Democratic suicide

[Cyrano]

In Massachusetts, there's actually the possibility that a Republican whore will win Ted Kennedy's seat. This is because he cons people better than his Democratic opponent -- a woman who just happens to put her foot in her mouth more often than not.

But let's not kid ourselves. Massachusetts is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and if the Republican wins, it will be because Democrats stayed home. And the only reason I can think of for them staying home is because they feel betrayed by Obama.

And then there's New York where Harold Ford from Tennessee is trying for Hillary's Senate seat. Every time I've seen Ford on TV for the past eight years, he's been an apologist for Bush's policies. He belongs to the Democratic Leadership Council, the wing of the Democratic Party that has decided to become "Republican Lite." This is the wing that pushed NAFTA and cost countless American jobs.

Republicans can really save most of their attacks since Democrats can do very nicely destroying themselves.

Even Rush Limbaugh can save his breath. Have you heard his latest outrages. He's claimed that many donations to Haiti are ending up in the White House coffers. And yesterday, (take a valium before reading this one), he claimed that voting for Democrats causes cancer. He even did a "demographic analysis" to "prove it." The only thing worse than Limbaugh, are the mentally diseased creatures who listen to him, believe him, obey him, and then stalk the streets looking for victims whose blood they can drink.

But once again, given Obama's performance in his first year in office, he is in no position to put a stop to any of this insanity. But this doesn't leave so many others in the Democratic Party off the hook. Far too many of them have sold us out. I really live in fear of what next November's elections will bring. However, whether we like it or not, we absolutely must get out there and vote for Democrats. Stay home, and we're back in the Bush years.

[renegade000]

1. staying at home and not voting is completely illogical

i'm not saying you have to vote for the democratic candidate, but people need to vote for SOMEONE who they feel represents their political views. otherwise, what is the difference between you and some bum who doesn't even know the difference between and democrat and a republican?

[Vincardog]

2. Please tell me what is the difference between and "new" democrat and a republican?

[renegade000]

12. maybe for you there isn't much difference

i respect that. i'm not here to try to chew anyone out for their specific political beliefs, i'm just trying to destroy the notion that not showing up to the polls is somehow a GOOD strategy. if you really feel strongly that more liberal alternatives are needed and you don't care that a republican may be elected, then at least show up to the polls and write-in someone you like. political strategists only care about people they think will show up at the polls. if they feel that liberals are a bunch of flaky no-shows, they will continue to ignore them. however, if they see that they lost a couple of percentage points of people who actually showed-up, but voted for more liberal alternatives...then you'll start getting noticed! i'm saying this because i'd also like the democratic party to be more progressive!

[Vincardog]

17. The political strategists don't care about policies only getting their candidate elected. When the D

Democratic party leadership has been to intent on listening to the experts and and currying the corporate dollar. The mythical 60 vote requirement didn't slow the neoConvicts agenda one iota.

The people thought they were voting for change in 2000; Obama and the 'centrist' triangulating DLC has so disillusioned them that they my stay home.

That is what happens when you refuse to represent the people. Instead of acknowledging that fact and moving to be more responsive to the people the DSCC, DCCC and DLC continue their campaign of fear.

What happens if "we" lose the 60'th vote?

Lieberman loses his big club to influence Democratic policies.

With the SCOTUS about top unleash unlimited corporate cash on 'our' elections
expect either apathy or revolution.

[Cyrano]

3. I'm not recommending that Democrats stay home

What I am recommending is that they hold their noses, and get out there in the same numbers they did in '08. The alternative is just to horrible to contemplate.

[renegade000]

6. right

sorry, i didn't mean to imply that you were. i was just throwing my thoughts out there. i think we're on the same page. i'm just very frustrated with hearing passive-aggressive sentiments being expressed, like somehow if everyone stays home the strategists in the democratic party will magically know it was the wrath of angry-liberals.

[HughMoran]

8. You are essentially suggesting that Dems should be apathetic

That does not sound like a "get out the vote" message. This is NOT what we need before such a critical election - shame on you.

[Cyrano]

11. Did you actually read post #3? If so, WTF are you talking about?

[HughMoran]

13. the O/P

you can't change the O/P by backing off in a latter post.

[Cyrano]

18. OP edited to make my initial intent clear.

[troubledamerican]

19. "Hugh" always lives up to his moniker

[Hansel]

21. +1.

[dkf]

5. So vote for a primary challenger for anyone who demonstrates they don't have the right priorities.

That is the way we keep people accountable.

Right now they believe in "too big to fail". They think we will keep killing ourselves working to get them in because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

We need more options.

[sharesunited]

16. Build a bigger Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?

[dkf]

22. Yes. We need to work through Democracy for America.

[DJ13]

4. I think that if Brown wins it will be a short term loss to our party

Three years of seeing themselves misrepresented by a Republican will push the voters (used to liberal politics) into getting rid of him when he tries to run for reelection.

Provided our party finds a better candidate next time, of course.

[dkf]

7. And it will get us an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid

As true HCR because they will have to go with reconciliation to fix this mess. Ironic.

[DJ13]

9. I hope so

But theres a number of Democratic Senators who would have to give a lot of money back if that happened.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Eeyores are known to talk about the future like it is the past......

More on that....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x128261

[demosincebirth]

14. Well, lets shoot ourselves in the foot, again

[Laelth]

15. This is a natural and predictable result.

When the liberal party panders to corporate interests, the liberal party's voters stay home.

It's entirely predictable, yet the Democratic Party continues to make this same mistake.

More here: http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/16/ma-sen-weve-seen-this-movie-before/

:dem:

-Laelth

[eilen]

20. I don't believe Mass. will go Republican.

And Mr. Ford is not popular in NY either. Frankly, we are tired of carpetbagger politicians. Of course, I don't know how downstate feels about him. Upstate will go with the hometown girl. Of course, Paterson is yanking the PTB's chain. I guess he figures if he will be primaried, everyone else should be.

[cascadiance]

23. We should have a Democratic fund that gets released when the fillibuster is NUKED!

That way, we can hold hostage our funds to Democrats wanting to get elected until they finally take charge and don't invent any more excuses for doing nothing any more. They have the power to fix things. They need to be TOLD that unless they use that power, that they will not be allowed to say that voters supported their corporatist ways who with the Hobson's choice we have now are more afraid of Republicans than corporate serving Democrats.

[jpak]

24. FUCKING IGNORANT HORSESHIT

Yeah Mass. voters are going to vote republican because Obama is not "progressive" enough.

Dumbest.post.ever.

:thumbsdown:

:puke: