These so-called pragmatists were ideologues when it was expedient. Ideologues, like Theodore Roosevelt, most often cause change - sometimes dramatic change - before they ultimately become pragmatists and need to be weeded out.
The argument isnāt that pressure on politicians to advance liberal policies is good. Itās that politicians who accept compromises that contain things that they find unpleasant in order to advance things that they find desirable should be replaced by politicians who will not accept such compromises. That is part and parcel of a tea party-style view of what government should be.
1 Like
How is pointing out that a Purebred Progressive lost a general election changing the subject? You do realize that winning general elections is more important than winning primaries, right?
Oh, Iām not a troll but one of the moderate Democrats you Purebreds no longer want in the Party.
4 Likes
Our political system could go the way of Yugoslavia, once a country of its own, but then it was broken up into six republics. After a while those six new countries started going to war with each other based on age-old grievances. That process was called Balkanization, so letās do that to the Democratic Party, is what this guy is saying.
5 Likes
Hope defeats reason, one more time,
We Dems also manage to support some bad candidates. In states where abortion rights were upheld, marijuana laws loosened and minimum wage hikes were voted for, the RW Repub still managed to win.
Someone who just mumbles outside of their mouth inspires no one.
5 Likes
I agree. Iād only add that an active liberal base (yeah, right) might help hold the political center better than third-way baloney.
4 Likes
Iāve concluded that the āDemocratic Partyā is a faux party. Nothing showed this more than the fight over the ending of the Bush tax cuts. They were set to sunset after 10 years, everyone knew this for 10 years. But the Democrats took total control of government in 2009 and for two years did absolutely nothing. Finally, in October, 2010, after Democratic pollsters told the Democratic congress that this was a great issue for them (to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the high income), Democrats started to do something. But almost immediately over 40 House Democrats wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi telling her that they would not support increasing taxes on the wealthy. So, the Democrats did nothing, finally Obama cut a deal with the Republicans to go back to higher tax rates for those making over $400,000 per year, while slashing the estate tax from 55% to 40%. Just think, the two Koch brothers gained a combined $12 billion from that provision alone. So, at that point I realized that the Democratic party was simply unable to take on their wealthy donors. They are still marginally better than the Republicans on issues, but they have no real desire to govern. We need a party in America that represents working people. Until we have that, we are going to be left with crumbs.
8 Likes
No, it is far better to bend over and give Wall Street and the super wealthy all the opportunities they dream of. After all, they still donāt own 100% of the wealth in our country.
3 Likes
Completely agree. Advocates of a third party always seem to want a party that advances the stated goals of the Democratic Party but that isnāt called the Democratic Party.
3 Likes
If you watch carefully, the Democrats who claim to be progressive always support progressive legislation only when they are sure the legislation wonāt pass Congress. When the Democrats have enough votes in both houses to actually pass progressive legislation enough of them always vote against it to be sure it fails. Similarly, Obama is 100% progressive if there is no chance of progressive legislation passing and showing up for his signature. But, if there is any chance that Congress will actually pass progressive legislation, Obama works his butt off getting it watered down so it canāt do much good. The outstanding example of this is the health care legislation.
4 Likes
Lio, youāre continuing to play dumb. Read my lip: Lack of establishment Democrats support for a āPurebred Progressiveā lost Lamont the election. He didnāt just āhappenā to lose, he was defeated by people who portray themselves as āmoderatesā but somehow always manage to beā¦not moderate towards liberals, only conservatives. Iām sure youāre ready for Hillary, too.
2 Likes
The American people sell themselves out when they listen to bloggersā¦ for whom are more whine than discourse. And the belief (particularly among Dems) that not voting has some benefit ā is just odd [and stupid].
1 Like
Bingo!
1 Like
If the stated goals of the Democratic Party were the actual goals of Democratic members of Congress and the Democratic president, we would rejoice and laugh at the idea of voting for a third party. Unfortunately Wall Street and the ultra wealthy own the Democratic Party just as they own the Republican Party.
4 Likes
He only lost the general election because the primary opponent he defeated refused to accept his defeat. That happens in about .05% of elections. Lamont would have trounced Schlesinger.
4 Likes
JimHannan you have it exactly right! Obama has never been more than a Republican light. During his first election campaign I studied his position papers and read his books, while working hard to get him elected. When I discovered that he held no Democratic positions, progressive positions, I dropped out of his campaign. He was truly a trojan horse in that regard. Unfortunately Hillary is even more Republican light than Obama.
2 Likes
Itās great to be in favor of Elizabeth Warren. I really like her too. But seriously, she said again today that she isnāt running and you must take her at her word. She is not even sending mixed messages encouraging a draft. So give it up. Hillary is probably the only candidate the Dems have who can conceivably win in the wake of Obama fatigue, no matter how bad the GOP field appears to be today. The MSM will demand a horse-race and, with the GOP in control of both houses of Congress, the last thing we need is a re-run of McGovern or Dukakisāor Howard Dean. Elizabeth Warren has a much more powerful perch in the Senate, where she will rapidly accumulate seniority going forward. Letās not screw it up folks.
9 Likes
Iāve read several interesting articles in the last two weeks about progressive candidates who were on the ballot, met with DCCC, DNC, and DSCC people and were denied any party financial support because they didnāt have enough money in the bank. Add to that the fact that there was no national campaign, no party platform of priorities, and massive amounts of money was spent on totally unwinnable races by candidates who renounced Obama and promised to work against liberal goalsā¦
Something is seriously wrong with the national party. If you want to just repeat that itās better than the other party because things could be worse after all, then youāre part of the problem, or else you just have a different view of what a democratic party means. Iām more of a Roosevelt Dem than an Obama Dem, I guess.
7 Likes
Yeah because Republicans voted for Lieberman knowing he was the closest conservative to win in that state. You had Fox News and the Democratic establishment still shilling for Lieberman in an off year that typically favors Republicans.
4 Likes