Pres Obama appears to have decided to dump the left in hopes of winning the election in 2012 with

[rhett o rick]

votes from the center-right or New-Democrats (old Repukes), etc.

Actually a smart tactic. If he loses, you better believe they blame the left (like in 2000).

The left should give up fighting this tactic because we cant win. We have no alternate candidate and Rahmbo knows it. Our only option is to work like hell from the ground up, inside the Democratic Party, to elect progressives.

We have as much right to the Democratic Party as the corporatist shills in the DLC.

Fire Rahm

Fire Salamander

Fire Gibbs

[RBInMaine]

1. Can this kind of extremist horseshit please stop. Not happy? Enough then. Go start a fringe party.

[havocmom]

4. "extremist horseshit"? What in OP deserves that?

:shrug:

[villager]

8. nothing, of course -- but that's how shrill the Dem party's right wing has become

n/t

[Individualist]

90. Well said!

[defendandprotect]

155. A corporatist minority within Dem Party wants all criticism of its behavior stopped ...!!

[glitch]

7. Likewise.

:thumbsdown:

[rhett o rick]

10. You sound like Gibbs. I am not extreme. Tell me what I want is extreme. I dare you.

Pres Obama has spit on the left since his inauguration. That's ok, I can deal with it. I will fight for decent health care and no domestic spying. You call that extreme and I say bull shit.

[quiet.american]

11. Seconded. nt

[rhett o rick]

13. I challange you to state your principles.

Do you want decent health care? End the fucking wars? End domestic spying? Dumping the Patriot Act?

You and your kind only take pot shots at the left, but fail to give your stands.

[quiet.american]

I am "the left". What you don't get is that you do not have a monopoly on being liberal.

If someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they are also not liberal, not progressive. Your way, if the building (problem) can't be leapt in a single bound, then no attempt should be made to leave the ground. I'm open to gaining the solution to the problem floor-by-floor if necessary. That doesn't make me any less "left" than you.

Edited for massive typos

[rhett o rick]

22. You are changing the argument. Pres Obama thru Gibbs and Rahmbo has made is crystal

clear he doesnt like the left or want the left's support. That's a fact Jack. Doesnt have anything to do with who I think I am or who you think you are.
How is my OP extremest?

My point, that you seem to ignore in your haste to attack, is that the left should quit worrying about the President's attacks and concentrate on doing what we can. And that is getting more progressives elected. Now if you are "the left", how do you disagree with any of that?

[quiet.american]

25. How do I disagree? Let me count the ways.

Actually, let me point out the main disagreement.

We are just a few months away from mid-term elections and you think the best use of your time and energy is to attack Democrats. Not Republicans. Democrats.

How is that useful to anyone on the left?

[rhett o rick]

27. Can you spell "strawman"? Explain how I am attacking Democrats.

I pointed out that Gibbs and Rahmbo have waged war on the left. Is that an attack? If you think so, please explain.

What the Pres is doing is a smart tactic. I said that.

Show me where I attacked a Democrat.

[quiet.american]

32. If you can't see it from what you wrote, I doubt it is possible for me to make it any clearer.

First, you state your opinion as though it is incontrovertible fact.

Do you not know that Robert Gibbs and "Rahmbo" are Democrats?

Would you rate your comments about them as supportive or as attacks?

[Chan790]

73. I do feel so compelled...

to point out that self-identification and registration as a member of the Democratic Party are hardly good metrics to determine whether someone is actually a Democrat philosophically.

Toby Keith is a registered Democrat. Oh yeah, so is Bill O'Reilly. (Really. He loves to point it out in his books too.)

[quiet.american]

74. Shrug. nt

[Chan790]

81. So then?

what precisely makes Rahm Emanuel a Democrat then?

If you say support of progressive ideals I'm going to laugh at you since Emanuel had spoken and written at great length prior to becoming WH CoS (specifically during his time heading the DCCC) about the need for the Democratic Party to become a center-right party in order to reflect the electorate at-large. He is by both self-admission and definition an anti-progressive Democrat.

Edit: My point obviously is the need for a litmus test to hold a leadership post in this party. If you can't tell I want Rahm Emanuel thrown out of the Democratic Party.

[quiet.american]

84. I dunno - maybe a little thing like helping the first African-American president --

-- get elected and accomplish more in a shorter period of time than any president of the previous and current century?

And what do you offer that's more Democratic than me?

Posting arguments that seek to bolster your position that a Democratic president and his Chief of Staff are somehow not really Democrats?

I'm going to go out on a limb and laugh at you, now.

[rhett o rick]

92. You are changing the argument again. It doesnt matter if Gibbs and Rahm are Democrats or not.

They have attacked the left. What do you have to say about that? I say it is a deliberate tactic to show the center-right that the Pres is not a leftist. What do you think?

You do a lot of whining and complaining but never give your stand.

I support single payer health care, do you?

[GreenArrow]

104. Gibbs and Rahm ARE "Democrats";

that matters not a whit. They are not on the political left, at least in any objectively recognized use of the term.

