All you DUers with fingers in your ears, Listen UP!

[boston bean]

Liberals have been giving blood time and $$$$ to get Democrats elected for eons.

Liberals have compromised to their LIMIT.

Liberals have tried YOUR way.

It DOESN'T WORK!

How about joining the liberals and begin to work for the liberal principles that you say you agree with. Afterall, you proclaim they are your principles too.

Work with liberals to bring a 2nd New Deal.

You can't have it your way without us, and we can't have it our way without you. But Liberals have given all they can give. It's your turn to give now.

[eleny]

1. k&r!

[Nite Owl]

2. Tell that to the WH

they still seem to be in denial. This was the warning I hope for all of us that they heed it.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I agree with the second to last sentence:

"You can't have it your way without us, and we can't have it our way without you."

The rest, I'm not so sure.

For one thing, "liberals" vs "all you DUers with fingers in your ears"...

...too vague.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. That woudl be the conservadems

[Ken Burch]

28. It refers to everybody who's said "It's just about Coakley...it wasn't a loss for centrism".

n/t.

[abq e streeter]

4. Thanks--couldn't have said it better nor more succinctly

[Bucky]

5. All you DUers with fingers in your eyes, Read THIS!

Moderates have been giving blood time and $$$$ to get Democrats elected for eons.

Moderates have compromised to their LIMIT.

Moderates have tried YOUR way.

It DOESN'T WORK!

How about joining the moderates and begin to work for the pragmatic principles that you say you agree with. Afterall, you proclaim they are your principles too.

Work with moderates to bring a 2nd New Deal.

You can't have it your way without us, and we can't have it our way without you. But Moderates have given all they can give. It's your turn to give now.


=====

I just wanted to see if the rant would work the other way around. It works surprisingly well, thanks to the utter lack of real world specifics in your charming little vanity post. Plus, the post constructed my way, addressing comments at liberals, has the advantage of actually applying to more than a hand full DUers

[boston bean]

7. You don't just have your fingers in your ears, you have a blind fold on

if you can't understand the dynamic of this board, and how the party is splitting.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Wrong.

Moderates do not, for the most part, give time and they only give money if they are brazillionaires and expect something in return from that politician.

Moderates have compromised to the limit? With liberals or with the Right? If it's the former that's a laugh and if it's the latter, I'll buy that.

Moderates have tried it our way? Really?

I have no problem with joining with you moderates but the problem is you expect the liberals to make all the concessions while you drag all of us further to the right because you are so scared of the GOP and of President Lieberman.

Second New Deal? Really? Moderates are running the country right now and we don't seem to be headed that way. And Rahm thinks we dirty hippies on the left are "fucking stupid" and irrelevant. Unless a Dem loses a major election and then everything is our fault...but I digress...The point is they don't give a shit about us.

Moderates have sure been acting like they can have it their way without us.

[Bucky]

16. Whoa, there, cowgirl, I think you're reading more into my post than is actually there.

Why are you calling me a moderate?

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. Did you read your own post?

"Moderates have compromised to their LIMIT.

Moderates have tried YOUR way.


I just wanted to see if the rant would work the other way around. It works surprisingly well"

Please tell us why you think it works so well the other way around?

[kenfrequed]

36. Difference is...

We on the left can qualify and quantify the degree to which our positions have been sold out and compromised whereas the self described "moderates" all end up being pro corporate conserva-dems.

[tblue]

45. Thank you, HK. "Moderate" = taxing healthcare benefits

This country has veered so far to the right that "moderate" or "pragmatic" (as some prefer) = taxing healthcare benefits and curbing women's reproductive rights. To hell with that.

"Moderate" is screaming be patient, be silent, be grateful. Progressives are screaming show us meaningful change that will better our lives.

The Dems have tried "moderate" and look what they got -- a young Dick Cheney in Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. What an unforgivable mess. If that message wasn't made patently clear yet, then I really, really fear for this party.

[Goldstein1984]

68. Nicely written.

Progressives (Liberals) are what the Democrats used to be.

A whole generation, maybe two, only know the Democratic Party of the "New/Third Way/DLC/Moderates.

They never experienced what the Democratic Party could be, what is was before it adopted capitalism and militarism as core values.

They think Progressives are leaving the party, when we've been watching the party drift away on a Conservative riptide for a few decades now.

[emsimon33]

57. well said

[truedelphi]

63. I totally agree. n/t

[Goldstein1984]

69. And now they are learning that our votes count for something, and

are no longer guaranteed.

