Just who do "progressives" and teabaggers think they are teaching a lesson?

[Skidmore]

Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Those of you who come to this board and yell progressive this and progressive that, provided you are not RW trolls or LaRouchites, I will hold responsible for the demise of any chance to get any healthcare laws on the books. DO you really think that blowing up the left will lead to a right wing government changing anything but making it harder to do anything constructive with those laws in future. You will lose the nation by helping the RW, not known for its compassion, to be so firmly entrenched that none of us will get anywhere. Do not come to me and tell me that I am not progressive or liberal nor tell me that you give a rat's patootie over what happens to the thousands of people who will be negatively affected if we do not have something that starts forward movement in this area. You become an agent for the status quo and will contribute to further neglect and poverty on a grand scale down the line. There is nothing progressive about that. When you shoot yourself in the foot you will lame everyone.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Ushering in the demise of the New Deal

Granted - should momentum carry into the 2012 election cycle, this would mean the end of Social Security, Medicaid, and "The Safety Net" as we know it

[Skidmore]

3. That would be the goal of the RW.

So which side of this are you on? Are you a progressive in whatever sense of the word it is being applied by self-identified progressives on these boards lately? Are you supportive of blowing up the New Deal?

Back in 2000, after election day, on another board I used to frequent, I saw a thread in which a RW shrill was crowing that they were going to take America back to where it was before the New Deal. Yes, this is the destination alright. Are you on that train?

[clear eye]

15. Progressives are "supportive of blowing up the New Deal".

And people letting the OMB do it w/o protest are not. I can't begin to follow your spaghetti logic, so I give up.

[Skidmore]

16. Allowing the Rs to fulfill their goals

is exactly that--de facto blowing up the New Deal. That's so progressive.

[clear eye]

28. So when Obama says that he promises his HCR plan wil not lead to single-payer,

a long-promised but unfulfilled New Deal goal (look up the Wagner National Health Act of 1939), he is "allowing the Rs to fulfill their goals" and "blowing up the left"?

[FreakinDJ]

22. NO - I don't think the Progressives support that

if any thing they are in favor of expanding and strengthening the New Deal policies

[FreakinDJ]

67. It's not Logic - it's Bullshit

If any thing Progressives are in favor of Expanding and Strangthening the New Deal Policies.

Hence all the names Oxycotten Moron has tried to hang on us

[leeroysphitz]

33. So now the Obama admin and the dems in congress are New Dealers?

What are you smoking???

[FreakinDJ]

42. No - but they are least likely to dismantle the New Deal

Which has been the RATpubliCON end game for 40 or 50 years now

BTW: it was AARP that stopped Bush's plan to unravel Social Security

[Romulox]

114. AARP (the INSURANCE co.) colluded with W. Bush on Medicare Part D

(a giant giveaway to the insurance companies by the previous administration.) But the good news is that once passed, Medicare Part D has been continuously improved...oh wait.

[dflprincess]

134. It's a goal of the DLC as well

they've been wanting to tackle "entitlement reform" for a while now. This insurance scam is just step one of it and if Coakley loses, they'll use it as an excuse for moving futher right.

I get very nervous whenever I hear Rahm and his pals talk about reform - it can only mean that they've come up with another way to screw the working and middle classes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7497940

[clear eye]

37. Deep-down, can you truly say that you are confident that even if the super-majority is maintained,

and going by what's been coming from Peter Orzag and Rahm Emmanuel, there won't be a push from the WH to privatize Social Security and enfold the public portion of Medicare into Medicaid, turning it into a means-tested program and mandating private insurance plans for everyone over a set income level, thereby eliminating Medicare as we know it? Why has there been such a determined push from the WH for the IMAC which would transfer regulatory authority over Medicare from Congress to a deliberately unaccountable board in the Executive Dept. (no power of recall for members once appointed)? Why set it up to propose changes in a way that would be next to impossible to challenge--as a package that would have to get an up or down vote as a whole w/i 30 days after it was issued over the holidays in December? Why allow "experts" w/ conflicts of interest, such as insurance co. execs and people from big Pharma to staff the IMAC? This is all included in the Senate Bill, and the House bill has a version limited to issues of cost control and rates. Given how the massive criminality of the falsely rated derivatives by the biggest financial institutions has been handled, and the push from the WH to privatize public education, are you absolutely sure that the WH is not already planning to eliminate all public entitlements except some limited programs for the very poorest?

