My "what if" for the day...

[MineralMan]

What if the wishes of some on the left came true? What if we failed to hold the Congress majorities in 2010 because we convinced the Democratic voters that there's really no difference between Republicans and Democrats, so why work toward electing Democrats? What if we managed to convince President Obama that he's just not far enough to the left to turn out the voters in 2012, so he decides to make it just a single term? What if we accomplished those things, through our snarking, complaining, apathy, and ignoring the problems he has getting anything or anyone progressive through the Senate?

What might happen? Anyone want to venture a prediction on where we'll be in 2016 if we managed that?


Class.....class.....anyone?

[metapunditedgy]

1. What if the wishes of some on the left came true? What if many our elected Democrat leaders,

after briefly flirting with corporate-friendly policies, decided to follow the principles that got them elected in the first place? What if they helped Main Street more and Wall Street less, as they promised to do in 2008?

We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

What if... what if?

[Edweird]

23. +1

[flyarm]

43. + 1 million! Do what you are voted and sent there to do and there are no problems

the support will still be there in huge numbers..

On the other hand, fuck the people that sent you and voted for you and walked the streets for you and gave you sometimes what little money they had..and you get all these " what if " bullshit analogies!

Most people are result oriented, not bullshit smoke blowing up your ass oriented!

[Blue_In_AK]

48. Some seem to be perfectly content with the rightward drift

of the Democratic party. Perhaps it's going to take a sound defeat at the polls -- maybe over and over again -- before the Democrats remember what they're supposed to stand for.

[flyarm]

50. only a very small minority want you to believe that! DON"T .its a lie.eom

[nashville_brook]

94. the rightward strategy isn't going to work in this election cycle.

we tried to tell them so, but they'd rather listen to Baucus and Ben Nelson. we didn't make those decisions, we railed against them. that the conservadems wants to blame us for this fuckup is beyond ironic.

[Blue_In_AK]

156. I agree 100%

It aggravates me to no end that truly progressive ideas haven't been given a chance for decades. It's so obvious that big money owns both parties. I've been a Democrat all my life, and I'll probably die a Democrat, but the party has been disappointing me regularly since 1968 (especially 1968) when I first became old enough to vote.

[Ignis]

173. Man, that would be nice!

I'd love to go into the polling booth excited to vote for a Democratic candidate more often, rather than simply against the Republican candidate.

[dflprincess]

177. I wish I could rec your response!

[emilyg]

180. Good one.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

202. Uatu approves this post.

[griffi94]

2. what if the democrats hold on to their majorities

and you lose your house or job anyway.
what if your own personal circumstances under the democrats is just about the same as it has been for the last 6 years.

what if the way businss is done in washington, you know with our federal govt. being overly influenced by corporate money, is about the same as it was for the last decade.

what if bruce wayne isn't really batman......i know he's not, because i'm batman.

[MineralMan]

6. What if it all got worse? Much worse? Can you imagine?

[griffi94]

15. no i can't it imagine it being worse

if your houe is gone and your job is gone and your money is gone.

when you've lost everthing how can it be worse. unless it becomes illegal to exist.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. I'm on the cusp of much worse right now, and use

as many fear tactics as you wish. IMHO, you are being condescending to many DUers. Do you believe they can really be swayed by your "what ifs".

[flyarm]

45. It already is worse..much worse..or aren't you paying attention and just blowing smoke?

aren't you damn LUCKY..perhaps you are not one of the people it is worse for!

Pretty selfish and condensending if you ask my opinion!

and outright ignorant!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. if wishes were fast trains, we would all take a ride.

[asdjrocky]

4. What if people die becaue they can't afford medical care?

What if we give Dems control of both houses in 2006, the white house in 2008 and my neighbors continue to lose their homes?

What if it's been almost 2 years and the Patriot Act is just as bad, and Gitmo is still open?

What if we give billions to the banks and they horde it, not loaning to small business?

I could go on, but the OP would just ignore the facts.

[MineralMan]

8. What if things got worse? How would that be?

That's what I see if you get your way.

[asdjrocky]

12. Let me ask you something-

Who is this left that you talk about in your OP?

[MineralMan]

16. The "left" that has nothing but criticism and no support for

Democrats. That left. The "left" that spends its energy complaining and suggesting that the current Democratic administration is the moral equivalent of a Republican administration. That left.

[asdjrocky]

19. It would help a lot if you'd supply us with a glossary of terms.so we could keep up with your

bullshit.

