When a majority is not really a majority...

[kentuck]

Democrats rejoiced when the last election was over. They had a huge majority in the House and Al Franken gave them 60 votes when he was finally declared the winner against Norm Coleman. But, they overlooked one small fact. They are not Republicans.

Republicans would have been able to use such huge majorities to their advantage. They would have walked all over the Democrats. But the Democratic Party is different.

For years, Democrats have been told that they have no choice but to settle for conservative or Blue Dog Democrats or they had no chance. The Republicans would win otherwise. Perhaps that is true? Perhaps not? I wonder why more "true" conservative Republicans do not win in those states?? If the voters are looking for conservatives, why do they not vote for the Republicans??

Obviously, many of these states are very conservative. But they are conservative in more social ways, not in ways that favor millionaires and billionaires and Wall Street. Democrats that win in these states can still stand up for the people over the wealthy Republicans and not lose support. But, that is not what we have seen.

Just as these Blue Dogs stood with the Republicans to extend the Bush taxcuts for the wealthy, it shows how far the Democratic Party has fallen out of touch with average people. These folks are nothing more more than Republican puppets. We can find better "Democrats", even in these conservative states.

These people have diluted the message of the Democratic Party to the point where many folks have no idea what the Party stands for anymore. They have blocked every piece of progressive legislation that is proposed. They need to be replaced. We need to reclaim our Party for the people.

[elocs]

1. No, Al Franken did not give the Dems 60 votes. Such a widespread and common myth.

In any way, shape, or form, to claim that the Democrats actually had a dependable 60 votes in the Senate is disingenuous. There never were 60 votes and if you don't have 60 it may as well be 51.

[kentuck]

2. Thanks for making the point I was trying to make...

in a more succinct way.

[piratefish08]

4. or they could stop caving in at the very mention of the word 'fillibuster'

and actually make the motherfuckers do it. telephone books, cots and all.......


Then it becomes 51 again.

[vi5]

7. Do you think if the Republicans had 60 votes

and some of them were Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Collins, Snowe, or other "unreliable" votes that their leadership or their base (or the presidency if they had it at the time) would just shrug their shoulders and go "Oh well. That's the way it goes. The votes just aren't there to do things the way we really want to."

Do you think they'd give any of those people key spots on the committees which were largely responsible for standing between them and the things they wanted to get done?

Hell, they had 51 votes in the Senate and were talking about doing away with the fillibuster and going with a "nuclear option". How many times did we hear anything even close to that from any of our senate leaders with considerably more than that?

So yeah, we can sit here and clutch our pearls and pat our foreheads with hankies and talk about how doing that stuff is so impolite and mean and what have you. But that's the way they've strong armed every conservative action and legislation that has gone through in the past however many years and why so much irrevocable damage has been done. Does anyone really think playing things politely and shrugging shoulders and hoping for bits and pieces and scraps of change and rolling this stuff back is really going to work?

[hendo]

24. Nope, the republicans would never act as weak as we are

with a majority.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. That has always been my point. Always! Good job! n/t

[depakid]

25. We need 60!! 70! 80!

Here's news.

The American people neither understand nor will they ever get why the 60 vote "gentleman's filibiuster" prevents Democrats from taking progressive or populist actions.

Especially when it's clear that either the administration or members of the Senate from the Democratic party are involved in blocking the actions that might help out mainstreet.

[treestar]

3. There are in conservative states

If they are getting liberal enough to elect Blue Dogs, that's progress. It's a silly all or nothing argument.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. K&R

[MajorChode]

6. This is exactly correct

The simple fact is the Democrats simply never had a mandate regardless of how many people had a D by their name. You simply can't compare the majority we have today with historical majorities. There was always some dissension in past majorities and even many defections, but overall their coalition was strong enough to get some very serious and significant things done. The problem we have today is too much fracturing. There are just to many single issue people out there and those who may just have a small handful of issues they want. If they don't get them, they are content to sit on the fence or even to damage their own side. What they don't realize is their narrow focus is exactly what insures they will never get what they want. I'm a Democrat because I believe in the ideology. Certainly there are some things I am not happy about, but when push comes to shove I support the ideology and not one single issue over all else. The time to air dissension from within the party is during primary time. Once the primaries are past, it's time to circle the wagons. If you can't do that, then you are helping the other side far more than you are ever helping your own causes.

[Cant trust em]

8. Look back at those senators who gave us trouble in 2009, did their states turn blue for Obama in 08?

Ben Nelson, Nebraska - McCain 57, Obama 42

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana - McCain 59, Obama 40

Blanche Lincoln, - Arkansas - McCain 59, Obama 39

Kent Conrad, North Dakota - McCain 53, Obama 45

Max Baucus, Montana - McCain 50, Obama 47

[Kablooie]

9. Seems the Blue Dogs should be eliminated from the Dem party.

They should be forced to run as independent or Republican so people at least know they carry the banner of Fox News.

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. Republicans have infiltrated the Democratic representatives and....

has, in effect, neutered the party.

[KharmaTrain]

11. The "Deliberative Body"

The founders set up the Senate to keep a possible renegade House in check. It was designed with what now appear as archane rules that required 3/5ths to pass certain types of legislation and 2/3rds to pass any treaties, over ride a veto or impeach. It gave the minority greater power not to obstruct but to negotiate...and also give a lot of power to those considered in "the middle" thus encouraging "bipartisanship" despite the fact there were no parties at the time of the writing of the Constitution (but the founders knew it was inevitable).