I don't really think they've absorbed the lesson, so 2010 could be just as ugly as was last Tuesday.

[Individualist]

14. Damn the DLC

[ddeclue]

19. oh yeah like let's get excited about the mushy middle...

:eyes:

YAWN...

[emsimon33]

56. You are kidding, right! The Conservadems have had it their way 100%

[JDPriestly]

59. Moderates are moderates because they are wishy-washy and stand for

nothing. They are moderates because they don't believe in anything really and because, worse yet, they don't care about anyone else really.

Pragmatism is a compromise. You can be pragmatic without giving up your ideals. And when you have ideals you continue to advocate for them even if you lose.

Here is Dennis Kucinich's pragmatic response to the Senate health care bill.

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2876&Itemid=2

[ima_sinnic]

66. "moderates have compromised"? no, moderates ARE compromised.

understand the difference?

[julian09]

89. Moderates are compromised, by their own votes.

[ooglymoogly]

79. What you are asking of us is to support a crooked deal...

Not a second new deal which you so cagily put it and is certainly not even close to an FDR New Deal. You are asking us to support a Bushian New Deal. FDR was for busting up "to big to fail" corporations, not finding ways to keep artificially propping them up with hard pressed taxpayer money and hope they will send you some love through the back door and they do but not in a good way.

[liberation]

90. In other words, you did not understand at all what the thread's author was talking about

... and wanted to share that fact with the world.


None of the counterexamples you provided in your "witty" retort work... at... all. There is a reason why false dichotomies are considered a fallacy Einstein. LOL

[demwing]

102. BULLSHIT!

Moderates have not "tried your way."

moderates have not compromised, at least not to the left.

Only compromised to the right.

[Moochy]

118. The Switcheroo!!!!

False Equivalence and False Dichotomies are among the DLC's three four most potent weapons!!

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Enthusiastic K and R!

Isn't it funny how the people scolding us to band together also want us to do all the compromising?

[DisgustedInMN]

23. Yep..

... and not the good kind of funny.

[amborin]

76. +1

[slipslidingaway]

9. knr - the public option will give you a choice and lead to a SP system...

or it will lead to mandates to buy private insurance.

[liberal N proud]

10. Its not DUer that you need to be talking to

[boston bean]

11. There are plenty here who give cover to these policies.

If they would hold the democrats, ALL the democrats, feet to the fire from the left, we might see some movement.

[Little Star]

13. K&R Right on point!

[Blue State Bandit]

15. Get up! Stand up!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7525817&mesg_id=7525817">Why We Lost In Massachusetts

[snagglepuss]

17. K & R nt

[donheld]

18. Yes!

[Johonny]

20. It doesn't work?

I mean the current party only has a majority in both houses of congress and the presidency, so I can see how the current Democratic strategy has been a total failure.

[boston bean]

21. We have helped give you that majority. but what have we gotten in return.

If you believe in the party platform you believe what most liberals believe in.

So why not help make the Party stick to the platform and create a New Deal.

If it doesn't happen, the most important thing to you (a majority) will not last.

[frylock]

43. those majorities along with $2.50 will get a steaming hot cuppa jack squat

[beardown]

52. Democratic majority. Not democractic ideals majority

The democratic party only has a majority of reps who label themselves as part of the democratic party and many have less in common with traditional democratic party goals and ideals than republicans of 40 years ago would have now.

It's similar to the republican party having 41 official members in the senate while at least half a dozen should be in the White Power party and a couple of dozen should be in the American Corporate Fascist party.

If party affiliation is all it took then the 60 senate votes would have already enacted at least a health bill with a public option if not a full fledged single payer system.

[rhett o rick]

77. It isnt a majority when a good share are Democrats in name only.

They vote against Democratic principles. Fuck them.

[jpak]

22. take your fingers out, stay at home and vote for RW teabagger assholes

progress!

yup

[DisgustedInMN]

25. Exactly how do we..

.. tell the difference between "RW teabagger assholes" and RW Conservadem assholes?

[Dr.Phool]

58. You can't. They're the same.

[treestar]

61. that's silly

they might be pro-choice, just for one thing.

[ima_sinnic]

67. then, on the other hand, they might not be! whichever way the wind blows ...

[frylock]

44. if rape is inevitable..

why not just lie back and enjoy it?