In your heart of hearts can you call this WH "the left" and a protector of the New Deal? Is it really the Progressives who are blowing up everyone's hopes?

[FreakinDJ]

44. I would call that "RepubliCON-Lite" not Progressive

and FDR was a Progressive and an extremely beneficial and influencial force for America's Middle Class

[Skidmore]

56. I would venture to say that handing

the whole shebang back to the Rs isn't going to get anyone left of Attila anywhere. And this is what will happen. Like it or not. There is hope and there is reality. And that is reality.

[clear eye]

59. No. The reality is that defending the New Deal at this point will take a movement

outside of party politics. And recognizing those policies that members of Congress support which are full-steam in the wrong direction is essential to building such a movement. Pretending that what some Dems are doing is something it's not ("defending the New Deal") will get you exactly what you fear--a complete dismantle of the New Deal programs. Backing or not backing Coakley is the least of it. As during the anti-Vietnam War era, the aim is not to "blow up" Congress, but to influence it.

[Skidmore]

60. What I am seeing is

the teabaggers are forming the movement and our side is nowhere to be found in terms of organizing a movement that support the New Deal. As to the influencing of Congress, I'm not certain of anyone is doing that from out here now.

[clear eye]

73. Agreed. We are woefully behind the curve.

Nonetheless that is what needs to be done. Burying your head in the sand and claiming that the members of Congress that follow the WH are defending the New Deal will lose you the New Deal and all other legislation to rebuild our economy in a way that would support the middle class. What's happening now is that the big industrialists are waiting until people are willing to work for less than subsistence wages as they do in some other places before investing in productive enterprises in the U.S.

We also have structural problems w/ campaign financing and secure vote counting that make Congress more likely to listen to multi-national corporations than to us. Demands to change this also have to be part of the movement. Before we can hope that Congress and the White House will support what's in our interest, we have to regain at least some power over the elections. We won't even know for sure if Coakley has really lost today if she loses b/c there's been so much hanky-panky w/ opscan counters just like MA is using. Here's a 63-page summary of problems w/ them from 2002 - 2008: http://www.votersunite.org/info/OpScansInTheNews.pdf Functional elections is what allowed many places in Latin America to rein in their elites and get their gov'ts working for regular folk.

Maybe it would be too much for old pols like you and I to do, but the young people who took Barak Obama at his word when he said he wanted change that would work for the people's benefit, are just warming up. People in the U.S. aren't likely to accept being reduced to slaves, so the movement to restore Democracy and the middle class will come. I hope for the sake of everyone's well-being that it comes before we've lost everything, and before people are so angry they turn to violence or make the mistake of accepting military rule.

[Skidmore]

75. I agree with your sentiments.

I only know that I have a hard time helping the bottom drop out, either by acts of omission or commission.

[clear eye]

84. I think the bottom is dropping out b/c we have mostly lost the loyalty of Congress toward us, not

b/c we haven't been loyal enough toward them. I think it's out of our control.

[clear eye]

112. A couple of positive things you can do to help restore traditional Dem Party values are

1) Actively support candidates in your area who have a good record of backing the interests of working people and the middle class. I find out by asking groups like an AFSME union local (they're in the phone book) or the League of Women Voters or the local reform Dems. I just tell them the issues that I'm interested in and ask who in the area has a really good position on these things. I don't worry so much if the candidate is ahead in the polls b/c if they inspire passion that often turns around. Sometimes it's not the candidate in your district. The great thing these days is that you can phone bank from home for many races getting the numbers from an online list. Or the campaign hdqtrs can help you w/ transportation.

2) Since you're in MA, the group that's working on secure vote counting for elections is called "The Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots". Their phone # is 617-932-1424. I'm sure they will find some way you can help them.

It's really good for people's state of mind to be working for things they really believe in. So it's a win-win. You help yourself and you help your country.

[JVS]

80. That's because their party set up the teabaggers as astroturf, our party will fight such...

organization because it would not be aligned with its goals.

[alarimer]

63. That's the goal of Blue Dogs.

It took a Democrat to get "welfare reform" passed as well as Nafta. We can count on the Democrats to betray us on Social Security and Medicare too, unless of course we get rid of all the Blue Dogs.

[Romulox]

113. The Bankster bailouts were the official end of the New Deal. nt

[goclark]

4. *100

[ixion]

5. You support the bogus HCR piece of garbage, and you have the gaul to call

people who don't support it supporters of the status quo?