[quiet.american]

109. Are Democrats on the political left in your book?

They are in mine.

[GreenArrow]

114. Some are, some aren't. In parlance yes, in practice no.

No doubt, most consider themselves as such. Given that we have a "big tent party" in which ideology is regularly jettisoned in favor of expediency, and pursuit of power, I'd say the term "Democrat" is increasingly useless as a descriptor of what passes as the political left. But hey, Fred Phelps passes as a Christian, so who knows?

[quiet.american]

117. What has "ideology" gotten me?

A site that's supposed to be dedicated to supporting the Democratic Party that seems to have veered off the rails.

What has what you call the "pursuit of power" bequeathed me and those I love?

A lot.

Health insurance. Jobs. Paved roadways (Recovery Act). Subsidized, affordable COBRA payments. Vastly improved veterans benefits (I'm former USAF). Subsidized student loans for medical education. Direct student loans for any field of study. No fear for the children in my family that they will ever be denied insurance or charged more for insurance based on their pre-existing conditions. Improved Social Security and Medicare ($250 checks received and cashed) for the older folk in my family. On and on.

What really bothers me the most about those who have swarmed on me here? You claim to be for "the people" but have no cheer for when "the people" are actually helped.

[rhett o rick]

123. With a wave of a magical wand Sen Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Well fuck that shit

I will not worship him. You can.

[quiet.american]

129. Specter stood up and voted "aye" for HCR.

You can worship your "worldview" that would have voted no with the Republicans. I'll take the real-world results that have improved prospects for my family.

Specter also very graciously (especially for a former Republican) introduced Sestak to the Senate upon Sestak's win in the primaries.

This is what I'm talking about.

[rhett o rick]

132. Here's the deal. Sen Specter help Bush screw this country into the ground. You may love that

But I hope Sen Specter and his buddy Bush go straight to hell and dont pass go and dont collect their 2oo dollars.

[quiet.american]

134. Fine. You're entitled. But so what? nt

[quiet.american]

105. What do I have to say about that? Physician, heal thyself.

You keep insisting that Obama and Rahm have attacked the left.

What are you doing by posting attack after attack against them. In your world, Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel are not "the left." However, in this country, they are.

Do I support single-payer? Tell me how do you get Blanche Lincoln and the 32 or so ConservaDems in the House to vote for single-payer - -the House bill of which proposed paying insurance industry execs up to $100,000 per year for two years for doing absolutely nothing at all if single-payer were passed, and which did more harm than good as the Republicans used that bill as their basis for their "government takeover of healthcare" fearmongering. How do you politically justify, in this environment of high unemployment, putting millions of insurance employees out of work in the name of single-payer?

And why were Jacob Hacker's ("Father of the Public Option) comments about Obama being the most progressive President of his lifetime summarily ignored/dismissed on this site by the so-called "passionate progressives who care about THE PEOPLE" ?

I'm surprised you are not aware of my stand, but here it is unequivocally --

The position of so-called "passionate progressives" on this site does nothing for me, because there is a tacit refusal to acknowledge any good that is accomplished.

The hard work of Pres. Obama/Rahm/Nancy Pelosi/Steny Hoyer/John Lewis/James Clyburn/John Dingell et al. have materially improved my life, and the life of my family. I'm proud of them for doing it. I took time off my job without pay to watch them battle it out with Republicans on CSPAN all day and all night to come to a winning conclusion that materially benefits my family and friends.

Here's my further stand:

I LOVE OBAMA. I LOVE RAHM. I LOVE DEMOCRATS. I AM A PROUD DEMOCRAT.

The so-called "true liberals" on this site do fuck-all for me with an all-or-nothing ideology that leaves people the same/worse off than before.

I don't think I can be clearer than that.

[Chan790]

102. Facts.

One, I said I don't think Emanuel's a Democrat.

Two, I said nothing whatsoever about Obama. I criticized Emanuel and you.

Three, Rahm Emanuel did nothing at any point in the campaign to get Obama elected. He wasn't involved. He worked for the Clinton campaign, then he went home to Chicago and refused to act as a surrogate for the nominee of his party during the GE. It's still not terribly clear why he was chosen for a key administration position based on this refusal to provide even basic assistance.

[quiet.american]

110. Shrug. nt

[disillusioned73]

144. Chan790 gave you a litany of FACTS, and all you got is

"shrug"??

:shrug:, upon further review - actually your retort is perfect

[rhett o rick]

91. I believe what I said about them is true. If you dont agree please state such instead of

attacking me. Gibbs and Rahm have attacked the left. That is a fact not an attack.

[quiet.american]

111. I thought I already said I don't agree. What exactly are you looking for? nt

[rhett o rick]

124. You dont agree that Gibbs and Rahm have denigrated the left? Are you nuts? nm

[quiet.american]

126. No and no. nt

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[rhett o rick]

143. I agree. And I am not heeding my own advice in the OP. nm

[Mithreal]

146. It's understandable and can be somewhat difficult to do.

[joe black]

31. Obama administration .

They appear to be wasting their time attacking the democratic left.

