system, but when those polls are broken down, we see that not even half of those are willing to pay for it and they want a choice. These two things make a single payer mandate the "extreme" position.

Yes, most of the public are pro-choice, but they also want controls on when a woman can have an abortion and they do not believe govt should pay for it. Believing women should be allowed to have one at the drop of a hat and have taxpayers pick up the tab is the "extreme position."

Yes, most of the public supports equality, but the believe in unions, not marriage and the fringe benefits that come with it. Believing a gay marriage should be treated just as a hetro marriage is the "extreme" position.

The majority is for common sense gun laws, stricter laws or even bans, are the "extreme" position.

The majority do not care if you believe high taxes are due to tax cuts for millionaires or due to social programs like the right says. They care about how high taxes affect their personal paychecks. Believing most people would gladly give up 60, 70, 80 percent of their paycheck to the govt, is the "extreme" position.

There is definetely a far left of the Democrat Party and the sooner they acknowledge that fact to themselves, the sooner all this talk of joining or creating an irrelevent third party will cease.

[butterfly77]

41. What we have had over the past year is...

an outting of the republiCONS in our party and the media try to pretend as though they don't know what is going on. The media keeps on repeating "Why can't the Dems pass this or that bill?" as they keep on spouting the republiCON talking points throughout the debate on whatever the issue.

I don't give a damn if I see that a republicon is in my district like STUPAK they won't get my vote they seem to be more afraid of the Republicons than they are of the Dems but,they want us to believe that they are Dems.

The media has known full well why somethings can't get done the way we want them to but they try to pretend as though the President can go in and bully the Dems and then they will fall in line and do what he wants. A lot of them are quitting now because they have been outted we know they are republicons..

As far as I am concerned do DEEM and Pass,DEEM and DO who gives a damn. I notice there seems to be a double standard when it comes to the DEMS. I say FUCK EM !!!

Its time to :kick: ass..

[Lorien]

44. That was the DLC plan all along; destroy the party from within by driving out the liberals

and progressives. You can still say "I prefer the puppet on the Left to the puppet on the Right", but the same guy is holding both puppets. It's not that Dems won't stand up to the Blue Dogs, it's that they've nearly all become Right Wingers and look to the Blue Dogs for political cover. The label still exists because you still can't run as a repug in many districts.

[Individualist]

51. True, and DLC has achieved their objective of destroying the party.

[RKP5637]

55. +1000, n/t

[Echo In Light]

53. +1

[treestar]

57. It is like herding cats, blah, blah, blah

Quit comparing Democrats to Republicans.

Did right wing pundits or politicians ever publicly speak against Bush the way left wing pundits and other Democratic politicians speak out against Obama?

No wonder we need a super-duper ultimate majority to get anything done.

And to top that off, Republicans never want to do much, other than start new wars.

[Lorien]

61. Right wing pundits and politicians are all lockstep with one another

they have clearly defined positions on the issues and that makes defending their positions fairly easy. What are "Democratic" positions on:

1.Education

2.Climate change

3.Gun control

4.The wars in the Middle East

5.Iran

6.GLBT rights

7.Health Care as a human right

8.Financial reform

9.Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich

10. warrentless Wiretapping

I can tell you the repug positions, as can anyone else:

1. Privatize it, or at least break fire the teachers and kill the unions 2. It doesn't exist, or if it does, it's part of a natural cycle, 3. No, 4. we should stay 5. bomb them, 6. Hahahahaha! 7. it's not a right, it's a privilege, 8. No. If anything there are too many regulations, 9. No, 10. It's all good.

So where do Democrats stand?

[treestar]

64. Exactly. But try to rally the Democratic troops for anything other than an election

And it's accusations of "lockstep" and kool-aid drinking and all the rest of it.

Not a mystery to me why a majority in the House and 60 in the Senate is STILL not enough.

[ljm2002]

65. President Obama could have easily tipped the scales...

...all he had to do was to tell the Blue Dogs, vote for the bill or don't expect any support ($$ or time) when you come up for re-election.

But he saved that one for the progressives.

[grahamhgreen]

68. Obama was a stealth neo-con plant.

[readmoreoften]

74. Not neo-con. "Neo-liberal" DLC "New Democrat"

But, in effect, six or one half dozen.

[mmonk]

70. The irony.

[tekisui]

76. The worst part is they are losing the newly formed

coalition that were brought in on the mantle of change. Now, I know the loyalists will blame the voters for not standing with their President in HIS time of need, or for not pimping the party-line when THEY need it.

But, the fact is, the Democrats built a new majority based on new voters and will lose them as real Democratic issues are weakened, ignored and even opposed. The Democratic Party is making its bed, and it isn't going to be pretty.