[rhett o rick]

78. No kick the republican loving right-wing blue dogs to the curb. nt

[AzDar]

24. K & R

[mike_c]

26. this is the crux of my complaints about the democratic party....

For as long as I've been voting-- since the early 1970s-- the democratic party has relied on the support of liberals who have no where else to go, but given them little or nothing in return. Whenever we ask for support for liberal principles we're told "not this election, this one is too important to lose" and "the party must appeal to the center." That "center" creeps steadily rightward. I don't even recognize today's democratic party, frankly. It's well to the right of Nixon on most issues that are important to me.

It's time for liberals to stop being dupes of the democratic wing of the corporatist party.

[Ken Burch]

27. Good luck.

Some of those idiots have "La La La La, I Can't Hear You!" ringtones.

It's telling that they ENJOY it when a Democratic seat is lost.

[MissDeeds]

29. Well said

K&R

[alberg]

30. It's not that hard to understand if a person really wants to.

In a 2 party system voters have limited options to express their outrage

If you listen to the buzz around the country, what you hear repeated is the message: "Vote whoever is in power out, and maybe they'll get the message that we aren't happy and want things to change in a fundamental way." It was this sentiment, "Change", that got Democrats elected in 2008. It's this sentiment that will remove them, unless they show the voters that they are sincere in working for real change between now and the next election. People are really pissed off this time. It's not going to go away. Unless a strong Progressive voice emerges on a national level that aligns with the outrage people feel about HealthCare, Jobs and Wall Street we are destined to suffer major electoral defeats. Obama will have one more shot at turning this around. Unless he uses the State of the Union address to acknowledge past mistakes and make a new start, we are in real trouble. He could start by firing Summers and Geitner, proposing a federal jobs program and opening up Medicare to everybody. Sound drastic? Yet that is precisely the kind of message that will regain the support of 70% of the electorate. It's a fool’s game to try and win over the other 30% - they are the same folks who supported Bush no matter what and believe Global Warming is a myth.

[shadowknows69]

31. That, and we've been right about things more in my opinion.

Let's let the smartest guys in the room lead for a change, just for a goof. See what happens.

[Javaman]

32. That was true as of yesterday. Today, not so much.

Now the supremes kicked the door open on corporate donations, all politicians, even the "good ones" will be bought and sold via the highest corporation to do their bidding.

And the ones that don't take the money? well I think we know what happens there.

Anything now is just spitting into the wind.

but I admire anyone that continues the fight under such overwhelming odds. My hat is off to you.

Cheers!

[Soylent Brice]

38. overwhelming odds is an understatement.

the death of the democratic party, the people's party, died today with that SCOTUS ruling.

we.are.screwn.

[bvar22]

100. You can thank the "Centrist" Democrats for THAT.

They helped the Republicans install Roberts and Alito.

Google "Gang of 14" Democrats.

[Fire1]

34. Good luck with that. n/t

[Fire1]

35. dupe.

[billh58]

37. Good choice of terms

to describe the state of the Democratic Party today (especially on DU): "us" vs. "you DUers." Is that about the same as "you're either with us, or you're with the enemy?"

The truth is that neither the OP, nor anyone else on this anonymous pseudo-political discussion board can accurately define the term "Liberal" or "Progressive," or even "Democrat." Throwing around terms like "cheerleader" (which is the thinly-veiled accusation in this OP), or "Obama-bot," or any of the other derogatory terms spewed by the Far Left against anyone who doesn't agree with them, does far more to splinter the Democratic Party than anything the Teabaggers could do.

[laughingliberal]

41. I have a definition of liberal which has been my guide over my lifetime

This one works for me. Others who define themselves as liberal are welcome to their own but I think this encompasses the principle to which I ascribe:

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:

Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

[billh58]

65. Most of we

Democrats who voted for JFK also agreed with, and adopted his definition of American Liberalism. The preponderance of "Progressive" thought on DU, however, is at odds with the Party of FDR and JFK. The reference to "rigid reactions" not only applies to the Far Right Neoconservatives, but to Far Left extremists as well.

The good news is, that DU is not representative of Middle American voters, nor of mainstream Liberal Democrats. Our Party will not only survive, but will continue to be a driving force in shaping the economic and social progress of this country far into the foreseeable future.

While a large number of Middle American voters self-declare themselves to be "Independent," the fact is that most of them will either vote Republican, or Democratic. "Independents" have no central platform, do not vote as a block, nor are they likely to have much direct influence on a particular election cycle (even though they would like to believe differently): the winner will, in all probability, either be a Republican, or a Democrat.

