Why do some people here want our party to be a "small tent" purist party like the Teabaggers?

[jenmito]

Don't you realize that if we vote out any Dem. who isn't progressive/liberal, we'll be in the minority? We won't be able to get ANYTHING done. Now, with our "big tent," we get a heck of a lot more than we would in the minority.

[Arkana]

1. Because their bruised, delicate egos demand purity

and the good is ALWAYS the enemy of the perfect. By fire be purged.

[jenmito]

4. I agree...

I thought the teabaggers were the only people who didn't really care about the consequences of their "purity."

[Wardoc]

59. Purity? LOL! How about actually voting with a spine???

[FSogol]

2. Because for many people it comes down to them being able to say,

"I'm more liberal than you."

:shrug:

[barb162]

6. Too true. n/t

[onehandle]

3. Nader 2012.

Too soon?

You know it's coming and some will eat it up like Rush eats up pills.

[TheWraith]

21. Hell, some people here are already cheerleading for it. nt

[barb162]

39. He's too old, way too old to be running in 2012. n/t

[onehandle]

54. He wouldn't be running to win. He never does.

90,000 Florida voters can't be wrong...


...er

[HughMoran]

5. Simplest answer ever. They. are. not. "our". Party.

Not Democrats. Why do you think they get all pissy when the rules stating we are supposed to support Dems are posted?

[Robb]

7. +1. nt

[jenmito]

9. So, are they the Green Party?

The Leftbagger Party? :shrug:

[HughMoran]

13. Purity over Party

There will be NO compromising.

[depakid]

43. Policy over party and politicians

especially stand for nothing parties and politicians.

That's how it is for a lot of folks- and all of the scolding, foot stamping and name calling isn't going to change that fact.

If you sell your constituencies down the river repeatedly (along with the public interest) in an attempt to forge a center right alliance- you'd better hope those center right folks and corporate interests will come work for you and GOTV in greater numbers than you lose.

[Hamlette]

68. so it is all about you.

I keep hearing "they sold us down the river" not "what can I do to make it better".

Sorry we hurt your feelings. Sorry you didn't get a pony.

Poor baby.

[Ildem09]

107. your damn right

all politics is personal to paraphrase Tip. if you don't feel like your getting a fare shake why would you support a party or a person. I am a hard core democrat not because I believe 100% in what the party does or acts. but rather because they are the lesser of two evils. if I don't get what I want for me and mine piss on everyone else. THATS politics.

[Aramchek]

95. thanks for the Aussie perspective

[girl gone mad]

49. Oh, the irony.

:rofl:

[spoony]

72. I don't want those small tent purists in my big tent! Out!!!

:D

[jenmito]

89. You sound just like the RWers who accuse US of being intolerant because we won't tolerate intolerant

people. :eyes:

[spoony]

94. Yep, pointing out that liberals are a part of said big tent is SOOO right wing of me!

Maybe you can spend a few hours going through my post history and find something juicy to throw at me, eh? Lol.

[jenmito]

101. No-you didn't understand the post. He didn't say liberals shouldn't be a part of the big tent...

of COURSE they should be. He is saying that there are "purists" who AREN'T Dems., since they're always fighting AGAINST any Dem. but the most liberal Dems., which would make us a SMALL tent and keep us in the minority if they had their way.

[barb162]

8. You make total sense

which doesn't get very far with a few people around here. Better to be a big tent and get the votes I always say.

[jenmito]

12. Thank you...

I don't think some people MIND being powerless. As long as they can claim they're "holier than thou."

[barb162]

26. Bingo: 'As long as they can claim they're "holier than thou." '

and a K&R!!!!

[jenmito]

36. Thanks, barb!

:hi:

[barb162]

42. Hey, when you're right, you're right.

:hi:

[depakid]

10. Ironically- this very attitude has driven Democrats from the majority

and kept them there before. Just as it's threatening to do again.

Bizarre that it's such a difficult lesson to learn.

[jenmito]

15. WHAT very atitude-wanting to be a big tent party? n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

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

[rpannier]

22. The big tent arguement was what I heard from the conserva-Dems in the late 80's and early 90's

as they helped drive us from the Senate and the House majorities

To be successful, we need to establish a set of principles that define the Party and make it clear, we welcome you, but this is what we stand for and if you don't like it...Well, then we're not for you.

The disastrous handling of the Senate Health Insurance Bill is testimony to that

[barb162]

35. Any time there is a really large party one will have left and right wings

and centrists. That's in any really big party of any country.

"...we need to establish a set of principles that define the Party and make it clear..."

Sounds good, but who writes it? It would have to be very general I think.

This has been going on with the Democrats since the 1950s or before...I am thinking of some Southern Democrats of the 50s and 60s.

[oxymoron]

56. +1

[barb162]

30. I know, I know, I know.

It's amazing it keeps happening.

[dave29]

58. This is not about lessons. It's not about history. It's not about ideology

It's about winning. You don't have the courage to win. Period. You want Democrats to lose.

[depakid]

76. If you want to win- then you'd better do what it takes

Not so difficult really- seeing as how off the deep end Republicans manage to do it- repeatedly, even when they're on the verge of being relegated back to the fringe, where they belong.

All things considered- seems like some sets of folks lack the killer instinct- which is why they lose policy battle after policy battle.

Republicans on the other hand, aren't so reticent.

Hence your current predicament.

[dave29]

84. You want Democrats to lose.

.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. It'd be nice if our Party more reflected the MAJORITY of voters.

As in, the majority is pro-choice. The majority wants a solid public option. The majority wants real, positive change.

[HughMoran]

16. Cherry picking a couple of issues that are contentious. Oh, and consider the alternative

You're not part of the solution, therefore...

