There is only one move the party can make to prevent a democratic blood bath in the 2010 elections

[TwixVoy]

What's going on in Massachusetts is a very ill omen for our party. If we can't win in MA we have a serious problem. (even if we do manage to pull it off, the fact it was even close is a huge red flag)

The fact is this was our ONE shot in the last 8 years to truly make progress in this country. The party leadership dropped the ball. We had full control of the executive branch and the congress. Public opinion was sky high for our party. This was a golden opportunity to fix the myriad of issues that have literally been killing this country.

Instead it has been one catastrophic failure after another. I believe the most pathetic of which was the fact ONE MAN (Lieberman) completely destroyed health care reform. Do I believe this to be the case? No. I believe he was a convenient fool to take the fall for a party that was bought and paid for by the health insurance industry. In any case - no matter what way you look at it this was a miserable failure. One the CNN and FAUX viewing public will make us pay for.

The CBO has come out now and admitted what anyone who has paid any attention to reality already knows - that we will not even have a chance of seeing job creation until 2012. Like it or not the party in power ALWAYS gets the blame when people are out of work. People might sit around and play with the statistics to make the situation look a little better than it is, but guess what? When someone is sitting at home and has been out of work for months they know what the deal is.

Job creation should have been in the publics face EVERY DAY. Congressional democrats and the white house should have been talking about it at a minimum of once every week. At least give the public the perception you are doing SOMETHING to better the situation. Instead we had dog and pony shows like the "Jobs Forum" that lasted about an hour and came to the conclusion that "Well we suppose it will be up to the corporations to fix things". We continue to focus on helping our pals in the banks, health insurance corporations, and wall street. Make no mistake this has not escaped the publics eye.

Don't even get me started on the expansion of the wars, or the fact many of the bush crew (i.e. Bernanke) got to hang around.

So what is the ONE move we can make to save the party from a slaughter this November? The one thing least likely to happen. Kicking out every sell out who cares more for big business than the people of this country. Nothing short of a completely new slate of progressive candidates will convince the public at this point the party is serious about real change. Sadly this won't happen so voters will turn to the republican party who you can be damned sure will be promising jobs galore, more money in their pockets, and whatever else they need to tell them to get votes. Since voters have seen nothing but miserable failures since the democrats have taken control they will feel they have no other choice.

I said many months ago on more than one occasion that one of the primary reasons I believed we were going to see another major economic collapse was due to the fact the republicans were likely to take back the house. Make no mistake about this. If the republicans manage to take back the house it is GAME OVER. They will cause the economy to go in to a complete nose dive. They will prevent ANY and ALL reforms from passing, and they will make sure the last ounce of wealth the general public has left is given to the top 1%.

To make matters worse the republican party has become even more dangerous than it was during the bush years. Anyone who can't see this hasn't been paying attention. Fringe elements like the "tea baggers" now control much of the republican party, and nut jobs like Palin are now party idols. This will make a republican victory several orders of magnitude more disastrous.

Let us not forgot the countless STATE positions up for election around the country as well. These fringe elements are much more likely to find their way in to state offices as well.

And you know what the most pathetic part of it will probably be? The democrats in congress will likely end up doing the EXACT same thing they did during the bush years... Whatever the republicans in congress want they get. I suspect even though we will keep the senate (though I suspect we will only have around 53 seats) the republicans will get whatever they ask for with little fight. It is clear from the past year that this has not changed in the slightest. We have a solid majority in both houses and can't even go a week with out the party leadership crying about what the republicans want and telling us they had to give in. I can only imagine what will go on once we lose that majority.

I could be totally wrong, but sadly I fear I am not. If we end up seeing a major voter backlash in November hang on to your asses because we are going to see some truly dark times in this country the likes of which we have not seen since the great depression.

[cliffordu]

1. Now where are we going to get a complete slate of progressive candidates

with the resources to win?

[TwixVoy]

2. As I said

It won't happen at this point.