[ourbluenation]

88. +1

excellent post.

[dajoki]

39. K&R

[Skidmore]

40. Who will head this movement for a second New Deal?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[hfojvt]

42. awesome. More insults from the left

See, those damn centrists have their fingers in their ears just because they don't say "amen" whenever WE say "Democrats suck"

Obviously, this is how we work for liberal principls. To bash the Democratic Party and constantly publicly proclaim we are not gonna vote for them, not gonna work for them and not gonna donate money to them.

Your way just seems to be to attack the DNC like it is the RNC because it is not the SWP.

If you come up with a different strategery, then there's no reason we can't work together.

But this OP just continues in that vein. Attack Centrist Democrats like they are Republicans because they are not socialists.

Anybody who does not say KNR to my rhetorical brilliance simply isn't listening. :eyes:

[pundaint]

46. Ok, you may return your fingers to your ears, but just you; everybody else fingers out

[hfojvt]

47. oh, my fingers are not in my ears

at least not the middle one

[Jakes Progress]

48. A donkey impression.

That's what you get with your thumbs in your ears and your middle finger stuck in the air. But that is just an impression of a donkey.

Sort of fits here. Someone doing an impression of a Democrat.

[hfojvt]

53. only if you are talking about yourself

I gues in your world the 'real' democrats are the ones who are always saying 'the Democrats suck. I'm not gonna donate to them. I am taking my Obama sticker off of my car. they are just like the Republicans' while the fake Democrats are the ones who object to that b.s. How Orwellian can you get?

[Jakes Progress]

106. Wow. Third grade deja vu.

What's next: I'm rubber; you're glue. Or just nyah nyah nyah.

What's so hard about to understand about the fact that you call yourself a Democrat but support neocon ideology doesn't mean you are a Democrat.

(Oh, Get someone to explain Orwell to you.)

[hfojvt]

108. get somebody to explain civility and persuasion to you

I think I made the case that Naderites are more like fake Democrats than people who actually support Democratic candidates are.

Bill Clinton sucks, but he's still better than either Bush.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/74

[Jakes Progress]

109. Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot

You start by complaining that the left was complaining again. So that would mean that you don't identify with the left. So just what do you consider yourself - blue dog? DLC'er? Right wing?

We get so many supposed Democrats here who complain about all those liberals and progressives and left wingers. It makes me wonder just what they consider themselves. Are you a Centerist? What center would that be? Half way between Clinto (whom you don't like) and bush? Perhaps you are simply an Obama fan and don't know exactly what you stand for until he tells you.

Well, I'm a fan of his too. And I know where I stand. I want him to start acting more like a Democrat and less like a conservative. I want him to be left wing because we don't need him to try appealing to the right wing since that will not only rot his soul, it will not get him elected again. It may have taken a year, but surely he has learned this He is smarter than most of his fans here and will catch on to this truth faster than they will.

But there are those here who lambast the left and the progressives because they think that's what he wants. Why the hell did you want to be a Democrat if you don't like politics to the left?

Get a nice simple book on politics and government. Read up on the history of the right and the left wing and what those terms mean. It will help you find out what you really are.

Also. look at your initial posts in each of the sub threads here and try to guess why it is ironic that you complain that others are uncivil and unpersuasive.

[hfojvt]

110. I complained that the left was broad brush insulting

The OP essentially said "everybody who disagrees with me has their fingers in their ears"

I complain that others are uncivil when they post things like this

"Perhaps you are simply an Obama fan and don't know exactly what you stand for until he tells you."

I suppose it may be true that I respond somewhat like that. For example "go ahead and look at the dark side if that makes you happy in some perverse way"

Well, that seems to me like a fairly logical and straighforward response to somebody who provides a list of "all the things that Obama hasn't done" and also complains that Obama has not done ANYTHING.

I lambaste the left, insofar as what I do can be considered lambasting, as a member of the left, alhough not as far left as the "more left than thou" crowd. That crowd does what the left always seems to want to do. Fight with some of their allies because those allies are less than perfect and we only want to be with the perfect. So we kick all the heretics out of our coalition until there are only about fifty of us really hardcore enlightened people remaining.

And we insult and have contempt for everyone who is not one of us. They are idiots ("go find a nice simple book on politics and government") and bigots and fools and dupes.