[quiet.american]

33. Uh-huh. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Gee, just last week Obama via Gibbs was using time and energy

attacking Democrats. Not Republicans. Democrats. And that is the problem. You are fine with Gibbs's waste of time, his attacks at Democratic voters. The irony is think as a brick.

[quiet.american]

72. "Democratic voters" are not the same as "the professional left" who get paid to pontificate.

And quite frankly, after all the nonsense and diatribes that have been thrown at the Obama administration from the 'passionate liberals' on this site, if you can't take a bit of your own, what good are you to anyone?

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Gibbs was not attacking Republicans, now was he?

Not Brietbart, not Beck. Just some straw man fantasy he made up. Stuff he dreams he heard on TV, but can not prove at all. Gossip, McCarthyite lashing out.
And my dear little one, my worth belongs to my family, my self and my friends, and frankly, you are far out of line with such comments. The irony, of course, is that Gibbs and Obama are the ones whining about not getting enough praise, demanding pretty words. All I want is rights equal to other peoples. They want to be patted on the back constantly, and if they are not, they throw a fit, not at Republicans for lying, but at Democrats for pushing them. Weak and needy.

[quiet.american]

108. Really, my dear little one?

"Professional circular firing squad."

Explain to me in what context that produces useful results?

Because the "professional left" such as Ed Schulz who announced he is not voting for Democrats in the midterms didn't do a whole lot of good as far as I can discern.

And as far as Obama looking for pats on the back? I posted here that Obama is 1000 times the person I am; because if I happened to look out at the sea of angry nimcompoops who daily post diatribes against him while professing to be liberaller than thou, I would have packed them up and handed them over to Paul "let's destroy FDR's New Deal" Ryan by now.

[rhett o rick]

96. Using your definition, how many "profession left" are there? Ten, twenty, thirty? Gibbs was going

off on 30 people? I dont think so. But it is distracting. Fuck Gibbs, fuck Rahmbo, we on the left, apparently that excludes you, need to ignore the distractions and get progressive people elected to keep the President on track.

[quiet.american]

106. Here's where we meet:

I would like to see the ConservaDems that Mike Pence was appealing to during the HCR debates swept away from the House and replaced with functioning Democrats.

Here's where we part ways:

You insist that those "on the left" are different from me because I support Pres. Obama/Rahm Emmanuel. Fine.

As a Democrat, though, I'm interested in seeing Pres. Obama succeed.

That's where we part ways.

And to be frank, I don't want to live in a world where your viewpoint prevails. Because it says that anyone who does not arrive at a resolution to a problem exactly the way you think it should be done, is the enemy.

That is not what being a Democrat means to me.

[rhett o rick]

121. I resent your implications.

I want jobs, no wars, no domestic spying, no DADT, etc. I never said those that dont want that are enemies. Those are your words.

Gibbs and Rahm have openly denigrated the left. Do you support that?

[quiet.american]

130. I do not support your opinion stated as fact.

I'm former USAF, but I'll have to adopt a Navy protocol here:

That is all.

[rhett o rick]

122. You never answered my question. Who was Gibbs speaking to? How many people? nm

[quiet.american]

133. Are you a paid talking head who professes to endorse "the left" point-of-view?

If not, he was not referring to you.

I did answer the question before this. But since you missed it, that is my answer.

[rhett o rick]

136. So you are saying that Gibbs was directing his Faux like hate speech to only those that are

paid "leftist". Give me a break. You honestly can believe that. What is that 20 people? He went on a rant over what 20 people think?

[quiet.american]

138. "Faux like hate speech" - hyperbole much?

A mild criticism - especially compared to 100% of the fact-free diatribes I've seen posted here against Obama.

What is your definition of the "professional left." ?

We probably won't come to a meeting of the minds anyway, but we certainly won't if I don't know what you deem as the professional left.

[girl gone mad]

112. Tell it to Gibbs and Emanuel.

Attacking Democrats appears to be their modus operandi.

[quiet.american]

115. And yours as well. nt

[Chan790]

69. Actually it does. (make you less left.)

Traditionally liberalism has always been anti-incrementalism. It was why FDR had such problems with the liberals of his day, they refused to do things piecemeal too. Of course, FDR's liberals were syndicalists and socialists like Upton Sinclair. They actually wanted radical things.

We just want the president to stop kowtowing to the center-right. People like to say liberals aren't the base. The center-right is certainly not the base either.

[quiet.american]

71. If liberals in FDR'S time had their way, my mom would have no Social Security now.

If "liberals" today had their way, my young nephews would have no health insurance (which they have thanks to the Affordable Care Act).

I'll take liberals who deliver results over liberals with who cling to ideology any day.

[derby378]

151. Then answer the following questions...

Do you want to end the wars? End domestic spying? Dump the PATRIOT Act? Reform health care, since we haven't done it yet?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[quiet.american]

35. Ah, Mithreal. Took you longer than I thought to show up. nt

[Mithreal]

45. Hugs and Kisses, QA.

You're one of my favorites wc's.