[griffi94]

22. would that be the same left

that turned out for obama in the iowa caucus, and rejected the centrist policies of the clintons, and donated time and money and turned out in droves to vote for a man who promised hope & change.

sadly once he was elected they were told that the president doesn't really have any power. and to expet very much is unrealistic, but they should turn out again because if they don't then they won't get the change that they're already not getting.

[nashville_brook]

32. MM doesn't understand that you can't browbeat people into loving their leaders

there's a sick relationship analogy in here somewhere.

[Individualist]

37. Hear, hear!

[LostinVA]

56. +1

[DirkGently]

73. Form a peaceful democracy or be killed! 8)

[nashville_brook]

74. the beatings will continue until morale improves.

[bullwinkle428]

207. "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

:evilgrin:

EDIT - Damn, I didn't bother looking at the follow-up posts to see the exact same sentiment expressed!

[flyarm]

51. You are on the verge of major delusion! Or you are already there!

me thinks you have far surpassed "THERE"

I am trying to remain NICE.

Pretty hard these days!

:hi: :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

52. I thought that was the right that 'has nothing but criticism

and no support for Democrats'???

The 'left' airc are the ones who supported Democrats and gave them the WH and both houses of Congress.

Are you sure you're on the right board?

[Subdivisions]

72. Democrats are supposed to be THE LEFT! Just what are Dems

supposed to be in your opinion?

[MineralMan]

5. Ah, four replies, but no answers. Maybe someone will actually

address my questions. I don't really expect it, but maybe.

I guess I'll just have to keep on trying to get Democratic voters to the polls to vote. We have a primary here on Tuesday, and I have some door to knock on for the 67th State Senate district candidate I support.

See you all later...

[Desertrose]

9. Well then, do what you gotta do andso will the rest of us.

Actually I thought the four replies were rather good.

Made some points you'd rather ignore.

[MineralMan]

13. Oh, no worries. I'm going to work as hard as I can to get

Democrats to go to the polls and vote for Democrats. See, I can see what will happen if we lose. If you think things are bad now, imagine what they'll be like with the Republicans in charge again. I have to try to keep that from happening.

Somehow, I don't think that bashing President Obama or claiming the Democrats and Republicans are virtually the same thing will help with those goals. Maybe you can, but not me.

[Desertrose]

21. There have to be some better dem choices....

I haven't seen any real proof that there is that big difference you seem to see between D & R. The results seem to be similar - it's just the tactics to get us there that are different.

I think if we were offered some real progressive choices and were able to get that message out, it just might give folks some other options.

I don't hate dems...I am just so damn disappointed that there is no longer a clear distinction....all we get are farther and farther right whackjobs. And no, of course I don't want to see them gain any more influence, but I'm not convinced keeping the status quo is going to EVER change things.

[nashville_brook]

62. i think that part of the problem the OP is having is that *the message* actually is getting out.

Maddow and Olbermann have covered Afghanistan, healthcare reform, and the great Gulf capitulation is excruciating detail, and these problems are gaining populist support which has left the orthodoxy behind the curve. all year long Dem leaders have readied themselves for an election where the swing voter...the average joe...is a teabagger. so every message and every vote has been carefully crafted to not paint obama as a (gasp!) socialist or environmentalist, or an anti-banker populist.

Dem leadership has is acting all gobsmaked that swing voters are lamenting the impotency of "too much to the right" policies of this term. too little stimulus. too little job creation. too deep cuts in education. too little support of labor. it's not b/c the all-mighty monolithic left is disappointed that this is in the news. "progressives" are only mentioned in passing. it's b/c everyday people are disappointed that this election is in trouble...and we've been saying this would happen...so, this is the left's "i told you so" moment, and the party partisans are trying to get out in front of the message.

[DirkGently]

65. Exactly. And how, exactly it the message that rightward

policies are not working helpful to "the opposition?" They're still claiming President Obama is a radical leftist. Whereas the failures tend to be rather in the other direction.

And let's talk "pragmatism," if that what this is about. These things that we are pointing out are, uniformly, in line with the demands of the right. Military aggression. Compromised human rights. This new disdain for environmental concerns. And yet these things gain exactly ZERO traction with the right. So, who are these things being done FOR, exactly? Republicans discount them or stay silent, while keeping up their monolithic obstructionist, "Obama as an alien threat" meme, and liberals are aghast.

Who's employing magical thinking here? Lefties who see the administration's failures every time it leans right, or Democrats and members of the administration who seem to think the key to political success is angering the left?

Who exactly is forgetting who their friends are?

[Desertrose]

77. Yeah... I think you make some very good points.

Thanks.