[Jamastiene]

3. This is the move it needs to make.

<------------

[thunder rising]

10. It would have helped a lot had Dean not been kicked to the curb ... twice.

[European Socialist]

4. The House HCR bill would be half a loaf--The Senate bill is a third..

a loaf. It is pathetic this is all the Dems can deliver.

[tavalon]

8. What if that is all they ever really wanted to deliver?

[thunder rising]

12. I adamently...make that strongly....well ahhh how 'bout somewhat...screw it, it quacks like a duck

[tavalon]

17. That's my feeling

and I'm really tired of being told it's a pony.

[eridani]

5. My I suggest a successful tactic from the 70s?

Carefully targeted and very visible races, whether primaries or general elections. In the 70s, the fledgling environmental movement picked out the 12 worst anti-enviroment congresscritters and labeled them The Dirty Dozen. They looked for candidates with serious street cred to run against them, and achieved some significant victories.

Labor, reproductive rights and health care issue groups ought to take a leaf out of that book. We can't do it all at once.

[pokercat999]

6. What good would a complete slate of progressive candidates

do if obama keeps the right solidly in control of much of the administration? What we actually need is the progressive left government that many Americans incorrectly believe we have in place now. With the media owned and controlled by the corporate interests this will never be possible. They will continue to falsely claim people like obama to be of the left and Americans will believe it.

By the way don't look for answers....there are no "answers". My advice is to find a way to game the system and do as you please. Don't look to government for solutions and don't honor their laws and regulations anymore than you must to stay out of prison. For those suggesting I'm saying give up, you are wrong, I'm saying STAND UP....but realize you are alone.

[nashville_brook]

24. i don't know why, but reading your post lifts my spirits a bit...

why keep banging our heads against an immovable wall. disappointment only follows expectations -- so, lose the expectations. There really wasn't a giant groundswell of populist fervor. there really wasn't any immanent change. it was all smoke and mirrors. accepting that is the first step to leaving this whole bullshit mess behind. i don't make a difference. i never have -- and as long as the kingdom is owned by the corporations, i don't have a chance of making a difference, or even being heard. what's worse, is when i do go out and spend my money on candidates, and time in their lousy campaigns, i'm paid back with Rahm's "the left doesn't matter." he's right. i don't matter, and The Party is going to be fine without me. as a matter of fact, reading DU these last few weeks, it's obvious that The Party believes that I'm the problem. it's my beliefs and wants and needs that prevent the Democrats from being successful. So be it.

[tavalon]

7. At this point, I'm doubting this was ball dropping

I think it was meant to come out this way from the beginning and this was all a Dog and Pony show for the electorate, not to be confused with those who actually control our "public" servants. I would actually prefer to chalk this up to ineptitude but I am doubting it.

[Juche]

9. Meaningful financial reform

That is the only thing that would work. If the dems supported financial reform that would prevent another near depression and the GOP opposed it, and the dems let them filibuster it that would help them in 2010.

However there are several thing wrong with that scenario

1. Financial reform should be non-partisan and done to benefit the nation. So should trying to prevent the united states and the world from entering a great depression. But in reality it isn't.

2. The dems are owned by the financial services just like the GOP. Watching the health reform process made me realize that the dems won't pass reform legislation unless it empowers already powerful and wealthy interests and/or eliminates their competition (no public option, no reimportations). The dems were only allowed to pass health reform if it empowered pharma and the insurance industry. So they'd only be allowed to pass financial reform if it empowered the financial industry (rather than regulate it).



Finding a way to 'own' the jobs and economy issue would help the dems.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. HCR was THE signature issue

From the Presidential campaign onward.

It will be hard to recoup the public's belief that the system can be changed for the better by those who are in its thrall. The greatest irony in the world is that the REPUBLICANS will be able to spotlight all the weak points of this assinine legislation that does nothing to lower actual costs and call the Democrats "corrupt" "bought off" etc.etc.etc.