[quiet.american]

63. Right back 'atcha. Nice to be loved. nt

[Mithreal]

46. Is winning a principle? How about earning a paycheck? Lemme think on it.

Oh, they do more than pot shot. They also spin something fierce and want to redefine everything at the drop of a hat.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[rhett o rick]

16. It's my party and I am going to fight the DL fucking C for it. Whose side are you on? nm

[Mithreal]

20. We're the overwhelming majority, but they control the money

Sorta reminds me of a place on the internetz.

[Mithreal]

23. #15, not nice to call out conservatives when they are being true to themselves.

It's not sensible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. By this post you exhibit quite a bit of ignorance

of how down and dirty politics work in the US.

HOW do you think Radical Republicans took over the party? By starting a third party? (Ok a few did, quick what is the third largest party in the US... free clue it ain't the greens)

[Bluebear]

51. "extremist horseshit"?? - you are totally as arrogant as Gibbs, nt

[Mithreal]

56. Easily.

[Liberal Veteran]

87. Yeah, but isn't that saying "so-so" is what we want?

I can assure you, most of us on this board are frustrated with incremental progress that is so slow it'll be generations before we see ourselves on an upswing again.

Something has to drive the agenda.

Some of us would like to enjoy the benefits of what we are fighting for before we die.

The only way that is going to happen is to make some noise, now and again.

[SidDithers]

89. +1...nt

Sid

[girl gone mad]

113. I recced it..

solely because of your bitter tantrum.

[readmoreoften]

145. Done. But don't come crying for my vote. Treat me as well as you treat Moderate Republicans

or don't be surprised that I consider myself outside your party.

[earth mom]

150. Wow, you sound exactly like Gibbs AND Bill O'Rielly.

:puke:

[Bluebear]

153. +

[golddigger]

152. Okay. How about "The Extremist Professional Left Party."

[defendandprotect]

154. Corporations "New Dems/DLC" have turned Dem Party into a "fringe" party ....!!

A corporate party!!

[Bandit]

2. We need to concentrate on the Senate

We have plenty of Good Democrats in the House. The House passed many many many very good Liberal Bills to just sit there and not even be brought up for a vote in the Senate. The Senate is where all GOOD Bills go to Die..We need a Super Majority in the Senate or we can expect to get absolutely zero...

[rhett o rick]

12. I AGREE

[cascadiance]

28. We need to start planning primary challenges for 2012 in the Senate NOW! No more Blanche Lincolns..

... or Bennetts "leaking through" the next time around.

Of course in the case of folks like Blanche Lincoln, it is like the chemotherapy there that will happen is that we'll likely get a Republican for six years first before we can "exorcise" that position in the following election with a real progressive. We really can't afford that kind of time though to take charge moving forward though. We need to make sure that ONLY progressive Democrats get nominated and then win in the general election in 2012. We ALL need to contribute to those fighting these battles in each state, not just those who live in those states.

[Radical Activist]

38. Yes.

That's the kind of organizing party centrists and conservatives do all the time. That's what it will take. Thinking ahead to recruit good candidates.

[cascadiance]

76. Priorities to get out will be Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Liebermann

Here's the list of Dems running in 2012:

- Dianne Feinstein of California
- Tom Carper of Delaware
- Bill Nelson of Florida
- Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
- Ben Cardin of Maryland
- Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
- Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
- Claire McCaskill of Missouri
- Jon Tester of Montana
- Ben Nelson of Nebraska
- Bob Menendez of New Jersey
- Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
- Kent Conrad of North Dakota
- Sherrod Brown of Ohio
- Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania
- Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
- Jim Webb of Virginia
- Maria Cantwell of Washington
- Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

Independents:
- Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
- Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Republican:
- Jon Kyl of Arizona
- Richard Lugar of Indiana
- Olympia Snowe of Maine
- Scott Brown of Massachusetts
- Roger Wicker of Mississippi
- John Ensign of Nevada
- Bob Corker of Tennessee
- Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
- Orrin Hatch of Utah
- John Barrasso of Wyoming

A few more to target would be DiFi and Conrad. On the Republican side go after Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown. They would be vulnerabe. So might John Ensign in Nevada with a lot of his baggage. I guess it kind of depends on how Reid does this election. Would Angle try again against Ensign in the primaries? More power to her!

It is unfortunate that Bernie Sanders term is up then. That would make it more difficult for him to run an independent run for the White House like I'd hope he'd do. And also unlike Howard Dean, when he was the head of the DNC and chose to ignore putting up a Dem to challenge Sanders, I wonder what the DLC-infested organizations would do, or threaten to do against Sanders, especially if he were to try and make a presidential run.

Also, a necessary bill we need to lobby for before then is for one that restricts congressional members from going in to lobbyist positions after they leave congress (try to limit the revolving door) which many of these Centrists might try to take advantage of then, much like Dodd is nakedly doing now. Though we didn't like Bennett winning the Colorado nomination, perhaps we hold his heat to the fire to make sure that his bill that would do just this gets pushed through and therefore we force sitting Senators to do more what WE want, rather than push them into lame ducks that will screw with us like Dodd is now if we get good enough primary challenges lined up against them ahead of time! And no "late" Evan Bayh retirements like that too with that sort of thing in place, which screwed us of the opportunity of perhaps getting someone like John Mellencamp to do a real grass roots campaign for the Indiana seat Bayh left.