I don't think it's that easy to know where to stand. I have some knowledge of taxes and get updates from the CBPP, but I did not get that far into the weeds on the health care bill. I still think the Senate bill does some good things and some bad things, and certainly preferred the House version (but people like Krugman and Kevin Drum of Mother Jones are still urging passage of the Senate bill). Without the Mass loss, we might have gotten something closer to the House bill out of conference committee, although for some reason Obama went with the cadillac tax rather than the House income tax increase.

Unlike some of the Nader crowd I am not prepared to jump whenever somebody posts on DU about something awful that Obama is doing.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/104

Which is where I think some people have been since February (or earlier in the case of Pumas and those unwilling to forget McClurkin or Rick Warren) Reflexively bash anything Obama does as either just like Bush or not good enough. I also think there are trolls here, posting and posing as progressives who are disgusted with Obama and the Democratic Party.

[Jakes Progress]

111. And your posts are different in what way

from the posts you complain about. The OP essentially said anyone who disagrees with me has their fingers in their ears. You essentially said anyone who says that is not a Democrat. So you think you are so entitled to an opinion where the OP is not?

Then in a burst of ironic self-incrimination you complain that others are being uncivil when they suggest that you are an unthinking Obama fan. But before they call you that, you basically tell a poster "Fuck You" (unless you had another metaphor in mind with your oh so clever remark about your middle finger). And before you get so uncivilly called an Obama fan, you say of others in the thread "they are just like the Republicans". Have you the guts to admit that you are guilty of tossing the first bomb or you do get to be the arbiter of which posts are uncivil and which are "logical and straightforward" responses?

Again you lambast the left. If you are not left what are you? You spent several paras here attempting to defend your silly position while never bothering to answer the simple questions by declaring your position. You say you attack the left from the position of the left but not so far left. Then you attack the left again as being always attacking. So as a middle of the road quasi-lefty do you draw your political positions from lieberman or baucus or Schuler or Cooper for instance. See, you like to claim that the lefties aren't really Democrats. My contention is that it is those are the fake Democrats.

But then you say it is uncivil for the OP or I to say that if you don't agree with us you aren't a good Democrat. Of course, in you world it is perfectly "logical and straightforward" to tell both of us that we aren't good Democrats because we don't agree with you.

You can see why it is hard to think of you as a logical person.

Then you pull Health Care Reform out of thin air to say some things about how you're not sure about this or that, but maybe you could think that....... Where were you going with that? Where did the OP or I mention HCR? Did you confuse threads?

And golly, don't give yourself away so easily by talking about what a little thing mcclurkin and warren were. It lets us know right (and I do mean right) where you stand. I think there are trolls here too. They pose as middle of the road Democrats who are disgusted with the heart and soul of the Democratic party. They defend Obama by "lambasting" the left. They think it is a good ploy to alienate the party base from the President.

(Oh, And it is really poor form to keep referencing links to your own journal as some sort of proof. If they didn't get read before, this won't help. Sorry to be so uncivil. Just think of it as tough love advice.)

[hfojvt]

112. it was YOU who started the whole fake Democrat thing

my response was that I am more real as a Democrat than the Naderites are.

Also, yes I did respond FU to another poster. One who basically said FU to me first and I just fired it back. Perhaps next time he/she might try responding to the content of what I said instead of snarking, but if they wanna exchange snark, then I am game.

edit: as to who tossed the first bomb. The OP is the one who did that addressing people who disagreed with him/her as "having their fingers in their ears". In post #42 I did not call anybody a Republican.

edit again: and post 46 was a snarky reply and I snarked right back "FU too". Do you want me to go over our exchange and see who lobbed more insults? Did you call me a troll 3 or 4 times in this last post? Also called me illogical. And couldn't figure out why I would mention health care even though the DU left has been wailing about how bad Obama's doing on health care for like the last six months, and then finishing with your oh so wise and compassionate tough love.

Gotta give you some credit though. You matched me in word count. Too bad you couldn't seem to discuss any issue other than me. You really should get over myself.

[Jakes Progress]

116. Just how self-absorbed are you.

No one told said FU to you. No one. That was all you. So you got your feelings hurt when someone didn't agree with you. Then you start this ridiculous thread defending yourself for behavior and sloppy logic that you know is evident. Basically you thought you were really cool with the middle finger comment. When I trumped you on it (got lots of congrats on that) you got all huffy and started ranting about health care and some nader fetish you have. And here you try to pretend that you weren't all mixed up on which thread you were on and try to say that health care was a logical thing to bring up. Of course you are incapable of admitting error or poor judgement so you keep going on this in a really vain attempt to justify your blather.