The Dems blew their giant historical moment in the sun to basically entrench themselves forever as the Party of the People.

IF they were interested in saving themselves, they could try to insert more actually good stuff in the final bill. At the very last second, sneak in Medicare Drug negotiation and drug importation in a new manger's amendment. Let Obama take the credit for it. When the Pharma industry goes ballistic, say "Oh, I'm sorry, but when you sent those millions to the Chamber of Commerce to run anti-reform ads, you broke our agreement." We would gain billions and billions of dollars in more savings from those 2 amendments than we did from the 80 billion "deal" that was no deal.

Obama and the Dems would look like anti-corporatist heros who actually did drive down costs and save real citizens real dollars.

They will never be smart enough to do this.

[glitch]

22. Hear hear ^^^.nt

[closeupready]

31. It isn't that they aren't smart enough to see anything, but rather, crossing their fingers that

it won't come to pass even if they continue catering to the labor-hating contingent, that maybe every voter will be so disgusted, they just won't vote, making it possible for incumbents to hang on to their seats, no matter what shit they sign off on.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. But that would require

1. PR smarts and

2. The desire to actually provide universal health care in a timely manner

[thunder rising]

13. Prosecution of the torturers. Not the Privates ... the President's henchmen that unleashed it.

Even today the DoJ has to walk a fine line trying not to uncover and/or covering up anything that would demand prosecution.

[thunder rising]

14. The Congress (and Pres) could have taken meaningful steps to ensure that lies that lead to war and

death are punishable crimes.

Specifically, the American people expect the President to have taken "the oath" before he turns the State of the Union address into a political advertisement.

[Mari333]

15. They need only look at Dean and Alan Grayson and learn from them

if they behaved like Alan and Howard Dean, they will win back the voters they want.

[H2O Man]

16. Recommended.

Thoughful, well-stated OP. Thanks.

[B Calm]

18. All they have to do is trash NAFTA and the democrats will sweep

republicans off the map.

[Kablooie]

19. Yes. We can expect horrible times and getting worse for the next 15 years.

Around 2025 a revolution will finally end and we will either be a better country for it or cease to be a country at all.

[Kaleva]

20. Problem is, the base keeps nominating the people we have now.

With the notable exception of Lieberman, the base nominated and worked hard to elect the folks we have in Congress.

[bertman]

25. The "base" doesn't make the decisions about who gets funded and backed. The DLC does.

Numerous progressive candidates have been stiffed by the DLC so they could get Republican-lite Blue Dawgs in place.

This effort would require a massive uprising in the Democratic ranks--bottom up. Ain't gonna happen.

[tavalon]

26. Has to happen

It won't happen overnight but it must happen.

[bertman]

28. If you mean it "has to happen" for the party to change, then you're absolutely right, Tavalon.

If you mean it "has to happen" as in it's inevitable, I couldn't disagree more. Just look at the number of DU'ers who think all is just fine within the party. The ones who are willing to alibi for anything our new President does and our Congress does. These folks have been blinded by the propaganda and the hope that things will get better.

Even if there were a revolt within the ranks, the leadership would give just enough ground to get folks back on board, then the whole thing would start over again. They have the marketing and psychological indoctrination down to a science.

Just my pessimistic $.02 worth.

[tavalon]

32. No, if it was inevitable, We The People,

could sit back and have a brewsky. But, as Paul Loeb's book title say, The Impossible Will Take A Little While. One of the stories he has in that book is about Nelson Mandela, who, in all the years he was in prison, never gave up and never gave in. Off the top of my head, I think he was in prison for over two decades.

When Obama first picked his Chief of Staff, a very small number of us said ouch. With each bad choice this administration has made, more and more have become angry. So many of us are furious now, that the folks you mention in your post are now the minority here. And so it will continue. We are always ahead of the curve here, but we are right more often than we are not. I didn't even know what the DLC was or what a danger it represented to our country until I got here. Nowadays, I don't always have to explain to people out in the real world what the DLC is. Glacially slow it is and equally frustrating, but we are making progress.