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

[Skidmore]

9. That legislation is a mixed bag. I agree with that.

There are some important changes that are found in it. Also, doing nothing is not the answer either, considering the trajectory that continuing down the same path places healthcare delivery on economically. Have you considered what standing in the same place does to everyone? I want some law on the books and a basis for future fights.

[ixion]

19. Look, I'm all for REAL health care reform

I think the system in this country is screwed up in the extreme. And I don't mean just bureaucratically screwed up, I mean that the system as a whole -- from insurance companies, to hospital administrators, to pharmaceutical companies, to medical supply companies -- is corrupt. Over the years, they've colluded with congress to game the system so badly that it has become, for all practical intents and purposes, a massive revenue stream for the aforementioned, with the "health" of their "clients" being something of an afterthought.

For the small amount of 'good' things in this bill, codifying the insurance industry -- turning it into a quasi federal agency with the power of the IRS to enforce collection -- and effectively codifying the entire system as it stands, is simply not the solution.

I would be solidly behind a bill that made real health care accessible to all. This legislation isn't it. And passing it just to "get something on the books" is not wise, in my opinion.

[Skidmore]

96. Thank you for a reasoned response.

[derby378]

100. +100 (n/t)

[leeroysphitz]

34. It's a mixed bag...

of flaming dogshit.

ETA: and this admin is about to leave it on your porch and ring the door bell.

[customerserviceguy]

25. Well said

If the economy comes back by the 2012 election (I think it's too late for this year), then we get another chance at HCR. We can get rid of Blue Dogs in November, and replace them with true progressives that will have the benefit of Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.

Ever since we lost a robust public option, I've said that this legislation wasn't worth fighting for. Unless Coakley wins by about ten percent or more, this current steaming pile is DOA. She should have coasted to victory, bad candidate or not. The fact that all the stops had to be pulled out for her shows incumbents that if they thought they were going to have a tough race in November, they're right.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. 17 Years Of Voting For Far-Right Democrats: How's That Working For Us?

I sent in my absentee ballot for Coakley - but I feel awful. All odds is that she, like Obama et al, will immediately turn around and attack the working class, perhaps a little less than Brown will.

This has to stop.

[Pryderi]

8. Coakley is not a conservative dem.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Something Like 15 of Her 20 Largest Contributors Are Registered Lobbyists

And she hangs with a bad crowd:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Coakley-in-trouble-Pharma-and-HMO-lobbyists-to-the-rescue-81067542.html#ixzz0cGBEYrFo

Ever since Obama showed that he was a bald-faced liar by saying that he did not campaign on the public option, I don't trust anyone unless they have an actual track record of fighting hard for the working class.

[Little Star]

24. Martha is a Moderate Liberal Populist per votematch

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Martha_Coakley_SenateMatch.htm

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. How did 8 years under Republicans work out for you?

Answer: A hell of a lot worse than anything these allegedly "far-right" Democrats have done.

The only thing that has to stop is that you need to pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize that a) these Democrats aren't "far-right" and b) there are limitations to what can be done when you have a party that doesn't stick together long enough to pass anything (and that is a shot across the bow for both the liberal and moderate wings of our party.)

[jgraz]

77. My guess is about the same as the next 8 years

Unless Obama starts aggressively rolling back the Bush coup, what difference will there be?

[MannyGoldstein]

129. That 8 Years Was *Caused* By Far Right Democratic Behavior

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time"
- Harry Truman

[Pryderi]

7. K&R

[mdavies013]

10. I think many of us are in a grieving period. When you look at the major issues that were campaigned

on and what we are getting now is compromised to the point of mere window dressing. Yes the Republicans suck. Yes they cannot govern. Yes they are going to obstruct. So let them. Let them be seen to obstruct...let them drag their feet on meaningful reform...call them out on it...then move to reconciliation.

I think most people though we voted a fighter into office...someone that was going to set things right for the majority of the county. The problem is progress is so SLOW. Couple that with the fact that the WH has been jabbing sharp sticks in the eyes of the loony left - those crazy people that donated a ton of money and hours and sweat to get Dems elected. We are told we don't matter. They openly trash one of the greatest Dem leaders - Howard Dean. They save all their fight for the Dem side of the isle and let the GOP skate free.

So your solution is a blank check? Party first always?

BTW I did call all my MA friends to make sure they GOTV. I donated to Coakley as well. Yes I don't want to see a return of the GOP...but your aiming at the wrong group of people. Your aim should be higher...in the folks that we helped get elected.

