DU is a reflection of today's Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

There are a few liberals still hanging on, believing that the Party is a progressive Party. But there are many "moderates" and "conservatives" that believe liberals are living in a fantasy land and you have to compromise with the right-wing in order to accomplish anything.

There are those that believe healthcare reform should have been rammed thru as a single payer system and there are those that recognize you have to compromise to make progress. Some Democrats are anti-war in almost every case. They have a difficult time rationalizing war under almost any circumstances. Then there are those that believe war is necessary under some circumstances, such as the war in Afghanistan.

Then there are liberals that believe in a progressive tax system and believe that Big Business does not pay its fair share. Then there are more conservative Democrats that believe in taxcuts for business and the capitalist system. They believe in a lot of principles similar to the Republican conservatives. Which are you?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. You just described the big tent that is Democrats, I suspect!

[Hepburn]

2. It's scary....

...I find myself sooooooo far to the left of sooooo many on here. When I came to the DU in April 2004 (I think that date is right, but did not check), I was pretty much in the middle of the DU crowd. Lots to the right and lots to the left.

Now??? Wow, I am on the left fringe...or so it seems.

[Go2Peace]

6. There are still just as many of us here as there are in the democratic party as a whole

I think DU just has a very vocal group of "new democrats" and centrists who have been energized by Obama. But make no mistake, "progressives" are a very large component of the Democratic party and at DU. In fact, if you look at what rises to the top of the "greatest list, we are more likely the majority here.

[Go2Peace]

10. DU is more progressive than centrist.

I think that is evident by what rises to the top of "greatest". If you pay attention, there is just a very vocal chore group of centrists on here that is always trying to convince us that is not the case. Don't let them fool you.

As for the party, indeed the leadership is centrist, because that is where the money is. But I believe that progressives are probably close to 50% of the party as a whole. Just many progressives are not keeping up with what is going on, or they are waiting hoping that obama is a hidden progressive.

Just look at the liberal side of media? It is almost exclusively progressive. The centrists must feel quite challenged these days!

[Winterblues]

21. What you are calling "Centrists" would have been "Far Right" just a couple of decades ago.

:shrug: Maybe if one were to define core Democratic principles established by say FDR and compare to what we have today..

[Individualist]

32. +1

[Hepburn]

27. I hope you are correct....

...I am too old and too liberal to change and find another party to support.

[Javaman]

19. This is the way I look at it...

there are a lot of former repukes on this site now, they may have dumped their party but many still haven't completely shed the scales from their eyes. It's hard for them to just completely switch tracks.

I was left/center, against "the surge" and the wars and probably part if the majority here back in '04 but now, I'm considered ultra left because I don't agree with the escalation and I'm still against the wars. Go figure.

[Hepburn]

28. Same book, page and line with you.

All of a sudden ~~ I am a bad person for being against those wars?

Go figure....:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

42. I've been here since nearly the start- it's the SAME. DU'ers just become less tolerant of those

they disagree with and exaggerate their numbers.

Whether they are are one side or other of the scale.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

46. It has definitely changed

I noticed that when Obama got elected people were using the word "liberal" much in the way Rush and Hannity do, they are using a lot of their same tactics and I would venture to say many of them agree with some of their ideas.

It has changed but I am not going anywhere.

[Greyhound]

51. Yes, us and Richard Nixon are the "fringe left" now.

Amazing...
:kick: & R

[old mark]

3. I see several other Democratic sites where posters actually think the

President is doing a good job, and believe the idea is to win future elections rather than trying to punish the Democratic Party by not voting and allowing the GOP to come back....like they will do a better job?

I don't see a lot of sense here at DU, just a lot of ego driven sophomoric bullshit.

But that's just me.

mark

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Winning Elections Uber Alles

Is why Clinton and the DLC moved to the far right (where Obama remains today), which pushed the far right even farther into crazy. That got Clinton re-elected, but lost us both houses of Congress as long as the DLC ran the Party.

This has resulted in the destruction of the middle class and the other ills that plague us.

I think that governing well is the best policy in the long run - FDR was a four termer, you know.

[old mark]

50. Right - you get so much more out of losing elections -

The republicans will be kind and understanding this time.

What was I thinking.



mark

[LooseWilly]

57. Did you miss the "four termer" detail pointed out?

And I'd say part of Gore's problem (leading to Bush, along with voter fraud) was that he ran so "centrist" (right of center really). Even more so than Clinton.

It might behoove Obama to remember that, if the "left" becomes disillusioned... they may look for a New Nader. A few "bones"... something to at least get some of the after taste of feeling like we've been pissed on... it might go a long way.