[bertman]

33. Thanks for the pep talk. I needed that. Hope you're right.

[tavalon]

38. So did I, actually

I need to pull out one of my copies of that book and reread it. I hope I haven't given them all away (I think I was probably the one who got that book on the New York Times bestseller list!).

[NorthCarolina]

34. I agree, but the MSM and DLC will immediately begin maligning and marginalizing any Liberal

candidates that appear to have a chance. Would be a tough row to hoe, but you are right that this battle has to begin. The primaries are the battleground in which to start.

[tavalon]

39. Yes, they are

I do hope the people of Massachusetts realize that today is not that day. But yes, I wholeheartedly agree and will be on that battlefield. I will see you at the barricades.

[NorthCarolina]

40. See you there

:patriot:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Yup, that's how Minnesota got Amy Klobuchar,

who takes strong stands only on trivial issues and is purposely ambiguous about the rest.

[Nay]

21. I can't agree more, TwixVoy. Obama would have to make some

serious and surprising reversals, and be able to demonstrate them nightly on TV, for anyone to have any hope that things were really changing. As many before me have said, a Pub president with majorities like Obama has would have rammed any old program they wanted down the throats of the Dems and the American public -- that's exactly what happened with that moron Bush. What does this tell us? It tells us that our government is not really our government -- it's the pretty face of the real government, which consists of the oligarchs/corporations.

Now, this view has some distressing problems. What use is it to keep electing Dems, if they are secretly already in the corp camp or are easily seduced or threatened to join? Lieberman should have gotten the back of Obama's hand -- not an olive branch. Geithner/Bernanke/Summers should have been nowhere near the Obama admin. Both wars should have been winding down right about now. Just getting rid of the wars would have boosted Obama into the stratosphere -- even the dumbest pub knows in the back of his mind that they were stupid and that they are eating up resources needed here at home in our economic struggle. Howard Dean should occupy a position of honor and power in DC, but he has been sidelined. People like Grayson are allowed to hang around to bolster the impression that there is a real debate, but if he got too powerful he'd be Wellstoned.

As far as the healthcare bill: why are we screwing around with that when we have so many other immediate improvements that, once done, would give Obama a near-universal approval rating that would make a Medicare-for-all bill so much easier to pass? Personally, I think the healthcare debate is a calculated distraction from things that need to be done immediately for the immediate economic survival of the nation.

All of this is simple and easy to understand and view. And people are seeing it and are angry. This will show up in the polls -- would we be better off voting Dem no matter what? Only in the short run. In the long run, we need two real parties and/or a real shakeup that reorders the whole country. Let's stop allowing the Pubs to do the shaking up with their nutty idiots like Palin.

[Vidar]

23. K&R.

[suede1]

27. That would do it. I hold out hope, but I won't bet on it. (Makes too much sense.)

[brooklynite]

29. So every marginal Republican district we won in 2006/2008 will happily take a progressive Dem?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[woo me with science]

30. Kicked and recommended.

Not only is the OP thoughtful and well-written, many of the responses contain interesting ideas and don't even insult anybody.

[HughBeaumont]

35. Job creation is something the private sector refuses to do no matter WHO is in office.

Unless the jobs they're creating aren't on shore.

I'm not getting who's going to be the one to stop rich greedy old men to stop loving megaprofits.

"Jobs? No, how about 'You do as we say or we plane crash or shoot you'? How's that?"

Far fetched?

What have the middle/working/poor classes recieved in 45 years?

I'm a businessman. What's in it for ME to WANT 25% of the country where I do business out of work? Wouldn't I WANT a country of gainfully employed people so I can, you know, feed my family?

Must be nice to be able to do business . . . without business.

Are the people who run this country one step away from going to prison?