[griffi94]

11. i'm not sure what you meant

about 4 replies but no answers.

as to your "what if" you don't know what's gonna happen anymore thn anybody else.

it seems to me that the replies to your op are based on what's already happening,

[flyarm]

61. Most intelligent people keep decorm and refuse to answer dumb assed Questions

for fear of making the one asking the dumb assed question, appear as ignorant as they indeed are!

Gee give yourself a break, others here are trying to help you!

Because we know it couldn't be an agenda you are working ..so the alternative explaination, is obvious!

[sabrina 1]

68. I really think you did post this in the wrong place.

Shouldn't you have posted this at Red State or somewhere where it might actually be relevant?

Are you sure you're on the right board?

But now you got me wondering.

What if the 'left' had NOT supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008?

2)There would be no accountability for war criminals
3)The Rule of Law would not be restored
4)The Ban on Offshore drilling would have been lifted
5)Wall St., not Main St., would have been bailed out
6)We would still be killing people in Afghanistan and Iraq
7)Karl Rove et al would have been exonerated for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and the case would have been closed.
8)Torture victims would have been refused justice in our courts
9)Political assassinations would have been declared legal by a unitary exec. order.
10) Habeas Corpus would not have been restored and the vile MCA would be used to prosecute a child soldier
11)Whistle blowers would be going to jail
12)We would have gotten Mandated Health Insurance Reform with a windfall for Private Business
13)The privatization of the Public School system would be continuing
14)The privatization of Social Security would be 'on the table' again.
15)DADT would not have been rescinded

Mmmm ... if only we had elected Democrats ...

I'll be working for Democrats who supported and whose voting records show they were in favor of changing all of the above. How about you?

You seem a little confused to be honest.

In fact you seem to be very confused and you're trying way too hard to show what a 'good Democrat' you are.

Don't try so hard, it doesn't come across as very sincere, just so you know.

I hope you don't take offense, I'm just trying to be helpful ..

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

183. I had pasta and jarred sauce for dinner tonight

It made me think of you...

[Touchdown]

191. ...

:hug:

[Touchdown]

197. There were...

No rule violations in that post.

[LostinVA]

198. wtf???

[EFerrari]

7. Mineral Man bashing Democrats and sowing division again.

You really are on a roll!

[MineralMan]

10. Nope. I'm out campaigning for Democrats.

Didn't I just say that? I'm encouraging every Democrat I can find to get to the polls. Are you?

[EFerrari]

14. "What if the wishes of some on the left came true?"

If that isn't disrupting, I don't know what is.

And you're clearly not out campaigning. You're sitting at DU doing this.

[MineralMan]

17. So, you're saying that "some on the left" are not doing what I

described. Really?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

20. +1,000,000

On a daily basis. I think the Op makes it clear that he hates the left.

[inna]

187. yes, he does.

[janx]

26. It's a legitimate question.

A contentious topic, maybe, but that's not exactly rare around here. It deserves discussion.

[EFerrari]

30. Is it a legitimate question? Do you see "the left" at DU urging people not to vote?

No. It's not a legitimate question. It's a group slur and destructive to this community, imo.

And this is just the last in a series of similars.

I have zero problem with legitimate questions. Manipulative bullshit, not so much. But that's just me.

[flamingdem]

60. I'm sorry to say that there are many here encouraging a vote against Democrats

and democratic interests.

It's implied when not stated openly and I've read many posts that say "crossed this or that line and blah and blah, and I will never vote for Obama again."

[nashville_brook]

63. Bullying for votes -- not a good strategy.

[EFerrari]

84. Expressions of personal frustration is not what is being discussed here.

There is no campaign here against voting for Democrats. That's baloney.

[nashville_brook]

89. he's suggesting there's a "Leftwing Conspiracy" to undermine the democratic party -- rich!

it's division, disruptive and toxic. it would be deeply offensive if it weren't so pathetic.

[neverforget]

159. I think the only campaign on DU is make Democrats behave like Democrats

again....but some just don't recognize what today's Democrats have become: squishy centrists beholden to corporations.

[LostinVA]

186. +1

[laughingliberal]

204. +10,000 nt

[LostinVA]

185. No one her on "The Left" has encouraged a vote against "democratic interests"

NULLSHIT.

[janx]

199. There was nothing in the post that claimed

anything about the left (whatever that is) at DU urging people not to vote. The quote is:

"What if we failed to hold the Congress majorities in 2010 because we convinced the Democratic voters that there's really no difference between Republicans and Democrats, so why work toward electing Democrats?"

