Discussion for article #231210
So, let’s let’s further polarize American politics. Let’s alienate people who agree with us 90%. Let’s marginalize progressives into a group that cannot be reasoned with, and can only be ignored.
What could possibly go wrong?
27 Likes
If I could like your reply more than once, I would do so, Thanks.
5 Likes
When there are two republicans running, the republican will always win.
Right now Democrats are too busy trying to be republican light. Once there is a party that is ACTUALLY for the people, you may just see people voting for it.
And who says that they can’t be reasoned with? Having an ideology does not mean that one has to be intransigent, that’s a republican trait, not progressive.
12 Likes
Ned Lamont.
3 Likes
The Democratic Party withheld support from Ned Lamont or he would have won. Lieberman received multiple Dem endorsements after losing his primary. Proves the point, doesn’t it. Good Dems are ganged up on by the party establishment.
8 Likes
While I don’t think anyone who truly identifies with the Democratic party (progressive to blue dog) liked everything in the funding bill, I think as the “adults” in the room we accept the compromises made to get the funding bill passed (or any other bill in the future). What I think aggravates me most, and what the core of the problem truly is, is we have no idea what we GOT in the bill, if anything. The best compromise leaves neither side happy, so I can live with being unhappy about the campaign finance law increase, if the Leadership can come back to us and say “we kept funding for all of the safety net programs at the 2014 levels, plus a COLA. In order to do that, we had to compromise on X.”
I guess what I am getting to is the usual abysmal communication effort by the Dem Leadership (including the President, though he has a great platform when he actually signs the bill) to tell us what they FOUGHT FOR AND WON. Show the people what you represent, what you fight for, and what the OTHER SIDE is fighting for. Don’t frame the message as “we lost on X”, frame it as “we fought and won X,Y, Z. But as part of the compromise, the R’s demanded A,B, C” and then go into WHY those things are bad for the average citizen…
10 Likes
Who in the hell wrote such a dumb ass screed? The 2014 election is not ancient history…“you can look it up”.
Democrats got creamed in that thing and they are going to get more of the same in 2016. If we put this clown’s plan in place the Congress will be 85 % GOP’er by 2020.
5 Likes
I agree with everything here, but here’s the thing: the conservatives and some moderate Dems have already begun the process of cleaning themselves out.
Of the 32 who voted Aye (33 if you count Feinstein, who didn’t vote), I would bet Baldwin, Leahy, Murphy, Murray, Reid, Schatz, Stabenow, and both Udalls would NOT have voted Aye if it weren’t a must-pass omnibus. Some of them also were undoubtedly feeling pressure to remain loyal to the President.
Add them to the 22 who voted Nay, and that would make a clear majority of the caucus.
And with the loss in November of Begich, Hagan, Johnson, Landrieu, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Walsh, that majority becomes very healthy—29-16 on most issues related to Wall Street and economic fairness. (They lose Udall, Harkin, and Levin, but gain Peters.)
Now, that’s not enough to control votes or mount filibusters. But it’s a good point from which to start exerting more influence, and arm twisting, in the caucus on a regular basis. Getting another solid progressive, like Whitehouse, into leadership would be another good move. The presence of Schumer and Durbin is going to continue to be a big problem.
10 Likes
It is a conundrum.
The political rapists and prostitutes (who are more Republican than Democrat–the degree can be debated) are IN the Congress.
1 Like
She isn’t running.
2 Likes
But the people of Connecticut had a clear choice between a Progressive candidate and a Republican - lite candidate . Which one did they choose?
1 Like
They’re gonna gain seats in both houses just like they did in 2012. Personally, I’m not all that excited about it, since they’ll probably get their asses handed to them again in 2018.
Dems got creamed because they ran from their principles or had defective ones. What liberalwanted Landrieux to win? Crist? Nunn? Terrible candidates. Every single one of the New Democrats selected by the leadership to run for Congress lost. Every. One. Regarding Lamont, Lio changes the subject. It was about the lack of party support for a true progressive and Lio pretends it’s about Lamont losing. Yeah, he LOST because of the PARTY campaigning AGAINST him.
The trolls are out in force. Must be afraid of which this thread might lead, huh?
6 Likes
Reverse the politics and this article could have been written by a tea partier. I’ll take pragmatists over idealogues any day.
7 Likes
Be careful what you wish for… Cleaning house is fine if you have highly qualified individuals ready to run for the office.
5 Likes
Sadly, you are correct. We’ll lose seniority by replacing these appeasers, but with their complicity, the value of the seniority is lost anyway.
2 Likes
Pressuring our side to stand up for our ideals is not a purity test or crazy.
Fighting to increase the minimum wage is popular…it even won in the Red states.
Fighting against banker bailouts is popular, also across both sides of the aisle.
4 Likes
I am a little conflicted about this column.
I agree that Democrats need to stand for something; I am also concerned about the circular firing squad effect of taking out less-liberal congressmen who are then replaced by Republicans.
Many criticize the Tea Party and their scorched-earth tactics, and a lot of rhetoric from the MSM this past year was how the establishment Republicans kept the Tea Partiers on a leash, adopted their policies, and only moderated their rhetoric – very few “legitimate rape” comments, for example.
I think some of that misses the point: the Tea Party is not bad because of their tactics – primarying unacceptable politicians is not so bad. No, the Tea Party is bad because their ideas are bad. Opposing extension of unemployment insurance at a time of historically high unemployment is bad. Bitching about TARP and then opposing the banking reform bill is bad, Bitching about food stamps in the farm bill, but green-lighting increased farm subsidies for millionaire farmers, is bad. Opposing immigration reform and allowing the immigration mess, which enables employers to exploit cheap labor and apply downward pressure on wages, is bad. Opposing the ACA as “welfare” and “redistribution” while the prior system allowed free-riders and passing on the costs of uncompensated care to policy holders and taxpayers, is bad. Bitching about and opposing raising the debt ceiling with the argument that it would lead to a tightening of our belts, but which took us to the brink of default and led to a lowering of our credit rating, is bad.
But where do we go from here? Our challenge is tougher than that faced by the Right. Primarying insufficiently conservative Congressmen and replacing them with even more insanely right wing candidates worked to an extent because Republicans turn out in midterms at higher rates than Democrats. Also, the Right exploits the very cynicism about government that their track records as bad legislators engenders. We cannot emulate the nihilism and cynicism that the Right has successfully used for electoral advantage. Rather than calling for protest votes against the Blue Dogs – which hurt us in 2010 - we need a ground-up level campaign.
I don’t have the answers, but I am afraid this column expresses little more than a tantrum.
14 Likes
Fronting primary candidates only works for active constituencies.
4 Likes