Thank you Michael Moore

[SocialistLez]

Though I sit here pretty damn depressed, I'm glad he put things in perspective:

"47% of the members of the Blue Dog coalition lost reelection.
in contrast....
only 1% of the Progressive caucus lost their bid to be reelected!"

I saw this on my Facebook feed from the American Progressive Party.

[lonestarnot]

1. We're in about the same boat as before the election, but don't thing we can hang wit

for 4 more years. The program is getting rough.

[bullwinkle428]

2. MM laid it out beautifully, didn't he?

:yourock:

[Fumesucker]

3. K&R for perspective..

[DFLforever]

4. It's good news if you don't mind being in the minority.

I prefer being in the majority.

[SocialistLez]

5. Of course I'd rather be in the majority but since we aren't........

[kenfrequed]

10. Right.

I think what Moore says does put things into a bit of perspective and lends maybe a silver shadow of hope to a sky seemingly covered in dark clouds.

Obviously we are in the minority in the House right now and nothing you, the poster, Michael Moore, President Obama, or even me in all my friggin omnipotence, can say will change that until November of 2012.

I do find it ironic that you put Wellstone up as your icon.

[DFLforever]

15. I'm curious, why is Wellstone ironic to a Democratic house

majority?

[kenfrequed]

18. It sounded like a rebuke

Perhaps I was reading too much into it, but I thought you were sort of critical when you countered with 'liking to be in the majority.' It was as though we had the option and 'selected' to fall out of the majority in favor of losing blue dogs.

[DFLforever]

19. Sorry, I didn't mean it that way.

I admit I'm not Michael Moore's biggest fan when he talks politics although I think his his social/economic commentaries are great.

[YOY]

16. We weren't intthe majority when we were in the "majority"

Thanks to our DLC Blue Dog assmonkey friends!

[HughMoran]

24. Yes, we didn't hold the gavel and pass the most progressive legislation for a generation

That was just a dream, right?

:eyes:


:eyes:


:eyes:

[YOY]

27. They were progressive like Gary Coleman is alive!

In our hearts! (and I for one little cowpoke will not stop a-dreamin'!)

Of course we're using the new definition of "progressive", ain't we? The one that goes along with "action liberal" relabeling for yesterday's conservative and yesterminute's moderate....

You poor man...you have so much failed policy to blame on others and redefinition to ensure of your own victimization...and so little time.

But we know you! You can do it!

[TornadoTN]

30. What in the blue blazes qualifies as "Progressive" these days?!?!?

Bob Doles 1996 Health Plan redux qualifies as "Progressive"?

[YOY]

17. We weren't intthe majority when we were in the "majority"

Thanks to our DLC Blue Dog assmonkey friends!

[sabrina 1]

20. But what's interesting about us being in the majority was

when big issues were on the table and WE, the 'professional left' pointed out that there was no reason why we could not set the agenda, we were told 'you don't get it, Obama and Pelosi are not only dealing with Republican obstructionists, they have to deal with the Blue Dogs'. I always found that to be very frustrating. Because either a majority is a majority or it isn't. But often, it wasn't, because of the Blue Dogs.

After hearing this often enough, I decided that we really weren't in the majority if this was the case. Blue Dogs + Republicans according to those who claimed we could not do things we wanted to, put us in the minority.

So, it was decided to get rid of them in primaries. Rahm thought we should not support their opponents and that slamming them was 'fucking retarded'.

It was confusing. Sometimes we were IN the majority because of the Blue Dogs, and the next minute, when we wanted a 'pony' or something, like Health Care or an end to torture or jobs, all of a sudden we were back in the minority. Because of the Blue Dogs.

Since every major progressive issue became impossible, because of Blue Dogs, I understood that to mean that having them in the party just gave us a number which didn't translate into being able to act like the majority party.

Now half of them are gone, replaced by people who will probably vote not much differently. I don't see the loss of the Blue Dogs, based on what we were constantly told, as any loss at all. Why should I, given the excuses of the past four years?

Seems to me things won't change all that much. We won't be fixing Healthcare as promised, e.g., because Republicans will never support a PO. But neither would the Blue Dogs.

I would love a majority that is not made up of mere numbers. But we've never had that so far. Now, since we don't have to waste time and money on primaries in those districts, I think we have a chance of getting at least a few real Democrats elected.

[kenfrequed]

21. Better said and more tactful than I have been

I have been cursing Evan Bayh's name and wishing for a deluge of dogshit to fall on his yard. You are more sensible than I.

[sabrina 1]

22. Lol, 'a deluge of dogshit'! I think it just happened!

Well, I notice that the story of the Blue Dogs and why we ever needed them, is like ever shifting sand. So, I simply didn't count them anymore as part of the Democratic Congress. Maybe they weren't that bad, but that's what we were told.