And there has been a lot of that here at DU. It reminds me of friends of mine who voted for Nader.

To an extent it's true because we're talking about politicians; politicians of any stripe can be and are corrupt, but frankly, I'm sick of the hyperbole and the provincialism on DU these days. The cliches are tiresome. We often see Orwell referenced, but nobody seems to mention his famous essay, "Politics and the English Language."

[griffi94]

24. and didn't i just say that i'm batman

[nashville_brook]

28. disenfranchising the democratic base of the Dem Party is/a weird way to "campaign" for Dems.

i understand supporting "your team" -- but know that "your team" is Democrats first/foremost -- and we are Dems.

As a divisive Dem, you're marginalizing your own voice in the course of your "campaign." You are literally "cutting off your nose to spite your face," which is something my grandmother said to me when I was a child throwing a conniption. She always said it with a laugh, too -- which is the only reasonable response to the spectacle of a tantrum.

[MineralMan]

31. The Democratic base is that group of voters who would never miss

an election, and would never vote for anyone other than a Democrat. The Democratic base knows what the result of losing will be. The base is not the group that only votes for Democrats when they feel moved to do so, and vote for third parties or stay home the rest of the time.

We seem to have a different definition of what the "base" is, among other differences.

[EFerrari]

33. LOL. You make crap up wholesale and attribute it to the other poster.

That's fabulous, literally!

lol

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Then why worry about "The Left"? Why bother tryng to convince people that we're a threat?

It's always amuses me to see "The Left" simultaneously seen as irrelevant and powerful. Our votes don't count until they can be used to convince folks that we "gave" the election to Bush or threaten Obama. :crazy:

[nashville_brook]

41. people of good faith must be able to advance their political positions without being bullied

and using shaming tactics.

[DirkGently]

47. Yep.

[flyarm]

66. are you speaking for yourself? because you have alot of nerve thinking you can speak for others!

or that YOU can decide what is important to others!

Alot of nerve, and if you think your tactic is going to get dems to vote or to the polls , you are sorely mistaken!
What you preach is a conservative republican Rovian tactic..we all recognise it well!

[dflprincess]

179. "The Democratic base...would never vote for anyone other than a Democrat"

In other words, the Democratic base is not really paying attention and will vote for anyone who puts a "D" after their name regardless of the positions they take. Apparently they're not a whole lot brighter than the Teabaggers - and that's just what those running the party count on.

It's why they hate "the left" or any other Democrat who is paying attention and expects the party and elected officials to be accountable.

[SoxFan]

192. The Noam Chomsky Chowder & Marching Society isn't the base

Hate to burst your bubble, but the whining ideologues aren't even close to making up the base of the party.

[flyarm]

64. be sure not to knock on my door..with democrats like you ..who needs republicans?

but you never appreared to me the knocking on door for democrats type! So I wouldn't expect you at any dem's door!

[LostinVA]

58. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. The Democrats are convincing the voters that there's little difference between the parties.

Not "the Left". "The Left" is just pointing out the lack of differences.

[MineralMan]

29. I see lots of difference between the two parties.

Enough that I can see just how much worse it can be. I've seen how bad it got, and it'll get much worse. We've turned the corner on many fronts, but we had, and have, a lot of obstacles in our way.

I think it would be a real pity if we threw in the towel after just over a year and a half. I see some progress in the correct direction. I'm sure hoping to see more, and I sure don't want to see things reversed.

[flamingdem]

35. +100

[EFerrari]

39. And that's fine. But turning different constituencies against each other

for sport is not fine.

[girl gone mad]

200. But, see, most people don't feel that it's gotten any better.

And there's the rub.

You can't really expect to win elections by proclaiming "Vote for us or it could be worse."

[LoZoccolo]

71. "The left" has not been able to point out one single legislator that votes like a Republican.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8728783

[nashville_brook]

76. LZ posts on DU and no one responds! major trend identified!

[LoZoccolo]

81. I invite anybody to do a search and find out how many responses my threads usually get.

Usually more than four.

[nashville_brook]

88. so, not a good day for LZ. and, that proves some sort of point about...?

[LoZoccolo]

91. ...the fact that no one has the hard data to publicly embarass me by showing me up with regard to

that particular question, or has bothered to research it, because they are employing irresponsible and dishonest hyperbole when they say that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. It is a favorite assertion of many on this board until they are asked to provide the details.