[FBaggins]

12. Ahh... the old "I'm the only game in town... my way or the highway" canard.

That's the way to win hearts and minds.

[Ian David]

13. What are we going to DO about it?

Make at least five calls from your own home for Martha Coakley, RIGHT NOW: http://www.my.barackobama.com/coakleyn2n

The website will supply you with the names and phone numbers of people in Massachusetts that need to be called today.

Or

Donate to Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate RIGHT NOW: https://coakley.zissousecure.com/contribute/PFP/iandavidb

[DCBob]

14. Indeed both the left wing and right wing extremists are to blame..

There are so narrow minded and obsessed with their pet issues they miss the big picture entirely. Sad situation.

[YOY]

17. Define "Extremist".

Because my political "issues" are neither "pet" nor extreme. They're poli sci and history book standard.

Don't expect people to vote for political representation that doesn't represent them. Oh yeah...I'll keep voting Democratic...but you cannot honestly expect everyone to.

[DCBob]

18. One so extreme in poltical views to the point of becoming irrational.

There are many on both sides and they do more harm than good for their parties and for their country.

[YOY]

20. Well then I am not.

Because the only irrationality is keep dry humping the status quo and expecting it to call us in the morning.

People expect political representation. If that cannot be afforded then they don't vote. Those Union guys I know who see jobs drying up because authorities are not willing to put regulations back up aren't extremists. My local friends who we talk about constantly the plague of DC being the overuse of contractors are not extremists. People who point out our rediculous military industrial complex budget are not extremists.

We deserve representation...not lip service.

[jgraz]

78. You mean like the extreme centrists supporting Obama no matter what he does?

:shrug:

[DCBob]

82. As long as he resembles a Democrat, I support him.

Does not mean I won't criticize him, but clearly he is better than any teabagger in the WH.

[jgraz]

86. Joe Lieberman also "resembles a Democrat"

Can you say "false choice"?

[DCBob]

92. Lieberman isn't even close...

:puke:

[jgraz]

94. Neither are many of the current leaders with (D) after their names

If our choice is between a corporate Dem and a teabagger, we might as well give up now. But that's not our only choice.

[DCBob]

101. Most Dems support critical issues like womens rights, abortion rights, civil rights, workers rights,

environmental issues, global warming, etc. These critical issues will be at risk if the GOPers ever get back into power.

[jgraz]

106. Really? Have you read the Stupak amendment?

No, you can't reasonably say "most" Democrats support those things if they vote for this ridiculous healthcare bill.

The best way to make sure the GOP gets back into power is to do exactly what this current crop of Dems is doing: kowtow to your corporate funders and piss on your base.

[DCBob]

115. I dont like that Stupak crap either but thats maybe the necessary compromise..

to get any HCR done. However, we still do not know what the final bill will be. I can't believe they will leave that in there if there any way possible to remove or lessen its effect.

[jgraz]

117. You can't have it both ways.

You can't say the Democrats stand for women's rights and then make excuses for them destroying women's rights. They either stand for principle or they stand for compromise with the most reactionary wing of their party. Which is it?

[DCBob]

118. The HCR bill is not going to destroy womens rights.

get real.

[Hello_Kitty]

123. Any, and I mean any, anti-choice legislation that gets passed, no matter how seemingly minor.

Is celebrated as a major victory by the forced birthers. It gets them one step closer to their end goal, which is a complete ban on abortion AND contraception. There is no good that comes from compromising with them, ever. And the Nelson/Stupak bullshit is attached to a major piece of federal legislation impacting all health care providers. It only exempts abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother - but not her health.

[DCBob]

121. If you want to see womens rights destroyed keep bashing Dems...

and help the GOPers get back into power.

[jgraz]

126. Ah, yes. And the emperor is naked because that snotty kid pointed it out

Keep blaming the messenger and pretending nothing is wrong. You'll be the one putting the GOP in power.

[Hello_Kitty]

119. Sure, BOB, because it's not like they compromised with one of YOUR rights or anything.

Just those silly women.

Ladies, if forced birthers Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson need to sniff your panties to get this historical legislation passed just suck it up and please stop bothering us with your silly complaints about "choice". :sarcasm:

[DCBob]

120. All the women Dem senators are willing to go along with it including Boxer..

Surely they would not if there was any danger of losing rights.

