Dems better at being republican that republicans.

[BobRossi]

"As Congress stumbles toward Christmas, President Bush is scoring victory after victory over his Democratic adversaries. He has beaten back domestic spending increases, thwarted an expansion of children's health insurance coverage, defeated tax hikes, won funding for the war in Iraq and pushed Democrats toward shattering their pledge not to add to the federal deficit with new tax cuts or rises in mandatory spending."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402212.html?hpid=topnews

[liberalnurse]

1. Please change your title to reflect the facts!

I find it offensive. This is not acceptable for a Democratic Discussion Board.

[BobRossi]

4. Truth sucks eh?

[liberalnurse]

15. You appear to be of expert opinion and experience

at sucking. We all can count on you for your expert feedback.

[ixion]

9. uh, those are the facts

just because you're 'offended' doesn't make them any less factual.

[Occam Bandage]

10. The "facts" are that Republican filibusters and vetoes have blocked the Democrats,

not that the Democrats are turning into Republicans.

[ixion]

29. we'll have to agree to disagree... I've been watching dems move to the right since the 80's

and what is now considered 'centrist' is, in fact, Right, IMO.

[Kucinich4America]

22. I find it offensive as well.

But it's absolutely true. And until we face up to that fact and cut these cancerous DLC/BlueBalledDogs/whatever name the cowards are going by this week out of the party and start ACTING like Democrats again, we all will suffer for it.

And by "we all" I don't mean this party, or even this country. More like the entire planet. At least. (Give the "defense" industry a few trillion more and they'll make sure that the non-existent threat of a WMD program on Rigel 7 is taken care of)

[Occam Bandage]

24. I see.

Problem: Democrats have only 51 votes in Senate; need 60 to break filibuster and 67 to override veto. Nothing getting done.
Solution: Remove Democrats from the party.

[Kucinich4America]

26. You don't need a "super majority" for everything.

But when you have 14 "Democrats" who won't even vote with the fucking party, then a simple majority is useless. Therefore, it is those traitors who are the problem.

[Occam Bandage]

28. Sure you do. The Republicans have blocked virtually everything.

[ClassWarrior]

2. I hope you'll be out there next year campaigning for...

...Progressive Dem challengers. Otherwise, your post is nothing but impotent whining.

NGU.

[liberalnurse]

5. I feel the OP'er is in a vicious

anti-democrat mood. I never see anything but flaimbait rhetoric.

[BobRossi]

6. You're happy with this?

The Dems in Washington keep enabling the chimp and you are happy with this?

[ClassWarrior]

12. Yes, that's why I'm encouraging you to campaign...

...for Progressive Dem challengers. Because I don't want anything to change.

:eyes:

Next time, I'd suggest reading the post first before giving an idiot answer.

NGU.

[liberalnurse]

19. I'm not happy with freeper titles in the OP.

You posted your own opinion of the article as the title which is incorrect.....More yellow journalistic-tabloid style.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Okay, let's pretend we replace each of the 51 members of the Democratic Caucus with

Dennis Kucinich clones. Explain to me how you are going to pass, say, a healthcare bill.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Okay, let's pretend you comprehended what I wrote.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Occam Bandage]

17. I did. OP says, "Man, the Dems suck."

You say, "So replace them with progressive Democrats."
I say, "Okay, let's pretend every Dem Senator has been replaced by a progressive Democrat. Now explain how things are suddenly better."

[ClassWarrior]

18. I said campaign for Progressive Dem challengers. I never said...

...anything about Kucinich or 51 anything. Either you're putting words in my mouth or you're carrying on an argument with the voices in your head.

NGU.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Ah, I see. You failed to understand me, not the other way around.

Kucinich is just an example of a progressive Dem. So let me reword this, so that perhaps you will understand.

There are 51 Senators on our side of the aisle. Some are good Dems; some are Joe Lieberman. Now, let's pretend that we have a special election tomorrow (this is called a "thought experiment"), and that every single Democrat loses their seat to a progressive challenger.

There are now 51 good, progressive Democrats in the Senate.

Now, explain to me how you are going to break filibusters (60 votes, meaning 9 Republicans must cross over) and override vetoes (67 votes, meaning 16 Republicans must cross over) to pass the legislation you want to see.

The problem is not that we have too few progressive Democrats, it is that we have too few Democrats period.

[ClassWarrior]

21. First of all, why on earth would anyone want to replace...

..."every single Democrat" with a Progressive challenger? That'd be simply stupid, considering that plenty of them already are Progressives.

Second of all, why on earth would anyone want to replace only Dems? That'd be simply stupid for obvious reasons.

And third, if we learned anything from the last election, we learned resoundingly that when Dems nominate Progressives, Dems win elections. Witness the defeat of DLC candidate Tammy Duckworth on the one hand, and the victory of Progressive Sherrod Brown on the other. To ignore that fact would be... well... simply stupid.

So you see, it is you who failed to understand me.

NGU.

[Occam Bandage]

23. You haven't actually addressed my point there.

Okay, I am going to make this as simple as I possibly can.

The problem is not a lack of Progressive Democrats, the problem is a lack of Democrats. It doesn't matter how progressive they are; all that matters is whether they're Dems or not. Even the worst Democrat votes with us 80% of the time, and near 100% on the important issues. Talking about "oh, well, we need more Progressive Dems" is beside the point. What we need are Democrats, progressive or otherwise.

Also, your "lessons from the last election" are boneheaded. I'll see your Sherrod Brown (running against a doomed Republican party) and raise you FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy, all Blue Dogs who flipped solid Republican districts. Progressive Dems can win in progressive districts; conservative Dems can win in conservative districts.

[ClassWarrior]

27. Okay, I'm going to make this as simple as I possibly can.

I know that the percentages are a key problem. I've made that point in other threads. But that's not my point. You've missed my point entirely from the beginning.

My initial point was: If the Dems we got suck (to use your formulation), elect better Dems. My subsequent point is: When we elect better Dems, we elect more Dems.

NGU.

[Kucinich4America]

25. "There are now 51 good, progressive Democrats in the Senate."

There are?

Really now.....

Seems that one of our fellow DU'ers, Zodiak Ironfist, has compiled an accurate rating of the current Senate and their votes on REAL issues (as opposed to those ridiculous ADA ratings the DLC'ers always drag out to show how Hillary gets a 95% rating because she voted "progressive" on horse fart methane studies or whatever)

Anyway, it seems we have 14 senators who vote Democratic less than 50% of the time. 13 of them are DLC, the 14th... well his name is Rockefeller, so insert whatever "ruling class" metaphor you like for that one.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/4

How the HELL can you refer to these charlatans as "progressives" or good Democrats?

[cali]

3. lol

your thread title is laughable.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

67
60
51.

We have the bottom number. We need to find ways to get to the middle number to get things out of the Senate, and to the top number to actually get things passed into law.

[cali]

13. Actually, we don't have the bottom number. We have 49-49

with two indies voting to organize with the dems. And one of them is LIEberman who votes with the repukes on critical issues.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Referring to the Democratic Caucus (which is the important number), not the Democratic Party.

And yeah, Lieberman's in there, and that makes it even harder on foreign-policy issues. He's usually pretty good on non-terrorism domestic issues, though.

[zanne]

11. Jesus! We don't have the numbers!

If we can't override Bush's inevitable vetoes, it's useless to just sit there and keep saying "no". We have no choice but to negotiate until numbers change in the Senate.