[LoZoccolo]

93. P.S. If you want to give it a try right now, go ahead. n/t

[nashville_brook]

95. Ben Nelson.

[LoZoccolo]

102. Asked and answered in the original thread. n/t

[nashville_brook]

96. Max Baucus.

[LoZoccolo]

111. ...votes 92.2% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000243/

[nashville_brook]

129. Max Baucus is a member of a caucus to oppose Obama's policies -- just so you know.

[LoZoccolo]

140. Did I say he wasn't? n/

[Raineyb]

155. I suspect you'll be hearing crickets. n/t

[nashville_brook]

97. Blanche Lincoln.

[LoZoccolo]

114. ...votes 83.9% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000035/

[nashville_brook]

133. Blanche Lincoln is the member of the Conservadem Caucus that opposes Obama policies.

Not your friend.

[LoZoccolo]

146. Did I say she wasn't?

[nashville_brook]

98. Evan Bayh.

[LoZoccolo]

115. ...votes 71.6% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001233/

[nashville_brook]

123. when you lie with the dogs...even 31.4% of the time... you're gonna get fleas.

deal with it.

[LoZoccolo]

130. Yet I'm still right and now it's understood why two-party equivalence is a breach of DU rules.

Because people don't come here to be inundated with intellectually dishonest nonsense.

[nashville_brook]

135. So, you're accusing me breeching DU rules -- please point out my infraction, Mr. Hall Monitor.

[LoZoccolo]

141. Did I? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

167. Do you understand what "broadly" means? If you don't, Skinner covered it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8603151



{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

[LoZoccolo]

168. Yeah? n/t

[nashville_brook]

128. Evan Bayh has literally organized a caucus to oppose Obama's policies -- and YOU support that.

just so you know.

[LoZoccolo]

143. I do? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

153. Not even the other members of this caucus seem to support the caucus.

Seeing that Evan Bayh is somewhat of an outlier.

[nashville_brook]

99. Michael Bennet.

[LoZoccolo]

117. ...votes 91.7% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001267/

[nashville_brook]

138. Member of the Conservadem caucus that opposes Obama's policies.

[nashville_brook]

100. Jean Shaheen.

[LoZoccolo]

119. ...votes 94.6% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001181/

[nashville_brook]

139. yet another member of the Conservadem Caucus that opposes Obama policies.

[LoZoccolo]

150. It doesn't look like they are doing a good job. n/t

[nashville_brook]

101. Mark Begich.

[LoZoccolo]

120. ...votes 93.1% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001265/

[nashville_brook]

142. yet another member of the Conservadem Caucus that opposes Obama policies.

[nashville_brook]

103. Tom Carper.

[LoZoccolo]

121. ...votes 93.7% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000174/

[nashville_brook]

144. yawn.

[nashville_brook]

104. Herb Kohl.

[LoZoccolo]

122. ...votes 94.8% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000305/

[nashville_brook]

105. Mary Landrieu.

[LoZoccolo]

124. ...votes 92.0% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000550/

[nashville_brook]

106. Mark Udall.

[LoZoccolo]

125. ...votes 93.0% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/u000038/

[janx]

175. Mark Udall?

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

107. Mark Warner.

[LoZoccolo]

126. ...votes 92.2% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000805/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. The majority of the Democrats voted with the Republicans to fund Obama's war.

[LoZoccolo]

127. ...is an attempt to move the goalposts and change the subject.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. Just responding to your question.

"Voted with the Democrats XX amount of the time.." says nothing about what they voted for/against. Which really should be the question.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

[LoZoccolo]

148. The point is that it cannot be said that there isn't some advantage to voting Democratic. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

152. Fine. It's up to the politicians to convince us of that.

If they fail to do so, or continue to vote with the Republicans and call it progress, they'll just have to look for other jobs.

[LoZoccolo]

154. Sure it is, when you don't inform yourself by looking up the facts. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

157. The "fact" you're avoiding is that the majority of Democrats voted to continue to fund a lost war.

[LoZoccolo]

158. That's because you are changing the subject, and I have no respect for that. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

166. This page you keep linking to is crap

Who defines what a "Democratic" vote is? The Washington Post? The DLC? Goldman Sachs?

Let's see rankings according to whose votes are actually compatible with traditional Democratic values. I guarantee you there would be no 90+% for the useless fucks you're defending on that list.

[LoZoccolo]

169. My point stands that there is still an advantage to voting Democratic. n/t

[Raineyb]

160. Exactly. Saying that Democrat X voted Y percentage of the time with Democrats

doesn't mitigate the times when the Democrats vote like Republicans. In fact it's meaningless bullshit but then considering the source that's not really a surprise.