[jgraz]

125. A masterpiece of circular reasoning

Vote for Dems because they support women's rights!

How do I know the bill supports women's rights?

Because Dems are voting for it!

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

135. LOLOL

[QC]

49. Which "pet issues" might those be, Bob?

Going to the doctor when they are sick? Having a job? Equal rights? Peace?

Exactly what frivolous concerns are keeping these people from doing as you would have them do?

[DCBob]

57. It can be any issue that a person is overly focused on and obsessed with...

to the point of missing the big picture and greater good for society.

[QC]

65. What are you willing to sacrifice for the common good?

Are there any legal rights you are denied? Do you have insurance? Do you have a nice place to live? Will you be picking up a paycheck soon?

Sorry to sound skeptical, but talk of "pet issues" here usually amounts to the comfortable telling the deprived to sit down and shut up.

[DCBob]

72. I guess my "pet issues" are getting out of Iraq and global warming..

I am not happy with the progress on either of those issues but I am not so pissed that I would risk letting the GOPers take over. The situation will be much much worse if that happens.

[unapatriciated]

90. What do you consider "pet issues"

equal rights?

true health care reform?

end to unjust wars?

If you consider me "narrow minded and obsessed" because I expected to see congress (who we gave a majority to in 2006) and our President (who we elected by an overwhelming majority) to at least head in the right direction, sadly it is you who is missing the big picture.
We are constantly being told to stfu and give it time, sorry I won't sit down and stfu because I realize we have window of opportunity that we might not get again for a long time.

[jgraz]

128. Whatever Rahm tells him to

[WhiteTara]

21. the same ones Ralph Nadir did

all of us.

[MadHound]

23. Ah yes, vote for the corporatist Dem, otherwise the corporatist 'Pug will be inflicted on us.

How's that two party/same corporate master system of government working out for you?

Sorry, I personally hope that HCR reform dies. Handing a mandated monopoly to the insurance industry is a sure fire plan to kill the middle class, as insurance prices will go through the roof. Nor can I, in all good conscience, support any legislation that curtails a woman's right to choose. Sad how so many people around here are ready to throw women's rights under the bus.

Sorry you don't like what's going on, but that's politics. Each and every group under this big tent needs to be rewarded once in awhile. The best Democratic politicians recognized and responded to that. The trouble is that took place forty five years ago, thus the left is going to act in their own interests, not yours. It's a democracy, deal with it.

[stray cat]

26. Progressives seem to think slitting their own throats is great way to get revenge

go figure

[mmonk]

27. If people keep liking progressives who do not go along with bad DLC legislation

with teabaggers, I will leave here. I look for places with intelligent discussion.

[dgibby]

110. It's all they've got.

Sadly.

[Toots]

29. You don't need to worry Obama and his Chief of Staff have assured us Liberals have no where else to

They do not have to have any of their wishes fulfilled because they are forced to vote Democratic no matter what....It must be true because that is all we have heard from this administration and we all know they would NEVER tell us anything that wasn't true..

[NorthCarolina]

31. How is this the Progressives fault? According to Rahm, the Progressives are immaterial to the party.

If Coakley loses, it is SOLELY the fault of the Party's right-of-center *Centrists*, the ones the party relies on and caters too at the expense of the inconsequential Liberals/Progressives. The Dems simply needed to motivate their *Centrist* Base to get to the polls and vote. But DO NOT blame the insignificant here on the left, Rahm and his beloved DLC have told us we are not necessary, and that our concerns don't matter because they do not reflect the views of a center-right electorate. So, if Coakley looses, lets all try to be at least somewhat intellectually honest and put the blame smack-dab where it most appropriately lies...with the *Centrist* base of the Democratic Party.

[Skidmore]

38. Rahm is wrong and

so are "progressives" (and I'm not certain what that term means anymore) because there is nothing progressive or politically astute about leaving people behind. There is nothing to be gained by ripping away any semblance of a foundation or refusing to lay one on which to build. Civil rights and women's rights did not spring fully formed from the ethos. They were built on a foundation laid one brick at a time.

BTW, I consider myself to be a liberal and a progressive AND I am a Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

43. This conservative DLC controlled Congress would NEVER have enacted

civil rights legislation, womens rights, social security, medicare, workers rights, etc. The DLC has successfully moved the Democratic Party far-far away from those Liberal views of the past.

[TankLV]

47. EXACTLY! WELL SAID!

Skidmore and all the rest of the cultists are CLUELESS!!!