Or the administration can continue pissing on the left, and hope that it wins over enough of the center-of-right to make up the difference of those that will excuse themselves so they can shower and hope to not feel so dirty after the next election. If the employment of that strategy in legislative struggles is any indication, however, it might be a bad idea.

By all means though, continue with that 1988 theme of "purity (integrity) loses elections"... that sort of thing never gets stale...

[Go2Peace]

16. of course, see what you want. How do you explain that the democratic media is *liberal*?

[kentuck]

18. How do you explain that the "liberal media" is defined so negatively?

Do they call themselves the "liberal media"? If they were so powerful, could they not portray themselves more positively? Who created that term anyway?

[Go2Peace]

53. wow, you just parroted the right wing. I am not talking about cnn, I was talking about

Air america, Keith, Ed, etc, all the voices that really *are* the liberal media. That is much smaller than what the cons call the "liberal media".

Man, the cons have really made it hard to discuss these things, they have so screwed up our language.

[Turbineguy]

4. Not really

But since the repub party has shrunk it's only natural that many centrists and even conservatives would come to the Democratic party. There seem to be many here as well. If you want these people to go away to have a more pure progressive-democratic group, you have to fix the repub party. Which is what I've been telling republicans since the 1990's.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. This Liberal Doesn't Believe The Party Is Progressive

This Liberal believes that it's center-right, bordering on far right. Hell, top income tax under Ike was 91% when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Today's Dems are far, far, far to the right of that!

As Bill Maher said: we now have two parties, the center-right party and the crazy party.

I do think that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will become ascendant again in a few years, after enough people are starving and dying in the streets. Apparently, 1 in 4 kids being on food stamps isn't enough for most folks to hop on board the clue train. We who hold traditional Democratic values will have to win our party back.

[Vincardog]

9. +1 What Manny said

[Go2Peace]

14. I believe leadership and some very vocal people here at DU are not, but much of the base

*is* progressive in political beliefs.

You would not feel that if you listen to the centrists here who want to convince everyone otherwise. But when you start looking at the names you see it is a relatively small group of people who do the majority of posting.

They work as a block, yet still, more progressive than centrist posts tend to rise to the top of greatest. DU is definitely fairly progressive.

[Hepburn]

29. Amen, Manny....

....there are days I feel like I have gone down the Rabbit Hole into an altered reality.

I actually got UnRecs for posting a thread with pics of the funerals of our falled soldiers...which were posted to point out the reality of war.

I cannot believe I am seeing this on my beloved DU. :puke:

[ChiciB1]

43. As A Liberal... NOT A Progressive Who I Feel Are Center/Right It Pains

me to see that many, many Progressives are looking more like Repukes as time goes by. I'm NOT sure there are less Liberals here, could be wrong about it, but I do know ONE THING... many people who call out Liberals as Anti-Everything are flat out wrong!

My family has begun to worry about my political addiction because it has affected my health in various ways. I so wish I could just NOT care about the "middle class" and those so much more "less fortunate!" I'm seeing a middle class evaporating and at the same time seeing more APATHY than I've ever seen before.

Personally I find many here and in this country willing to go along simply because a person has a (D) behind their name. I don't own blinders, but there are times I wish I could just turn off my brain and NOT SEE what is really happening here in this country!

I'm not "over-the hill" simply because I was once a "hippie" but there are those here who feel that I am!! I recall a time of much upheaval and many thousands and thousands of us actually got out and made of voices heard, and we marched in UNITY! We have always been known as the Party Of The Big Tent, but the "tent" is becoming more and more "fractured" AND MEAN by attacking and eating our own. My family is correct, and I KNOW I need to stop caring about what is going on, regardless of how much I truly believe that what goes on in D.C. DOES affect my life! They tell me that I have no real control over any of it, and I have to admit that I DO SEE IT! Now, I just have to wean myself away from trying to make a difference like I think we once did.

Never before has the phrase "you can't fight city hall" been more evident to me, and yet, as a Liberal I keep banging my head against the wall! Reality of what is, and the difference between what my heart feels have been building and may soon clash in a big way! As it is now, I lose sleep and find my hand-wringing interfering with my already diagnosis of OCD!!

My body knows I need to stop, my brain just won't shut down! When I get really down, I ALWAYS think of Abbe Hoffman who in the end committed suicide! I realize he may have suffered from a bi-polar personality that went undiagnosed, but I'm sure he had a BIG LIBERAL HEART!