Mark Twain had it right. And the percentage spouter is wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

161. The assertion is that there's little or no difference, and that's false.

Now you can give me an argument about why it's good to let the Republicans win when there is a difference.

[Raineyb]

164. And the times when they vote like Republicans are the BIG issues. So it matters when they do and

don't and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It's easy to vote Democratic on those things that most people agree on and even Republicans aren't inclined to fight overmuch. It's not so easy when we're talking the life-changing big ticket things.

When they vote like Republicans when it comes to unemployment insurance, health care, Wall Street reform (as in passing something that will actually do something rather than merely voting on the weakened bill), war funding, in other words all the big ticket items that make a huge difference in what direction our country is going in I could care less about the other percent of the time when they vote in the right direction when their incorrect votes are a hell of a lot more damaging.

If you vote like a Republican on the big things, those things that determine what direction the country is going in, you may as well BE a Republican because you're not doing shit to ameliorate anything.

[LoZoccolo]

170. How will voting third-party get you what you want with those BIG issues.

That's the topic of the thread, and still unanswered.

[SoxFan]

193. In other words, that is the Democratic position

And you, sir, are the fringe outlier.

[nashville_brook]

109. Kay Hagan.

[LoZoccolo]

132. ...votes 91.7% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h001049/

[nashville_brook]

110. Claire McCaskill.

[LoZoccolo]

134. ...votes 80.7% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m001170/

[nashville_brook]

112. Bill Nelson.

[LoZoccolo]

137. ...votes 92.8% of the time with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/n000032/

[nashville_brook]

116. BART STUPAK.

[LoZoccolo]

145. ...votes 96.0% with the Democrats.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001045/

[flyarm]

113. ++++++++++++++++++ 1 million! eom

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

188. rofl

[Hekate]

203. LoZoccolo, I salute you for remaining rational throughout this subthread.

Rational and informative.

Hekate

[Sebastian Doyle]

209. LoZoccolo, I salute you for remaining rational throughout this subthread.

....is a shit statement.

[Hekate]

210. Was I talkin' to you?

[Raineyb]

34. What if you stopped posting these bullshit what ifs that pretend to

be a thought experiment when they are actually rather ham-fisted attempts to browbeat those who don't agree with you?

What is the point of this nonsense?

[Individualist]

40. +1

I honestly wonder if he thinks he's fooling anyone. :crazy:

[flyarm]

67. +1!!!

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[DirkGently]

36. Unconstructive straw manning

The premise is no more true than Republicans asking why Democrats "hate America" when we criticize bad foreign policy, etc. The left is not rooting for Democrats or Obama to fail. That should not have to be stated, because there is no good-faith reason for that argument to be made.

Should we get down to the carpet fibers here and discuss what is really being suggested, which is that legitimate criticism of the administration should, by mutual agreement, or failing that, zero-sum factional warfare, be silenced? Does anyone want to openly defend that argument, or are we going to continue to see it hinted at and suggested from 1000 different angles? Does someone want to argue, straight-up, that Democrats or liberals are doing more actual HARM by refusing to gloss over actual problems than they would by shutting up and arguing monolithically for the infallibility of the party or specific leaders?

Or, would someone like to suggest that these problems are not real? That the continuing war in Afghanistan, or the continuing abuse of the State Secrets Act, or the sanctioning of targeted killings of American citizens without due process, or this smelly, spin-ridden adoption of BP's wildly optimistic take on the Gulf oil diaster, is some kind of unreasonable, irrational whining?

Does someone want to openly defend the idea rank and file citizen Democrats have an affirmative duty to bend or ignore the facts on the theory that this the way to "win?" Win what, exactly? Let's hear the case that liberals and Democrats need to be ruthless with the truth to achieve some theortical greater good.

Is there any way to conceptualize this view other than as demanding that people support "the lie agreed upon?" The lie that whatever one's own party (or country) is doing is good, not because of what people actual DO, but because of who they are when they do them? Is there any idea liberals and progressives should be more opposed to than this?

If not, I think people would be better off spending their energies discussing ways to improve the country and the Democratic Party with liberal and progressive views than trying endlessly to convince others that they need to adopt a monolithic, inarticulate, unexamined, unreserved support for whatever the national party and it's Leader(s) happen to be doing.

We can do better.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Another excellent post from you DirkGently. Thank you.

[nashville_brook]

46. they're welcome to their opinion, but they don't get their own set of facts. as voters

we're way more dependable than your average swing voter. all we ask for is a little good faith.