Yea - keep shitting on us progressives and the left and then wonder why we won't even "like" you shits when you constantly berrate us!!

great...

[Skidmore]

53. Well, that

was constructive.

[pundaint]

54. It is because we exist to serve the Party.

Progressive allegiance is owed to the Democratic party, because the Democrats were the last one's to start ignoring the progressive agenda. Therefore, the nothing we get from a Democratic majority is better than the nothing we get from a Republican majority because it's more palatable to the center.

[Skidmore]

58. Until the Reagan babies get old enough for health care other social issues

to become meaningful to their daily lives, this nation will be stuck right where it is. Tacking left will be slow and tedious, as we have seen over the past decade. I repeat...there is hope and then there is reality. We have a whole generation that was fed "Morning in America" pab with their breakfast.

[Tailormyst]

32. Why are you linking Progressives and Teabaggers together?

You really hate us that much?

[Skidmore]

35. I link the groups, not because of individual beliefs, but because

in the grand scheme of things they both achieve the same end--stasis. The goal is the same--standing still. The results will be the same--the destruction of the New Deal.

[Tailormyst]

39. Then I think you have a very warped perception of progressives.

[Skidmore]

41. You tell me exactly what a progressive is these days.

I don't see much concern for all those people who are sick, in debt, and/or dying now. I know that something needs to happen, and nothing is not it.

[Tailormyst]

45. This pretty much covers it

PDAmerica.org

[jgraz]

79. It seems you don't see much at all.

This attempt to turn "progressives" into the bogeyman is only betraying your own ignorance.

[Skidmore]

83. I see a number of people

shooting their mouths off and being preoccupied with creating new cutesy labels and political theatrics rather than organizing in a meaningful fashion around principles. And then there are those who tag on with other agendas to disrupt. That's what I see.

[jgraz]

88. Sounds like a plain-ol group attack on DUers

Have fun getting your thread locked. :hi:

[Skidmore]

97. You're wrong.

[JVS]

87. The new deal will be destroyed when some pragmatist shitheel decides it's too old hat.

[nightrain]

127. I really think that's inaccurate!--"in the grand scheme of things they

both achieve the same ends--stasis."

Here's where we differ--It seems to me that some of the teabaggers complaints and some of progressives' complaints are similar. BUT, the solutions each propose are quite different usually.

[jgraz]

76. I'm gonna go with "not very bright"

[PVnRT]

36. I love how the theme changes every day around here

Yesterday: "These leftbaggers are a lunatic fringe of a few people who wield no power."

Today: "The left fringe will be solely responsible for the death of the Democratic party."

[Skidmore]

40. Not sure what tree you are barking up, but

neither of these statements apply to what I am saying. I am not talking about the Democratic Party. I'm speaking of preserving the New Deal, an important body of legislation.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skidmore]

50. My 2 year old grandson

can pitch a better fit than that.

Now, if you are done holding your breath, perhaps you can explain to me how not doing anything is constructive and progressive for the millions of people who don't have have lost health care coverage or have lost everything because of medical emergencies or chronic health conditions. And we are out here. In the thousands. I'm saying lay a foundation and build on it. The only way we go away is to die for you and the teabaggers. It sounds like this is not a concern.

[QC]

48. You vastly overestimate the power of this website. n/t

[last1standing]

51. Its good to see us all come together like this.

There's nothing like shared hatred of others to bring a people together. It worked in 1939, it can work again!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Both groups are angry at the powers that be

and rightly so.

The difference is that the progressives have actually taken time to understand the issues, while the teabaggers just channel their anger wherever the radio guys tell them to, always at the wrong "culprits."

But that is the radio guys' function in the Republican Noise Machine--to make sure that angry people stay angry at the wrong targets.

[ecstatic]

55. kr nt

[DCBob]

61. Hard to imagine why the angry left would give the GOP any chance of returning to power...

Have they forgotten women's rights, abortion rights, civil rights, workers rights, environmental issues, global warming, and on and on. So many critical issues will be at risk if the GOP ever gets back into power.

[mmonk]

62. I don't think it's the left that has forgotten those things.

[Skidmore]

64. Yes. Exactly.

I wonder sometimes how old some of the more strident people are. I'm old enough to remember when many of these issues that have legislation backing them now were controversial and unpopular ideas. That didn't mean we stopped pushing forward.

[DCBob]

69. I do believe most will come to their senses eventually...

They may be disappointed and disenchanted with the current state of things but surely they don't want this country to devolve into teabagger conservatism.