[rhett o rick]

127. The left should concentrat on "helping" the president by getting the fucking DINO's out. nm

[indepat]

3. Fire the whole kit and caboodle of 'em, all the right of center wingers, yeah!

But wait, BHO has who he wants and the likes of Dean and Wesley Clark were not included among them which spoke volumes. :)

[Fumesucker]

5. I for one welcome our new sensible pragmatic moderate centrist overlords.. n/t

[Subdivisions]

9. +1 n/t

[Mithreal]

18. +2 It's the sensible thing to do!

[Caretha]

50. Could I have some more please, Sir? n/t

[Fumesucker]

58. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? n/t

[Caretha]

66. Sorry

didn't see the meat, saw something swimming in the bowl but it didn't look like meat...too many legs.

[Fumesucker]

67. No extra charge for the bonus drumsticks..

Although we might have to deduct for the broth it drinks before you eat it.

Isn't fresh food yummy and nutritious?

[Angry Dragon]

6. Fire duncan

[asdjrocky]

14. That's a BINGO!

Sorry, I can't stop watching Inglorious Bastards.

[Ted_White]

17. He dumped the left a awhile ago, if he even represented them.

Its just business as usual and Obama is playing the game. Either progressives are going to vote 3rd party in 2012 or they will play the lesser of the two evil game. If Obama wants to win in 2012, then he needs to appeal to moderates or hope Palin wins the GOP ticket. He has more to gain with capturing the center than losing a few disgruntled liberals.

[Laelth]

26. Yeah. That's how Roosevelt got elected 4 times.

Appealing to the middle is a strategy of failure. Appealing to the base is the way to win elections when only 50% to 60% of the population is voting as I argued here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/41

When will the "sensible" centrists ever learn? :eyes:

-Laelth

[Ted_White]

37. The problem is that that America has moved to the right drastically

over the past 30 years and the Democrats have only moved with them. Its amazing that that many people consider Obama a radical leftist. Its arguable that Nixon was more left than Obama, but we live in an are of neo-McCarthyism. Maybe you are right, but Republicans have successfully labeled "liberal" as a bad word, even though many people share liberal ideals. Most don't want to privatize SS, many don't want to loosen environmental regulations, and the majority wanted a PO.

I really dunno.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. No, america has not moved to the right

the parties, both parties, have.

If you ask Americans, do you want Medicare for all? AN overwhelming majority of Americans will support it. If you ask them if they want socialist style medical care, even if this is the same thing... then the approval rate drops. Why do you think is that? Red baiting and propaganda perhaps?

Americans are far more liberal than we give them credit for. Look we have had more than ONE defeat of the Dems by "running to the center."

Doing the same thing... knowing the result is the definition of insanity.

Oh and the range of "accepted political discourse" between the two parties not only has moved so far right that Buchanan is a centrist, but it has also narrowed... making your potential voting pool extremely cynical, with the real effect that we have had massive voter suppression.

[Ted_White]

42. I agree.

[Mithreal]

49. I see you agree with Nadin's response, alrighty. I shouldn't have been so harsh.

Your subject line is incorrect.

What you went on to say has some truth to it though.

[Caretha]

53. Yes, and now they're moving to the left

that old pendulum thingy.It all has to start somewhere. :)

[readmoreoften]

147. America has not "moved to the right." The rhetoric of its ruling class has.

[GreenArrow]

148. Well, until the ruled classes

develop some level of discernment, it amounts to the same thing. In the meantime, most of America is all too willing to be either led or lulled into some state of apathetic complaisance. There's plenty of Soma to go around.

[defendandprotect]

156. No ... corporate $$ has moved our elected officials and political parties to the right ....

[xchrom]

19. Shrug - so new? Voting for centrists has become the same as not voting for them. Nt

[Hawkowl]

21. Ask Gore how that turned out.

Or Kerry.

[Kahuna]

78. Ask America. We're still suffering for that mistake. Oddly, the same

people who allowed bushco in, don't seem to mind the repukes getting back in charge. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[Mithreal]

100. Yes, that's it. Odd how many think there is less and less difference between the parties.

They're all insane, just ask Gibbs.

[Kaleva]

131. More Dems voted for Bush in 2000 then for Nader.

If Gore would have won the traditional Democrat stronghold of West Virginia, Florida would not have mattered.

[JoePhilly]

30. New Democrats = (old Repukes) ... ??

Spare me. I've been voting straight Dem for over 20 years.

And every time the Dems make some head way ... part of our party goes nuts and demands immediate and total gratification. They scare off the middle, and then act confused after it happens.

SO look, keep dividing the party, keep placing litmus test after litmus test so the GOP can win again, ensuring that all progress stops and your litmus tests become totally irrelevant.