Me. I don't mind. It keeps bringing the OP back to the top. Each time you piddle up a new response it bumps the thread. Each time I reply it does the same. I think the OP deserves more reading so I welcome it. Believe me, no one is reading this far into this silly sub thread (unless they like watching you implode as you try to dig yourself out of the hole you are in.) So go ahead and keep bumping the OP. It deserves to be read again and again. You might try spicing things up by discussing the subject and less about how cool a Democrat you are. Me. I think centerist Democrats are people who don't get it. I got them all the time during the campaign. They wanted to come to the meetings and tell everyone to hold it, don't spend my money. They thought cutting taxes was a cool idea. They thought we were in imminent danger from the terrists. Maybe their family had been Democrats or something, but they always had a reason to think that moving to the right was a good idea. And work. They never seemed to have the hours available for campaign work. My crews were filled with passionate lefties. They volunteered. They showed up. They worked their butts off. So no. I don't have a lot of good feelings about DLC centerists who seem to be the first to sell out to the right every time it gets tough.

[jeff47]

50. You do a lot of complaining, but have no solutions.

So what, exactly, should the liberals be doing?

Bend over and take it without lube? Well if that's gonna happen anyway, we might as well save a lot of money and spend a lot more time at home with our families.

We've been working our ass off for the Democratic party for decades. The centrists keep telling us we have to wait. So we get them majorities in Congress. Have to wait 'cause Bush is still president. We get them a president elected with a huge liberal mandate. Have to wait 'cause we don't have 60 seats in the Senate. So we get them 60 seats. Then we have to wait 'cause the leadership won't put any pressure on the centrists. And so on and so on.

The Result:

* Wall Street's going back to what it did under Bush, preparing to destroy the economy again.
* Complete failure of leadership on heath care reform.
* Pre-compromised and weak stimulus bills
* Unemployment still > 10% with nobody in Congress seeming to give a damn.
* A whole lot of "we have to cut the deficit!!!" bullshit. (Hint: Solve the bullet point above this one, and the deficit will take care of itself)
* No investigations or prosecutions for the crimes committed during the last 8 years.
* No "looking back" at the failures of Conservative ideology, thus letting it rise from the grave yet again, so we'll have to suffer through the next Conservative-caused economic disaster.
* Almost complete silence on any LGBT issues.

In return the liberals got....um.....hang on.....I'm sure there's something around here.....Well, tell ya what, when we actually get something, you let us know.

So yes, we're unhappy. We spent a lot of time calling, mailing, meeting, cajoling, screaming, crying, poking and doing everything else we could do to our reps and the White House, and we were told to shut up.

So what, exactly, should the liberals do to fix this problem?

[hfojvt]

55. I do a lot of complaining?

What was your post but a laundry list of complaints?

If you want solutions, you can start here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/117

I also might search out my thread about Durbin's petition for a public option and you could see how little traction that got. Unlike many of the threads proclaiming how much the Democratic Party sucks, my thread did not make the front page with 164 votes.

I think Skinner has a thread about taking action (I have not read it yet, so I am endorsing it blind) and Somerby has ideas as well, if you want to read the Daily Howler.

What did we get?

Besides
increase in the minimum wage
expansion of SCHIP
extended unemployment benefits
Justice Sotomayor
zero American casualties in Iraq in December 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay act
and a fight for Health Care reform that we seem to be losing

You just keep looking for the negative though, if that makes you feel better in some perverse way.

[jeff47]

64. What solutions?

Your solutions are to support the same folks that have failed us repeatedly.

Btw, DFA isn't for "Deaniacs". DFA is the remnant of the Obama's campaign's email list.

As for taking action, we already are. The action we're taking is to retreat from politics.

Also:
Sotomayor is centrist, quite significantly further right than the justice she replaced.
SCHIP expansion is crap. We wanted HEATHCARE REFORM. Settling for SCHIP is exactly what we're complaining about.
Unemployment benefits were extended....briefly. That expired, btw. Our Democratic congress and President couldn't quite get around to keeping that going despite the >10% unemployment and majorities we provided them.
Minimum wage increase: Not very useful without jobs. How 'bout some stimulus that actually...ya know...works instead of yet more tax cuts? Oh, the moderates insist on Tax Cuts despite the ample evidence that they are less effective than what the liberals want.
Iraq casualties: Why are we still there?