Then again, I may not have my facts correct about him, but I do remember him as one who began a movement that united people together! It was before I became a real activist, but I recall seeing him fight!

I realize times change, but I do feel that without UNITY, we fracture even more!

[AndrewP]

61. Well said

[LastNaturalist]

7. Nope.

Sorry.

[get the red out]

11. Which are you?

Is this a question to try to further divide us into the "good" and "evil" Democrats? Perhaps this isn't the most constructive way of approaching debate. In reality the only way to have the illusion of complete agreement is through totalitarian means, which is not what any Democrats are after.

[kentuck]

12. I am a liberal.

I am a democratic socialist. We do not have two Parties. We have one Party masquerading as two. We need a second masquerading as a Third Party in order to compete with the One Party. More confused?

[Hepburn]

30. Same here....

...I consider myself a Socialist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. I'm a "lesser of two evils" Democrat who votes issues rather than party.

[robinlynne]

15. It shouldn't be. It should be a reflection of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

[MNDemNY]

17. Today's, yesterday's, last week's, the one of 50 years ago.

Where have you been??? :shrug:

[kentuck]

20. Who thinks this thread is divisive?

?? Why?

[kentuck]

22. Do you agree?

If we had 75 Senators, we could pass whatever we needed? Obviously, 60 is not enough.

[WI_DEM]

23. The democratic party has never been a wholly liberal party

it's always had liberal elements, moderate and conservative. It's never been an organized political party as Will Rogers used to say.

[kentuck]

25. But it has been liberal in the past when it has needed to be liberal...

and pass legislation for the people. It does not seem capable of doing that today?

[kctim]

24. No, it really is not

The majority of DU are liberals/progressives and the majority of the Democratic Party are moderates. It would be easier to see if you actually understood what moderates are about instead of assuming you know what they are about.

Moderates aren't for "compromising" everything in order to accomplish anything. They are just more to the right on some issues than you all are, just as moderate Republicans are further left than Conservatives are. Their differing views and beliefs are the liberals/progressives problem, not their lack of will to stand up for what they believe in.

FWIW, if you looked at the many things we agree on, rather than fixating on the few things we do not, you would understand why we call ourselves Democrats and why we need each other.

[kentuck]

26. What have "moderates" accomplished?

Is just being in the majority enough for you?

[kctim]

31. Three main things

We HELPED liberals/progressives take back the House and Senate AND get Obama elected as President.
We have kept one side from taking the country to far right.
We have kept one side from taking the country to far left.

[Romulox]

33. That's a dubious list of "accomplishments". Do you believe in ANYTHING for its own sake

i.e. without reference to how "to far..." (sic) left or right it is?

:hi:

[kentuck]

34. Indeed.

:-) Prevented? That is an accomplishment nowadays.

[kctim]

41. Of course

I know you want specific things that YOU would consider an accomplishment, but that is not how it works. We see things from two different points of view.
For example: many liberals/progressives would see a ban on guns as an accomplishment, but since moderates still believe in the 2nd Amendment AND protecting others while still respecting it, we have kept it from being repealed or infringed on too much, which is an accomplishment of ours.
We do not have a 70, 80, or 90 percent tax rate imposed on us to pay for a million social programs, but we have a moderate tax rate imposed on us to pay for needed social programs.
Not having total govt control of our healthcare is a moderate accomplishment. Everybody not having to "fend for themselves no matter what," is a moderate accomplishment.

Do I believe in ANYTHING for its own sake? Yes, in fact I hold VERY extreme views on abortion and gay marriage, but I also acknowledge that my beliefs are not moderate or shared by the majority and I make no attempt to convince myself or others that they are.

[Romulox]

44. Again, that sauce is thin.

"For example: many liberals/progressives would see a ban on guns as an accomplishment, but since moderates still believe in the 2nd Amendment AND protecting others while still respecting it, we have kept it from being repealed or infringed on too much, which is an accomplishment of ours."

And I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Well, you don't see any tigers around here, do you? :silly:

"We do not have a 70, 80, or 90 percent tax rate imposed on us to pay for a million social programs, but we have a moderate tax rate imposed on us to pay for needed social programs."

We have one of (if not the) highest rates of poverty in the developed world. :hi:

[kctim]

47. You can't really be that dumb

so I am going to guess you are just derailing to independent issues in order to avoid facing the truth that YOU're personal opinions and beliefs are NOT what determines where the moderate "scale" begins and ends.
Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is NOT a moderate position simply because YOU think it is what is best for everyone else.
Imposing a 90% tax rate on everybody in order to fight what YOU believe is poverty, in the way that YOU believe it should be fought, is NOT a moderate position.