[Skidmore]

70. I hope that is so.

[Skidmore]

71. I hope that is so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. I'm not trying to teach anyone a lesson. I'm just a voter who votes issues rather than party.

That's why the founders made this a democracy rather than a one party state.

[Javaman]

68. Meh. nt

[jgraz]

74. Ooh, some anonymous keyboard commando is going to "hold me responsible"

Pardon me while I ... :boring:

[Skidmore]

81. Have a nice nap.

It will make that conservative two-step you are doing a lot easier on the conscious.

[jgraz]

85. Y'know, if you can't tell left from right, you should probably leave politics to the adults

Mkay?

[Skidmore]

89. Well, since FDL is a wholely owned susidiary

of Grover Norquist's right now, I'll try hard not to be hurt by your dis.

[jgraz]

93. Ok, run along now..

Mommy and Daddy need to talk.

[L0oniX]

91. This bull shit is nothing but a broad based attack on DU members.

DU Rules:
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other """progressives""". Members are expected to be generally supportive of """progressive""" ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[Skidmore]

95. I've seen progressives tear away here for weeks.

ANd they are not being supportive of the Democratic Party right now. I'm asking how this mindset accomplishes much. Period.

[JVS]

99. Progressives will be supportive of the party when the party is supportive of progressive policy.

Rahm telling us to go fuck ourselves isn't really going to get us to have outpourings of support for the party. Deal with it.

[Romulox]

98. What's described in the OP is extortion. No more.

Why shouldn't it be the corporatists whose support is extorted under threat of "what are you going to do, support the Republican?"

I'll tell you why: because the corporatists will gladly support the Republicans the moment their demands are not met! It's a disgusting game, and like negotiating with terrorists, will only encourage further extortion in the future.

[Skidmore]

103. Extortion? Isn't that rather hyperbolic?

The reality is that, given the current dynamics and unless there is some organization on the left, this formulation of law is what is available to us. The current path we are on is not a tenable one. The NATION is being extorted now, even before you start talking about healthcare reform. Do you really think that people like what is available to them now and that it can continue this way indefinitely? Rock and hard place. That is where we are. Both hurt if you step on them. But you standing still is not the answer.

[Romulox]

111. No more so than the OP to which I was responding.

Your post is full of meaningless generalities. I will not fall in line behind such muddled thinking.

[newspeak]

102. I've seen this meme before

Now who else has put the tea baggers with the progressives, oh yes, the MSM. I am a progressive, I am a FDR democrat. I've been voting since I was nineteen, and my family comes from a solid democratic household. My aunt was secretary to Sen. Carl Hayden, democrat from Arizona. My uncle was a bodyguard to FDR. And, now, we are lumped with the tea baggers. A group that was basically created by corporations and corporate political whores.

I voted for Clinton, so that Poppy's NAFTA wouldn't be passed. I voted for Clinton so that those who committed felonies against "we the people" would be indicted. Instead of having the same players given governmental roles in the * administration. But no, we must move forward. I voted for Obama so those who committed torture would be indicted, I voted for Obama so that those who lied us into war would find justice, I voted for Obama so that main street would find economic relief, I voted for Obama so that a new way of securing our country would be implemented, I voted for Obama so that things like illegal wiretapping and unconstitutional surveillance would be abolished. I voted for Obama so that regulatory bills would be enacted to keep those who got us in the mess in the first place could not do so again.

I hear talk of progressives causing stagnation. It already is stagnation--it is keeping the status quo, that does nothing good for main street, while allowing an accumulation of power and influence to certain corporations--at our expense.

I've stated that if I was in Mass. I would have voted for Coakely only to keep Brown out-but, I do not think Coakley is the best choice for the people. And, as written, I am opposed to this stink bill. I'd like to see any (what's left) of the positives of the bill pass, and dump the rest.

Don't expect me or my family to buy into the "New Democrats" any time soon.

[Individualist]

104. +1

It has the stink of DLC all over it.

[Skidmore]

107. I am not promoting

"New Democrats." You really should go back and read my posts from some time ago re: DLC. OUr backgrounds are similar. I will NOT blow up the tenable hold we have on the left and hope an order that meets a pie in the sky formula magically arises from chaos. Lives depend on the actions we take. There are some aspects about the idea of what is construed to be progressive now that I cannot embrace. It makes us on the left no better than the right. It is indecent and unconscionable to leave people behind because we are too unwilling to do the work.