Then act surprised when it happens.

[MineralMan]

36. +100

You're correct. No sooner do we get the Democrats into power, some of us start making impossible demands on them, telling them that if they don't do what cannot be done, we won't support them two years into their term.

What happens then? Well, the GOOPers get control again, and the cycle repeats.

When are we going to learn to use the incrementalism that is the only route to progress? I'm afraid it will be never, based on what I've seen so far in President Obama's first term.

Why we, as progressives, shoot ourselves in the foot again and again, I will never understand. All I can do about it is try to get Democrats elected and hope against hope that a small part of our party doesn't screw things up again.

[JoePhilly]

47. Exactly, we don't seem to be able to separate Strategy from Tactics.

The chess analogy is way overused, and has even become a liability for Obama, but it is still useful.

Kids love the 4 move check mate. Its quick. 4 moves ... you win.

Real Chess is much harder. Most chess games involve complex trades, sacrifices (bet that word gets me flamed), and then, the game reaches a king with pawns end game.

We on the left want the 4 move check mate. God forbid Obama push a pawn, or withdraw a piece for defense.

Again, I'm sure I'll get flamed for the chess reference ... but it is useful. Less as a way to describe what Obama is doing, but better as a way to describe how the left seems to be unable to separate strategy and tactics.

Like a kid playing chess for the first time, their queen races to the center of the board as early as possible.

[MineralMan]

59. I don't play chess, but I see what you're getting at.

A similar point could be made using warfare as an example. Naturally enough, I suppose, since chess is a war simulation.

Sometimes you have to retreat a bit and regroup or engage in flanking movements. Sometimes, it seems like some Democrats think the only strategy is to stand in a line and march slowly toward the enemy, stopping to fire from time to time.

It's a good think our American Revolutionary soldiers ignored that common strategy of the day and fired from cover. It worked very nicely.

[Mithreal]

107. Just a fancy way to call everyone who disagrees with you children.

Nothing wrong with chess and not flaming you, just calling it nonsense.

Referring to "the left" as apart? What does that make you? Oh dear. I don't subscribe to middle of the road. Only two things found there.

[Better Believe It]

77. Impossible demands? Like defend the Constitution, end the wars, Medicare for all, jobs for all.

Instead we shall see incremental steps to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits and more giant steps to reinforce the greed and enrichment of the Wall Street tycoons.

2011 should be another great year of progress .... if you're filthy rich.

[JoePhilly]

141. Let's check your first 3 items .... re "Impossible demands"

1) "Defend the Constitution" ... oh brother. You sound like a tea-bagger with that one.

2) "Medicare for all" ... in the current political environment, this IS an "impossible demand". Especially if you expected to see it in the first 18 months of Obama's Presidency. Given the current political environment, its unlikely, unless you get to about 80 Democratic senators and 300+ Democrat house members. Or we can all just sit home and mope.

3) "Jobs for all" ... well, now THAT is definitely a reasonable demand. I mean, through out our history we've almost always had 0% unemployment. What was Obama thinking when he pushed unemployment to 10.1%. I bet he is pissed off that it came down from that high to 9.5% and has basically been stuck there.

Bush and the GOP screwed up this country in ways that will take YEARS AND YEARS to recover from. There is no 4 move check-mate.

[Steely_Dan]

118. Yep....The Cycle Repeats....

...only becuase the last two Dem Presidents were not really Democrats. They were well centered compared to the true tenets of the Democratic Party.

[FrenchieCat]

40. And then many will deny that they had anything to do with anything....

and they will be busy pointing their fingers....all over again.

[POAS]

41. well said...n/t

[SeattleGirl]

52. Well said, JP!

I'm getting really tired of this whole "Democrats = Republicans" crap. Yeah, there are tools like Ben Nelson, a Dem who pretty much does equal a Repub, but all of them? Not in the least.

[Mithreal]

54. Yes, that is why the GOP will win again, what utter tripe.

[MineralMan]

64. It's not that simple, my friend.

We live in a country that is almost equally divided between left and right. It's always a balancing act. We made a good advance in 2008. We always risk losing the small advantage we have gained. We will regret it sorely if we do.

Please don't be part of the reason for that loss. It would be a real shame, and would set the cause of progressivism back another decade, at least. If that's what you desire, then you're on the right track. I hope that's not what you want, but you seemed determined to make it so.

A small minority cannot cause a party to win, but a small minority can certainly cause it to lose. Please don't do that. Thanks.

[Mithreal]

79. Min, respectfully disagree with your post. While it may sound sensible it's still rubbish.

Even if you could define right and left, I believe you can't, there's no evidence that the country is divided so closely on issues. You're repeating a lot of the cleverness used by insiders that passes for every woman or every man wisdom but it's all nonsense.

Those like you say that the left has nowhere else to go, so why worry?

I find it more than a little ironic that so many from CC are given free reign here.

Appealing to me to save progressivism? You have to be kidding me. A certain group of folks worked very hard to water down that word, it means much less now as even conservatives who hold rightwing and even regressive views take up the banner.