So we're left with the big accomplishment being....the Ledbetter Fair Pay act. A piece of legislation that fixes one consequence of the Democrats massive screw-up in not recognizing the R's use the SCOTUS as a partisan tool.

But I'm sure your plan of telling the base to 'stop whining and keep sending your $$ to the same people' is gonna do wonders.

[hfojvt]

70. you are flat wrong about the DFA

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Secondly, the action you are cheering is pretty futile. When we get knocked down, I don't think we have "failed". The only failure is your own dogged determination to give up instead of getting up and moving faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHPsZKT1QhA

[rhett o rick]

80. So do you support Joe Lieberman? Is he your hero? or Landreau or Nelson? maybe you like Specter now

a real Democrat. Take your damn blue dogs and go back to the republican party where you belong.

[hfojvt]

107. you make absolutely no sense

like we would get single payer if only we had 40 votes in the Senate instead of 58.

Oh, and here's a blast from the past

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/39

I had this kinda silly idea that Connecticut voters might read about how bad Lieberman was if my thread made the front page of DU and that would help Lamont to win. If you click "discuss" you can see how many replies I got from other DUers.

Just like I had the idea tha some Massachusetts voters might vote for Coakley if they read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7497299&mesg_id=7497299

[TheKentuckian]

113. What does a"centrist" Democrat believe in?

What seperates one from an establishment Republican (not teabaggers or theocrats)?

What keeps "centrist" in the Democratic party versus going straight big business party?

Are "centrist" for the working people or big money, what side are you on?

[h9socialist]

49. A "second New Deal"?????

That's awfully small potatoes for what needs to change! For things to get better we need to rewrite the Constitution . . . and overthrow Wall Street and capitalism in general.

[grahamhgreen]

54. Maybe I'm a conservative Dem, I just want the old New Deal back!

[h9socialist]

94. History is not going to allow it to happen that way . . .

It will allow a move to the Left -- perhaps even a true power shift to the Left. But it can't resurrect the conditions of the 1930s, it can't solve the problems of this century with the sentiments of the past. I am a socialist -- therefore, I have reconciled myself with the knowledge that the old socialism of the 20th century is dead and gone. But a new socialism -- or the equivalent -- can emerge -- although, you may never recognize it. The same is true of American Liberalism -- which I have often identified with.

The problem with American Liberalism and "The New Deal" is that they are/were aimed at ameliorating the worst social impacts of capitalism -- not to replace capitalism with a more socially functional and humane system. When I say that "the New Deal" is setting the sites too low, it is not to take away from FDR or JFK (my life's greatest hero) -- rather it is to say that in order to have a thorough, effective and worthwhile "liberalism," socialism will have to be a possibility within the range of realism. Otherwise, history will never pull far enough to the Left to make a "new New Deal" possible!

[dbonds]

51. KnR

[October]

60. KICK!

[RoccoR5955]

62. LIBERALS are the heart, soul, blood, sweat and tears of the USA! n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

71. The Republicans with Newt had one thing right

The "Contract With America"

No, not the specifics, of course. But why *NOT* a core list of points, agreed upon by most, that any Democratic candidate should be expected to support?

If could make a list of 8 or 10 items that ANYONE who wanted ANY support from ANY of us would have to agree to support...

IOW Sign on the line or your sorry butt gets primaried.

We need a solid definition of what a "Democrat" *IS*.

I'll start with a few

1-Single Payer Health Care
2-Full and complete Marriage Equality
3-.......

[quiet.american]

72. Why don't you listen up? It's not "us and them" when we're on same side.

A Democrat who disagrees with you is not *not* a liberal, DLC, or any of the other favorites that are so in vogue around here.

Until the self-proclaimed "liberals" such as yourself stop sowing division with this "us and them" meme when we're on the same side, no progress will occur.

Or are you advocating for the Green Party?

[rhett o rick]

81. Do you disagree with any of the liberal policies? If so what? or are you just sowing

hate? Do you disagree with liberal issues? Tell me which ones?

[quiet.american]

104. I disagree with the "liberal" stance that Democrats are not liberals.

And that only self-proclaimed "liberals" on this board are "true liberals" who also don't happen to be Democrats, which one can glean through the incessant I'll-take-my-vote-elsewhere-and-millions-will-join-me threats and the constant reminders of how "we" worked with Democrats and now "we" are miffed.

Alright, here's one thing I do not agree with that this board's "liberals" have declared practically makes the sun rise and set:

That HCR is worthless without a public option that's not actually called a public option.