[DirkGently]

54. And it's not like it's going to "work"

Where is the constructive motive in suggesting that a substantial portion of liberals and Democrats, i.e., "the left" are bad Democrats? Where is the "pragmatism?" That kind of argument is intended to attack and rebuke, but cannot be expected to win people over. You can't kill people into liking you.

Anyone want to argue that "the left" should go away? Because attacking it and asking it to stop thinking is not the way to bring people on board.

[asdjrocky]

49. Indeed. nt

[flyarm]

70. Excellently stated!!! Thank you!

[yurbud]

44. you guys are doing a really good job of paraphrasing the same talking point over and over:

Either blindly accept and support everything Obama does, or let the Republicans win.

[DirkGently]

59. Yes. The familiar false dichotomy that screws up EVERYTHING

We are infected with this fallacy in America. It wan't long ago we heard "you're either with us or against us." No. Actually, we're all in it together, whether we like it or not. Let's leave it to Fox News to "balance" the world by lying on the theory that they have to in order to simply destroy whoever disagrees with them.

[jaxx]

53. If those wishes came true we'd be worse off than with dubya.

The repukes are meaner now, mad and frothing at the mouth because they lost in '08. Teabagging with their guns and their poorly spelled signs and their hatred of all things liberal.

Do I want to go there.....oh hell no. I'll work for the Democrats and I'll support them all the way. Even a blue dog is better than a rat bastard repub.

[flamingdem]

55. I shudder to think, the REAL REPUKE AGENDA is worse than we know nt

[Individualist]

57. Authoritarian bloviation. Unrec.

[LoZoccolo]

69. I've already seen a similar thing in 2000, and they will take no responsbility for their actions.

People can search for posts of mine where I mention the consequential effects of the 2000 election on the Supreme Court and other things for several years afterward, and see them say things like "that was years ago" and "you're still talking about that?" They have somehow divorces themselves from any sense of responsibility for their chosen tactics.

[flyarm]

75. excuse me ..in 2000 Gore won..My state was stolen by the Supremes!

that was after coming off 8 years of a democratic president.

Gore Won!

Don't put that bullshit blame on anyone but the Supreme Court! and a failure by the leaders of the Party, that by their STRATEGY, failed to get our votes counted!

[nashville_brook]

79. stolen by SCOTUS as well as by the corrupt GOP machine. but, election fraud is a CT.

so therefore it was The Left's fault b/c...Nader.

[flyarm]

82. If the Dem team had demanded the entire state be counted..the GOP would not have gotten away with

what they had.

And the Supreme's would not have been able to steal my state.

It was terrible strategy by the Dem party.

[nashville_brook]

86. bringing a spork to a knife fight. keeping that powder dry.

[DirkGently]

85. Dissent = disloyalty = Republican victory?

If that's the case, why have a discussion forum? Should we just talk about all the different ways all Democrats are right about everything, whatever they do?

Is the relevant discussion what members of the Democratic Party want the leaders to do, or simply how members of the Democratic Party can help its leaders stay in power? Setting aside the factual problem with the premise that the left can "win" by subordinating its principles in favor of political unity in the first place.

[nashville_brook]

87. the patient still dies.

[LoZoccolo]

92. Yes, that is exactly what I said. n/t

[DirkGently]

147. Isn't arguing a rightwing philosophy in support of Democrats

a bit self-defeating? Lockstep partisanship regardless of substance is an amoral position. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

[LoZoccolo]

162. I was being sarcastic.

I don't think I ever equated dissent with disloyalty. And I think that I've established that there is a difference in substance between the two parties in the subthread beginning with response #93.

[DirkGently]

171. The argument defies irony. You've created a fallacious measure.

Establishing that Dems generally vote together doesn't bear on the rightward drift at all. "Substantive difference" is not what we're talking about here. Setting the bar for alienating the left at Dems actually voting Republican is nonsensical.

[Born_A_Truman]

78. "Spealer" Boehner vows to repleal HCR; Issa will be in subpoena heaven ...

ETA: Meant to type "Speaker", but "Spealer" may be more accurate.

If they won back the House in November, Republicans would be granted the power to issue subpoenas by controlling the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Bachmann is not a member of the committee, but Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is its ranking member. Issa has already demonstrated his eagerness to invoke the power of subpoena, which he could use to cause legislative headaches and political paralysis for the administration. The California Republican has vowed to pursue a wide array of charges, should the Republicans win back the House.