I know you would blame any perceived loss on a marginalized in power but not in numbers left. But we can't put our cards down on the table without my post being deleted and you know it. I think with all the illusion this place deserves you and you do play a mean game, so I cautiously commend you on pooling the wool over sheep eyes.

The fight isn't over a party, it's over our principles and those who seem to lack any. The fight is over saving this country and too many here want to make into a kind of game.

I don't expect you to acknowledge what I am saying but we both know not everything is what it seems. Congratulations on a game well played if that is what you would make the troubles we are facing. I have little patience for your lies which often come with a lil truth but I will laugh WITH YOU at what you have accomplished here.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. It is about basic rights and because of that, nothing else matters.

An opponent of my family is called my enemy. Is that clear? If a man who thinks his God tells him my people are not really full humans loses an election, it is like the sacrifice of a pawn in chess, a game you may have heard of.
The rest of your crap is just made up stuff you are repeating. 'The nation is equally divided' you state, as if it were true. Which it is not. At all.
Politicians win, they lose, they move on. That is the game. They are pawns, the issues are the Kings we protect. Play accordingly.

[GreenArrow]

101. Yep, and maintaining that balance

is important, because it insures that very little of any real import or value to the citizenry itself ever gets done.

The parties as a whole, collectively, with certain individual exceptions, are not in the game for us, but rather for their own benefit, for its own self perpetuation.

[EFerrari]

68. What utter cr@p. Every time we make some headway

the DLC tries to claim it as their own, gets their Republican Lite on and, bang, the electorate decides it wants the real thing. Gee, who could have ever predicted that outcome.

[Mithreal]

80. +1 Indeed

[rhett o rick]

142. I think you have it back wards. In 2008 the left worked hard to unite the party

even though for many Pres Obama wasnt their first choice. The left wants a strong party, but one that upholds Democratic principles.

In this OP I am trying to say that the left should not fall for the calculated attacks from Rahm and Gibbs. And they are calculated. "Professional Left" my ass. Gibbs knows that whoever he means as "professional left", arent a threat to the reelection of the President. Is Rachel Maddow a "professional left"? Is she a threat? So explain to me why Gibbs and Rahm have lashed out? Out of control? I dont think so. A smart tactic to rally the New-Democrats? Gibbs, Rahm and the WH know that they are going to get pushed by the left to deliver decent health care, jobs, no wars, etc. It isnt a shock to them.

You want to talk about dividing the party. The party has grown considerably since the self destruction of the Republican Party. Now many ex-Republicans are in our tent. They dont believe in Democratic values but arent Palin/Knewt crazy. These New-Democrats will swing back if the Republicans come up with a mediocre candidate (Jeb Bush for example) that declares Pres Obama a leftist. These New-Democrats dont want single payer and dont want the wars to end. These New-Democrats are DINO's.

[FrenchieCat]

34. The politics of nonsense!

:boring:

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Your state's last few bits of nonsense include Gov Arnold, x2

no delegates for Obama, and the passage of prop 8. CA knows nonsense, that's for sure.

[Mithreal]

88. To be fair, she fought the openly Republican on DU.

Of course, unless it has a (D) or (R) tag, a few here would become confused.

That's why fox news is such a service.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[amborin]

44. fire Geithner, too, then Summers, etc......

[rucky]

48. Here is a complete list of what pandering to the Right has gotten for us:

I think Olympia Snowe voted for something once.

[quinnox]

57. lol, yup

Its true, we got nothing.

{Cue the list of fake and mostly minor accomplishments Obama has done so far.}

[rucky]

61. Feel free to cut & paste :)

[Mithreal]

94. Lilly Ledbetter, jackass!

Just kidding :)

[EFerrari]

55. I've been thinking that Obama dumped the left before he was even inaugurated.

Remember he responded to the objections to Rick Warren by saying his supporters were "noisy, diverse and opinionated"? Not exactly a glowing description.

[quinnox]

60. Yea, the left has gotten zero so far

I can't think of one thing Obama caved to the left on.
He even was proud of it and said as much when he gave that interview and said he rejected all kinds of things the left wanted.

[Mithreal]

95. I don't think it was anything personal, he just wasn't that into you.

It was triangulation pure, sweet and innocent.

[AlinPA]

62. Salamander?

[NJmaverick]

65. More like the Professional left dumped President Obama

[Mithreal]

98. Bringin the dynamite! Hell yeah!

[rhett o rick]

99. Please define "profession left". nm

[Scurrilous]

75. LOL

Fire Rahm

Fire Salamander

Fire Gibbs

Fire Vilsack

Fire Salazar

Fire Arne Duncan

Fire Geithner

Fire Holder

Fire Chu

Spay Bo

Did I leave anyone out?

[Barack2theFuture]

83. This seems to have been the case since November 2008,

when he started naming staff.

[bvar22]

120. !