[unapatriciated]

105. so it is now our fault that we objected to

Congress and our President allowing the R's, Pharma and the Insurance Industry to write HCR reform, leaving those that it affected most out in the cold.
This is not going forward it is a step backward and gives even more control over our health care to the status quo.

[Skidmore]

109. You seem to think that we have a whole heck of a lot of

control now over our healthcare. Tell that to someone a with pre-existing condition or who doesn't have a job or can't afford coverage. They are being hurt now. How is the position you outlined any different or morally superior.

[unapatriciated]

124. believe me I know how little control we have now and that's why we need real HCR.

You should get to know a person before you suggest they do not know the suffering someone with a pre-existing condition goes through at the hands of the insurance cartel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x372871#372890

I also know that in 1994 California enacted some very tough laws on claims and pre-existing conditions.
The Insurance Industry still found loopholes and I did lose my job, insurance and home because Ca allowed them input on the laws.
I can handle those loses because i could at least work to get them back, but I can not get back my child's health.

On edit: HCR is something I have been pushing for since 1991.

[Greyhound]

108. It is the authoritarians that refuse to learn and have (4 times in my life) blown up the Party.

The Democratic PTB have made it clear that they would rather lose the nation and keep their power than to bring change by sharing power. They are getting what they want by holding what you need out as a lure, and just like a fish, you don't seem to understand that they will never give you what you want because it would cost them their power.

You are free to choose to follow them to your doom, we'll be over here with the solutions waiting for you to catch on.

[Hello_Kitty]

116. Oh brother. Not this shit again.

You will blame progressives for HCR failure. People who have no vote in Congress.

Not Lieberman, who held up the bill until meaningful, and popular, measures like the Medicare buy-in and the ending of insurers anti-trust exemption were stripped out. Who has a vote in Congress.

Not Nelson, for many of the same things as Lieberman, plus he wanted to make sure he could sniff women's panties. Who has a vote in Congress.

Not Nelson's fellow panty sniffer Stupak. Who has a vote in Congress.

Nope, it's the dirty fucking hippies fault for not stamping a smile on our face and obligingly rolling over for every pro-corporate anti-choice "compromise" that came down the pike. Because nothing is ever the fault of the DLCers or the Blue Dogs. Nothing.

P.S: Fuck off.

[dgibby]

122. Get over your bad self.

You, an anomyous poster on a PROGRESSIVE political web site are going to hold PROGRESSIVES responsible if HCR fails? AND you equate us with teabaggers? Well, if I wasn't so busy LMAO at your overbloated ego, I'd be shaking in my boots by your impotent threats. Unrec because any post that contains the words "progressives" and "teabaggers" in the same sentence is nothing but flamebait.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jgraz]

130. BTW, Skidmore, why aren't you phonebanking for Coakley?

Done anything to help get her elected, other than post group smears on an anonymous internet forum?

[Skidmore]

132. I'm in Iowa.

Sorry you take a legitimate question as a smear.

[jgraz]

133. So? Anyone can phonebank from anywhere. DUers have been posting about it for days.

You never even bothered to check, did you?

[clear eye]

138. Old guy. You'll be there someday too.

Maybe a little understanding about his desperation and lack of sophistication re: technology? You could have simply posted the online phonebank link w/o the snark, y'know.

[JDPriestly]

131. We have heard that before. That is why we voted for Clinton, Gore

and Obama -- all of whom turned out to be DLC. Clinton brought in NAFTA, encouraged work visas for work Americans could be doing and changes in banking laws that helped bring on this horrible economic crisis. Gore failed to fight after the Supreme Court elected Bush. And now, Obama is breaking promise after promise.

So, we fell for your argument three times. And now, no more.

The least President Obama could do is to admit as we do that the health care "reform" bill should have had a public option and doesn't really control costs and then blame Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu, Baucus and Reid for not working with him to get a good bill.

Yes, we don't always get what we want. But we don't always have to pretend that we haven't lost when we have.

This is not the time to play good sport. It stinks of insincerity.

President Obama needs to show some integrity and admit that this bill is pretty worthless without enforceable cost control measures. The fact is that the only cuts that will really occur are to Medicare. And it is political suicide to sign a bill like that without at least screaming to high heaven that you want it changed.

[branders seine]

136. Your post makes no sense.

:shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

137. Sorry, but the senate bill is fascism.