To tell you the truth, I like the Senate version of the "public option" better because it puts more money and resources into communities, opens up Congress's insurance plans to the general public, pays in full for the education of doctors, nurses and other medical professions that choose to go into primary care, paves the way for states to offer single-payer, and pours billions of dollars into thousands of communities across the nation in the form of creating community health centers.

But there has been no acknowledgement of that here. Why? Because it's not actually called a "public option."

Yes, this is the kind of "liberal" myopia with which I disagree.

[burning rain]

73. They aim to give us a Blue Deal--as in Blue Dogs.

.

[burning rain]

74. .

.

[FriendlyReminder]

75. DING, DING, DING, DING......we have a winner.

We need to quite compromising who we are. The American people will respond to a clear and coherent progressive message.

[ProSense]

82. How does calling out DUer's end up on the front page without getting locked? n/t

[liberation]

91. Because DU is not the DLC and differences of opinion are allowed...

But thanks for your "concern" LOL.

[Uncle Joe]

83. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, boston bean.

[Dinger]

84. boston bean, Where Have You Been All My Life?

excellent post.:patriot:

[ProSense]

85. Populism and today's SCOTUS ruling

here

[Uncle Joe]

86. To answer your question on the other thread, the disconnect is emotional

based on having been betrayed by your own or at least having the perception that you were betrayed, apparently that's what the 37% in Massachusetts felt.

So the question becomes whose fault is that and what can be done about it?

"Seriously, what is the disconnect?"

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Uncle Joe]

93. Your analysis is wrong, we didn't applaud the upfront elimination of universal

Medicare for everyone coverage, we didn't applaud the neutering of the strong public option; which would have given for profit "health" insurance corporations competition, we didn't applaud less health care freedom for the American People with the abandonment of the weak public option, we damn sure didn't applaud mandates to force the purchasing of for profit "health" insurance from the primary villains behind this mess and we didn't applaud the 180 by President Obama on the taxing of health care benefits, something that he said Candidate McCain or Bush would do when he was running.

I view all those things as right wing turns, not left.

Having said that, I still believe something positive can come out of the Congress re: health care, if they heed Dean's advice regarding reconciliation and settling with the House.

If that happens I believe your Republican Bubble will burst come election time in 2010.

Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[Therellas]

95. is this the change Limbaugh was talking about........

"the changing of the very principles that made this country great."
what are these principles honestly ?
any one please define them

[Uncle Joe]

96. Read the Preamble of the Constitution, Limbaugh nor Boehner know nothing about that.

So if you're listening to Limbaugh to get your information, take the screwdriver out of your ear, you've put it in too far.

[Therellas]

97. lol...i saw him say it on the daily show in a clip.

i was happy he said it.but im still waiting for the changes.:bounce:

[TexasObserver]

98. cool beans

[kestrel91316]

99. Yep. I'm fresh out of shirts on my back to give.

[bvar22]

101. VICTORY for the "Centrists" !!!

Centrism/Moderation....because it is so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!
:party:

[midnight]

103. I love this boston bean....

[treestar]

105. Why are you more important than other Democrats?

Why do you demand that you get what you want or you are gone?

When if you go, it is to a third party that will not be in power in this lifetime.

Centrist Democrats have as much say as you do.

Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Why are you more important than those with different views?

[TheKentuckian]

114. "Centrist" are the minority (though growing). "Centrist" and moderates

aren't the same thing. Look at your conservadems and bluedogs, why is it that less than a quarter of the party gets to drive and tell the kids in the backseat to STFU?

Why? Because this is the party of the left. You want to be a Confederate then head back over there and if that makes a majority for you then so be it.

"Centrists" over and over put money over people. Politics over policy. The self deception of pragmatism over principle. "Team" over country. The wants of the wealthy over the needs of the poor.

Why do the likes of Lieberman and Nelson demand their way or the highway while ignoring not only the majority of the caucus but probably the majority of the Senate?

This is the people's party and if you don't like it too bad. If you try to pervert it, you'll find patience is limited and you won't have a governing coalition. We won't settle for whatever name has a (D) beside it because we have values and believe this party only need exist as far as it is able to serve the needs of the poor and working class because "stakeholders" already have more than enough seats at the table without a bunch of corporate stooges finding more for them and calling it progress.

[chimpymustgo]

115. K & R.

[Unvanguard]

117. What does "work" mean? n/t