I however, thought that with good leadership from the WH, the Speaker et al, party members no matter what their differences, could be brought around for major issues.

That's why having a majority is so desirable, isn't it? You get what you want more often. Well, Republicans do anyhow.

In 2006 we were all ready to start kicking ass and taking names, but before we even got started we were told: 'we can't do it. We need MORE of a majority. The Blue Dogs are a problem.

In 2008, keeping that in mind, the base delivered 'more of a majority'. But again, it wasn't enough. The Blue Dogs still seemed to control the party's agenda.

When this happens no matter what you do, you can only conclude that someone is pulling your leg. That the real problem is, they don't want progressive legislation.

And that is what I concluded. And that is why I'm glad they're gone. If they're not there, they can't be used to excuse inaction on the part of the party leadership.

[DFLforever]

25. I viewed our majority as a coalition

but one that was formed under the title, Democratic Party out of various state parties before an election, rather than after, as in Europe. The blue dogs allowed us to form a majority and control the House even though they couldn't or wouldn't support some of our key legislation. So now that they and other Dems lost yesterday we've lost a key part of our coalition and our ability to control the House and power to pass any legislation. Looks like Rahm may have been right after all though I don't think the 'professional left' had anything to do with their defeat. They were defeated by the Democratic agenda.

[sabrina 1]

26. I think we got that. That the numbers would give us control of the

House. But what good did that do as far as a progressive agenda is concerned? Every progressive idea put forward for the Health Care legislation was shot down either by the WH or by the Blue Dogs.

Having a majority and control of the House and Senate AND the WH means you should get some of your issues taken care of. On all the major issues, Offshore Drilling, Health Care, DADT (which should have been easy) War Crimes dealt with, Social Security protected, the end of the Bush tax cuts, prosecute corporate criminals etc. etc., we lost. Corporate America won. What I am saying is that while I originally bought the notion that we needed them, even though I didn't like the idea, I have totally changed my mind.

I would prefer to have a smaller majority in the Senate eg, 53 or 54 real Democrats all committed to getting their progressive agenda passed, and willing to end the filibuster, than to be hooked on this 60 votes nonsense because we have so many rightleaning Dems that we cannot get anything done without compromising and watering down so much, it's hardly worth the effort.

Iow, I'm done with the theory that having these Democrats in name only in Congress just for the numbers, is somehow beneficial to us.

We had more committees looking into Bush era crimes when we were in the minority. What happened to all those committees? Sen. Leahy's committee to restore Habeas Corpus, the Torture committee, the Karl Rove subpoenas etc. What happened to all that? Maybe we are better in the minority after all.

[Laelth]

28. Hear, hear! n/t

-Laelth

[mitchtv]

6. good diagnosis, MM

too bad no one was listening

[KaryninMiami]

7. He's right and it helped a bit- but I'm still sad about losing Feingold and Grayson

Also Ron Klein here in South Florida. Really important progressive voices. So yeah- Michael is correct and it is a good perspective, but last night still stings a lot. And being a Floridan welcoming a Tea Party Senator and a Governor who is a criminal, things are not feeling all that rosy at the moment.

[SocialistLez]

11. I can understand. I truly can.

The loss of Grayson and Feingold stung.
I cannot believe so many people in FL are so stupid. ::sigh::

[devereaux]

8. I am for childrens' nutrition

...and the safety of the elderly.

Moore is right, the Congress needs to go all out to get things passed, and let the Republicans try to filibuster.

[unkachuck]

9. which goes to show....

....if given a choice between a fighting Progressive and a corporatist, most people will choose the Progressive....

[devereaux]

14. People should read up on Fighting Bob LaFollette

One of the Senate's greatest....a legendary man from Wisconsin. It's a travesty we lost Russ Feingold to an empty suit.

[Naturyl]

12. Blue Dogs get stomped, progressives take minimal losses = liberals ruined everything!

We call that MSM logic.

[SocialistLez]

13. "Logic"

Yes yes.

It's a shame most people will eat this crap up.
The Democratic Party will probably continue their rightward slide unfortunately. ::sigh::

[Safetykitten]

23. Best interview on tv after this shitstorm.

[mod mom]

29. I didn't see it on this thread so here's what I found:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-in-the-news/video-michael-moore-last-word

[yodermon]

31. Blue dogs didn't lose because they were too CONSERVATIVE..

..they lost because they lived in very conservative DISTRICTS, and the simple crime of being a DEMOCRAT was enough to get voted out.

The Progressive Caucus have the LUXURY of being progressive because of their liberal DISTRICTS, duh!!

Grayson "should" have been a blue dog for the past 2 years based on his constituency. He wasn't (obviously) and he lost anyway.

Do you really think if Blue Dogs had been all Liberal (not necessarily even to Grayson-levels) they would have fared better??? Really?????