The DLC New Team
Liberal Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[kohodog]

93. Don't forget Geitner! n/t

[rhett o rick]

97. I didnt forget, but thanks for the reminder. nm

[placton]

103. and look

at the folks who simply cannot accept the evidence of their own eyes, as to what is happening. Give me ONE example of Obama adopting a principal supported by the liberal wing of the party (oops, one he didnt back off on)?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Steely_Dan]

119. What I Want Is Simple...

It isn't complex at all.

I want a Party with "PRINCIPLES." I don't care if you call that Progressive or whatever....I simply want our party to have some fucking balls. I'm pissed.

Our principles are bigger than ANY single individual within the party...including our current President.

I believe with all my soul that WE are on the right side of history. I'm tired of the games people play both here and in the "real" world. We either have principles and live by them or we're nothing better than animals....(wait, isn't that a quote from "The Wild Bunch?")

Seriously...I would rather go down in flames fighting for what is right and DOING the right thing, than trying to "sneak" up on our principles...you know, three steps forward and two steps back. For me at least, that is bullshit. We have no cause to hang our heads at the alter of the Right Wing...we act almost ashamed of our principles. You either believe in them or you don't. There is NO MIDDLE ROAD when it comes to having the courage of our convictions. Let justice reign, though the heavens fall....(wait, isn't that a quote from JFK?).

I have no problem telling my new Dem friends that comfortably ride the center rail, that they are not the Democrats of my father or my father's father. They almost take pride in not upholding the VERY BASICS of our platform. Times have changed? You bet they have. And what I have seen change is that our politicians no longer vote based on their PRINCIPLES. They vote based on some back room deal and then have NO PROBLEM sleeping at night.

This country, our Constitution, everything we have been and everything we will ever be requires that we act on the COURAGE of our CONVICTIONS. Nothing else matters.

Don't get me going....

-Paige

[rhett o rick]

128. Well put. Dont compromise on your principles. nm

[laughingliberal]

125. K & R nt

[Steely_Dan]

135. Sorry...There's More

Do you know why we keep seeing people here posting the "If By Liberal" speech by JFK or FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights" over and over and over again? People are trying to find what it means to be a Democrat. These speeches are posted in an attempt to convince our friends in the middle that while there are many colors to the spectrum of being a Democrat, there are some things that are NOT negotiable. No matter what "kind" of Democrat you are, you either embrace these principles or you do not.

We are trying to find the soul of our Party. Why are we doing that here? Because it's important. If we cannot agree on the very essence of what it means to be a Democrat then we are swimming upstream at best. At worst, we are swept away in a current of mediocrity...unprincipled and held to the whims of the next sound-bite. This is no way to run a party. We exist for a reason. A very important reason. We exist to balance the scales in favor of human dignity and fair play. We are the first and last defense for the "people" of this country. We need to start acting like it again.

If we decide that the longstanding principles of our party are no longer relevant, that we need to "compromise" to get "anything" done, then we are no longer the party of our fathers. And that's okay, if that's where you want to go. Personally, I won't be sitting next to you. I have too much to do.

Maybe it's a matter of "how" we get there. Isn't that as important a factor as anything? Maybe my new Dem friends agree with our principles but disagree on how to achieve them. That's fair. Let's think about this. I would much rather negotiate from a position of strength than of weakness. Wouldn't we all. Do you think that this country would vote all of the so-called progressives out of office if we boldly moved forward. Perhaps....But so what? Yeah...I said it. So what if they do.

There was a story not long ago about a politician that voted her conscious and was voted out of office during the next election...largely based on her refusal to COMPROMISE her CONVICTIONS. As it turned out many months later, her principled position turned out to be right. In an interview, she stated that she would vote the same way again...that it was not only her right to do so, but her OBLIGATION. We need more people like this. People that have the courage of their convictions...that are not running scared. Where are these people of principle???

I could not have been prouder of our President on Friday when he upheld the position that America stands for freedom of religion...IT WAS A PRINCIPLED POSITION. I stated in a post here that while I am a critic of the President, I will at every opportunity praise him when he stands up to carry the banner of freedom as it is outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And I did...several times. Yet, the very next day, he "seemed" to back off the gas pedal. I will not argue with you on whether he "stepped back." The fact that it was an issue of discussion pretty much confirmed that at least some felt that way. I went from being so proud of him...his principled stance to being so disappointed. I would have rather him not take a stand one way or another than to "appear" to back off a principled position.

I am not perfect...President Obama is not perfect. However, I expect him, at the very least, to embrace the Democratic principles that put people before ANYTHING ELSE. It is the very least that he could do as a Democratic President. If he acted "principled" and failed, I would respect him and sing his praises for the rest of my life. He had a mandate, unlike anything that has happened in my lifetime. He had a rare and unique opportunity to change this country for the better. He may still have that opportunity. However, it will not happen unless he as well as the rest of us stand on principle.

-Paige

[rhett o rick]

137. Well put. This should be an OP on it's own. nm

[Mithreal]

139. Well said

[earth mom]

149. Problem is a lot of those so called progressives are really rethugs.

They should be made to take lie detector tests before they are allowed to run for office.