Boehner said Wednesday that if he became Speaker of the House he would immediately repeal health care reform as it "not only ruined the best health care system in the world, it'll bankrupt the country." And last week, minutes after the Wall Street reform bill passed, Boehner said, "it ought to be repealed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/republicans-threaten-repe_n_657132.html

Let's take their next moves in order:

First, Rep. John Boehner, who would become speaker of the House should Republicans gain the majority, has already proposed a partial shutdown of government in the form of a moratorium on enforcement of new regulations. But that's the easiest sort of gimmick for Democrats to counter, and they did so last week. Are you trying to block safety standards for cribs and bassinets, Mr. Would-Be Speaker? Boehner quickly modified the plan to grandfather in the babies, but we've probably seen the last of that scheme.

Next, Republicans will want to make good on plans to cut spending. But the only serious plan they have, Rep. Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" gets no stronger endorsement than "It's a pretty good list of options" from Boehner, and Ryan himself apparently told an audience at the Brookings Institution that Republican candidates were "talking to their pollsters, and their pollsters are saying, 'Stay away from this.'" That's not surprising, since the plan privatizes Social Security, turns Medicare into a voucher program, and raises taxes on the middle class. But it's the only actual plan they've had since the beginning of the Obama administration.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_will_a_republican_majority_do_next

[MineralMan]

206. Thank you!

You're one of the few people in this thread to answer my questions. I appreciate that very much.

[havocmom]

80. What if DEM party purists embraced big tent over purity flame bait

What if we embraced Democratic Party Principles instead of trying to be GOP lite?

Given the choice between GOP lite candidates and GOP regular, voters seem to prefer GOP Regular. Why vote for near beer? And so, why work for right leaning DEM candidates instead of admitting voters want real choice and go REAL DEM.

[flyarm]

83. + 1 million! exactly! History proves that out! eom

[nashville_brook]

90. spot on.

[Odin2005]

151. Most Americans support traditionally liberal" policy positions

Both parties are to the right of most Americans.

[Odin2005]

118. Politicians have to EARN my vote.

The authoritarians can go screw themselves.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

131. "Politicians have to EARN my vote" Oh my, what a novel idea!

Same here.

[Raineyb]

165. Indeed.

I don't vote for any old person with a D after their name just because they claim to be a Democrat. I learned my lesson with Clinton I don't have to learn the same lessons twice.

[madinmaryland]

149. What if the CSA had managed to strike a truce with the Union in 1863?

:wtf: would have happened over the following years with two decided enemies living right next to each other? The possibilities abound.

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

163. You are 65 years old?

And you post such immature bullshit.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

174. Any links or support for your claim?

What if the wishes of some on the left came true?

Who wished this? When? Where? Why? Was it agreed with or shouted down? Was this on DU, or at your local black bloc meeting?

Or do you not do heavy lifting? :shrug: Fiction is certainly easier.

[MineralMan]

176. Well, that got a lot of messages. I'm sorry I wasn't able to

stay in the thread. As I said, I was out precinct walking. Just got back. Several people said that they hadn't been planning to go to the polls on Tuesday, but are going now. So, I count the time worthwhile. Thanks for all the replies.

[LostinVA]

189. rofl

[MineralMan]

208. What was so funny about that?

I was out walking my precinct. That's why I wasn't here to post in the thread. I'm the DFL Precinct Chair for Ward 6 Precinct 13 in Saint Paul, MN. I try to meet and talk to everyone in that precinct before every election. Tomorrow is our Primary election in Minnesota, and there are three Democratic Candidates for Governor and 12 for the local State Senate District. Voting in this Primary is very important.

You can see the Precinct's website (one of the few that exist) at: http://saintpaulw6p13.blogspot.com/

You may not like my positions. That's fine. But don't scoff at my dedication to getting out the Democratic vote. That's just wrong to do, in my opinion.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

195. I understand.

The persecution we heap upon you must be such a burden to bare.

Rest easy brave warrior, rest easy.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

194. "what if" I unrec this pile of crap

I guess we'll find out.

[Touchdown]

196. ...

[paulk]

201. of all the straw men you have posted

this has to be the largest

my god

what a waste of bandwidth

[quinnox]

205. unrec for arrogance laced with stupidity n/t

[Barack2theFuture]

211. I don't know, but at this rate, we'll get to *live* what happens when

the wishes of those on the right come true:

republican supply-side stimulus

republican supply-side medical insurance plan

republican supply-side financial giveaway

republican neocon perpetual foreign occupations

republican authoritarian infringements on civil liberties and human rights

republican imperialist unwillingness to hold the privileged accountable for crimes

we WILL find out "what if" for all these, thanks to the Obama administration