For over 200 years this is how the Senate worked...most legislation would go with a majority plus one threshold (that's how the '93 tax hike was worked...Al Gore cast the deciding vote). That all changed when the rushpublians lost their majority in '06 and found a way in the rules to force votes of a pluarlity (60 or more) on every vote. Harry Reid got steamrolled and his fear of filibusters made this strategy work very, very well. The GOTB made the Senate as dysfunctional as possible as its leadership cracked the whip hard on anyone who even thought of "working across the aisle", played rope-a-dope with Reid and the administration and empowered shitbags like Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln to sell out to the highest bidder...far more power than they deserve and played to perfection by the GOTB.

Instead of being "deliberative" it's now fully dysfunctional and will as long as the rules stay the way they are. It will take either eliminating or modifying the filibuster rules and making it difficult to force 60 votes when the Senate draws up it's "rules" at the start of next session. I doubt Reid has the stones to do this and if the Democrats lose seats next year, look for the "moderates" to do their "Gang of 14" game again.

[kentuck]

12. It is nothing short of surrender...

to suggest that this is the reality and it can never change. We are stuck with a Party that is impotent and we have to accept the Republican Blue Dogs as they are and the people in their states can never change. And we are stuck in a hole that we cannot escape.

I refuse to believe that. We can do better. And we would be a better Party without these folks stabbing us in the back at every opportunity. It would be preferable to have Republicans in their place so long as we still had the majority. We could lose two dozen of those assholes tomorrow and we would still have the majority.

It is a false choice to suggest there is nothing that can be done if we want to keep the majority. That simply is not true. They are weakening and destroying our entire Party. We are not looking for LaFollette "progressives" in these states but we do expect Democrats. If they want to run with a "D" by their name, let them act and vote like Democrats. Otherwise, let them join the Republican Party. Throw them overboard.

[Vincardog]

14. +1If they want to run with a "D" by their name, let them act and vote like Democrats. Otherwise, let

let them join the Republican Party. Throw them overboard.

[Individualist]

15. DLC can do and has done more damage to the party from within

than they could have as becoming republicans. They're a cancer that needs to be excised.

[Vincardog]

22. The DLC the conservadems and the 'new' democrats can all go pack sand up their a$$es. They can take

all the concerned centrists with them.

[Imajika]

16. So your suggesting we do to our moderates what the Tea Party...

...is doing to theirs?

That is exactly what the Tea Party is doing, ousting moderates (they call them RINO's) even if it will mean losing winnable seats. We call the Tea Party right wing radicals for doing this - and laugh at them for nominating people like O'Donnell. Yet aren't they doing pretty much exactly what you and many others are calling for, only from the other end of the political spectrum?

I am not saying you are wrong btw, I am just curious why we deride the tactics of the Tea Party when they are actually mobilizing to dump their "moderates". Ofcourse we disagree with them on politics/philosophy, but I am puzzled why more people here don't admire them for dumping their "unreliable" politicians in favor of hard liners - even if that means they will lose seats they otherwise could have won. I mean, they are actually DOING what many here claim we should be doing.

[kentuck]

17. I think it is all in how you define "moderates".

We have many "moderates" in the Democratic Party that do not vote with the Republicans and continuously stab our Party in the back.

Instead of "moderates", I would call them Republicans. It is not the same as the Tea Party, in my opinion.

[Imajika]

18. I dunno, I think it is kinda the same thing...

If we led a serious effort to get rid of, well, lets call them "conservadems", we may lose seats we could have otherwise won. "Conservadems" win in districts/states that are right of center leaning. By running a "conservadem" we win a seat we'd have otherwise lost and get a vote for Speaker or Majority Leader and help on many key issues, but they are unreliable votes because they are representing districts/states that are simply not left leaning and are forced to steer right to retain their seats. Yet if we primary those people with actual Democrats/progressives that support most/all of our agenda, we would be operating out of principle and actually know we could count on the votes and support of the Dems we do elect. This is precisely what the Tea Party is actually doing - and they are willing to lose seats to do it.

[kentuck]

19. But intelligent and tolerant progressives are not the same as ...

as ignorant and intolerant "tea-baggers". I don't think we have to sink this low to be competitive in those "conservative" states. Surely we can do better?

[EstimatedProphet]

21. I don't think it's the same thing. Here's why:

The idea behind it is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So the teabillies throw a tantrum and try to purify the right ends up being the same thing as our side trying to put in more liberal dems - except it isn't. Teabillies are so far rightward that they are delusional. Dems are nowhere near as extremely leftward. If we primary the blue dogs successfully, we will drag the political discussion leftward, amybe even as far as the middle eventually. If the teabillies do the same thing, the force the entire discussion into insanity. Their viewpoint doesn't mirror our viewpoint at all because it is so extreme.

[Vincardog]

23. IS requiring that Democrats embrace the Democratic Party Platform the same as not adhering to a RW

nebulous code?
WE are not advocating duping all but the most hard line.
We are advocating dumping those that work against our agreed upon Policies platform and IDEALS.

Was that a STRAW MAN or was that confusion?

[EstimatedProphet]

20. The problem with throwing out the Blue Dogs

The majority party gets a lot of very important perks. Chairmanships, for example. If we lose the blue dogs we lose that power. As to whether we have been effectively using that power is another story, but I for one would like to hang onto it at all costs.