Assuming anybody to the right of your position is a right wing kook because YOU know what is best for everybody, is nothing but a childish attempt to convince yourself and your cheerleaders that you are right.

Again, you are not going to see moderate accomplishments as accomplishments because the end result is not the result you desire.

There is a reason moderates outnumber the extremes, thanks for proving it.

[Romulox]

48. LOL. Out of rhetorical gas, low post count poster turns to ad homs. Nobody is surprised.

Nice show of "centrist" logic (not to mention manners!) you've made here! :rofl:

[kctim]

52. Thought I was being nice

in saying I believed you to be smarter than your last post. Oh well.

You win. There is no moderate view on anything. Everybody who does not think like you is a right-wing loon who should be forced to live according you're beliefs and values because YOU know what is best for everybody.

[Starry Messenger]

58. What the heck is an very extreme view on abortion and gay marriage?

The party that made these two things even a controversial issue is the right wing. I don't know why people define their views as extreme from the position of the right wing party of no. Being for American freedoms should be the default moderate position, IMO.

[kctim]

60. Fair question

On abortion, if govt must be involved, I hold the view that I or the govt have no say in the matter at all. Meaning a woman can go in for one weekly as a form of birth control or go in during her last month and have one for whatever reason. No questions asked. Her body, her decision, her right.
On marriage, if govt must be involved, I hold the view that anybody should be permitted to marry ANYBODY they wish and receive the exact same marriage rights everybody else have.


Such loose definitions are not shared by most Democrats and are hardly from the rights position.

[Go2Peace]

54. LOL, Obama won the same way Clinton did, he benifitted from a failed Republican before him

The last election would have been won by most any democrat (not to diminish Obama, he did a good job, but lets be real here), and the senate and house were won back by two things: 1, repubs overplaying their hand and almost destroying the country, and 2, Dr. Dean! Without Dean and his strategy of going for broke Obama would be missing at least one majority. No doubt about it.

Dean was brilliant, and what happened? The centrists kicked him out!

[dionysus]

35. not sure. but i see a lot of the people who self identify as super liberal ridiculously calling

other liberals DINOs or DLCers (lol) because they can't seem to comprehend that the current makeup of congress (6 blue dogs plus leiberman) means that you can't ram the most liberal legislation through congress.

it isn't even that we disagree with liberal ideas, it's just that we realize what can and can be accomplished with basically 7 blue dogs in the caucus.

a lot is said about replacing the blue dogs, but no one seems to address the fact that a russ feingold or kennedy type liberal would get absolutely smoked running in blue dog discricts.

[kentuck]

36. How can Repubs be more effective with 50 Senators than ...

Democrats can be with 60? We don't need the blue dogs as much they would lead us to believe. A simple majority can still be used if they wanted.

[dionysus]

38. simple majority can't undo a filibuster unless we (maybe we should) change the rules

also, not everything can be passed through reconciliation.

what the elected dems lack, and i don't think this a left\right issue, is the republicans ability or guts to fight.

if we fought like the republicans, we could have stopped a lot of bush's bullshit by fillibustering.

[kentuck]

39. if we fought like Republicans...?

Bingo!

[dionysus]

40. but i don't see the spinelessness problem as a left\right issue. more of a guts issue.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. It's The Leadership's Job To Force The Blue Dogs To Win Over Their Voters

The leadership hasn't done shit in this regard.

Obama should have read Caro's LBJ biography rather than "Band of Rivals". Doing the opposing viewpoints thing comes naturally to Obama, breaking kneecaps does not. For all of Emanuel's PR, he's actually just a self-serving pantywaist with a slightly-menacing affect, not a kneecapper.

[hayu_lol]

45. I am a LIBERAL, dictionary definition...

The Dems used to be a Liberal party(with the usual regional differences). Now it is made of a gang of newcomers who are to the far left or right of what liberalism stands for.

Liberals and the Dem party would be better off if these hangers-on would make their own party and let us concentrate(as we tried to do for the past 8 years)on dumping the DINOS and other relics in DC.

These fringies are part of our problems and not part of what Liberals see as solutions.

[Go2Peace]

55. "New Dems" grew up under Reagan. Nuff said

[Xenotime]

49. There are too many moderates in the Democratic Party.

They promised a better life and as of yet...I haven't seen it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. Oh, for pity's sake.

DU is a reflection of DU. DU is a bunch of random people typing at each other on the intertubes.

[JamesA1102]

59. No nt