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Who are you talking to?

Not me, I think.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. Yeah gosh, if we wouldn't be so insistent on the public option and A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Jesus God.

Fail.

[jenmito]

17. The majority of our party DOES reflect the majority of voters...

but the way our govt. works, we need a super-majority to get most things done. We don't have that. But it's better to get SOME things done then NO things done.

[depakid]

32. You need political will and fortitude (and the perception of it) a LOT more than a supermajority

Republicans have it- ask yourself why Democrats don't.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. I agree. And pointing out that the US Senate, for instance, is structured in such a way

that rural, conservative voters have a FAR greater voice in the government than their numbers deserve (even before you take into account the regular use of the filibuster as a legislative tool instead of a rare, extreme measure) doesn't mean I think anything can or even should be done about it.

Yes, I agree with you, get SOME things done. But we get MORE votes when we strongly articulate the views MOST Americans believe in; get government out of people's bodies and personal business, stop wasting money and time on "values voter" bullshit, let's get serious about HC reform.

And on that last point, I'll say what I keep telling my wife: If Health Care reform were easy, Roosevelt would have got it. Truman would have got it. LBJ -who got some- would have finished the job. Clinton would have got it.

I understand what we're up against. But I still think we do better -in terms of voters, in terms of everything- by standing clearly FOR some things instead of endlessly trying to split the difference and please everyone.

[depakid]

29. Here's what the majority looks like (hint: it ain't what the corporate appeasers tell you it is)

Dems were elected with a mandate- which bit by bit- they're squandering, while aligning themselves with the very corporate interests that caused the problems in the first place.

The majority (and often the SUBSTANTIAL) majority support progressive positions on the issues- as shown quite clearly from credible data (note that this was prior to the crash):

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

Summary:

Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.

This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following ... The role of government ... The economy ... Social issues ... Security ... The environment ... Energy ... <and> and Health care...

In short, a look across the scope of American public opinion reveals a public that holds progressive positions and supports progressive solutions on economic issues, on social issues, on security issues - indeed, on nearly all the key issues confronting the country. For years, the conventional wisdom has maintained just the opposite, but the facts are impossible to ignore.

MUCH MORE: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/why_a_conservat.html

See also:

Pew: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007.
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

Executive Summary: http://people-press.org/report/?reportid=312

[girl gone mad]

51. Thank you for this, though the corporatists will ignore it...

just as they've ignored poll after poll over the past few months saying the majority wanted a public option, no mandates, serious banking reform, an end to the wars, no more bailouts, etc.

"Centrist" and "moderate" are misnomers. The DLCers are the extremists in the party.

[oxymoron]

57. +1

[namahage]

64. The majority also opposes same-sex marriage. Do you really want to go there?

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf#page=41

[Warren DeMontague]

75. That's changing, and rapidly.

Look at the numbers versus 10 years ago.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Political xenophobia. NT

[jenmito]

19. Exactly!

Well put. :D

[Blaukraut]

18. I think it's more the flaw of our two party system

If we had a more parliamentarian government, like in Germany, where multiple parties get to have a seat in the house and form coalitions to pass legislation, we'd probably feel like we were being represented more fairly.

[treestar]

103. The coalitions would upset the purists

They'd be furious that the Greens compromised to join in the votes on a bill.

So I don't see that system as helping them. They'd be raging at their own members for voting for just about anything.

[JI7]

23. from what i see, those people seem to want to join the teabaggers

they look to attack Obama for anything and make excuses for teabaggers.

[jenmito]

24. Some HAVE joined the teabaggers

with the likes of Jane Hamsher.

[rpannier]

25. Ah the name-calling, demagoguery is out in full force

It's a nice attempt at spin, but that's all your post is

[niceypoo]

27. 'Straw man' is a better analysis

Set up the 'straw man' then have a circle jerk around it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

28. The whole point of a treehouse is to be able to pull up the ladder, n/t

[Larkspur]

31. How did you feel when we CT Dems primaried Joe Lieberman?

Did you think we should have worked hard to oust Unholy Joe or should we have returned to your veal pen and allowed Lieberman to inflate his bloated ego further?

[JI7]

34. this isn't a Primary election

[jenmito]

41. Being that CT is a blue state, I was all for it.

:shrug:

[verges]

69. Primaries and General Elections are two completely different critters!

[JVS]

33. There's a medium between absolute purity and total ideological incontinence.

HCR just demonstrated that our party is more than capable of undermining its own agenda, without republicans saying peep.

[ProSense]

37. My hope is that Coakley wins by a large margin

and disappoints the shit out of the media, RW and vindictive assholes.

Kidding....











I'll take a modest win.

[BlooInBloo]

38. Despite the annoyance of it all, there are also some decent learning experiences to be had...

For example - This Greenwald article is traditionally one of my go-to's whenever I hear about republicans whining about those mean Democrats: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/02/self_absorption/index.html

One thing I've learned is that the scope of application of the main thrust of Greenwald's article is somewhat more broad than he perhaps originally appreciated.

[dkf]

40. We can let them be in the party but we can't let them make the decisions.

They are the minority of the party not the majority.

[jenmito]

44. Until the rules in the Senate are changed,

they CAN make the decisions.

[dkf]

46. No. If you let them get away with shenanigans they will

Just have to be tougher and not give in. Make them work harder for crumbs. Olympia snowe did not dictate republican policy. Nor did Susan Collins or Arlen Spector. We just don't know how to herd our people properly.

[depakid]

47. There's also no good reason why Democrats can't use reconciliation

though it would seem that a lot of folks don't understand that.

Or it could be learned helplessness from watching and making excuses the Dems inability to get it done (and,or pander to the right) for so long (and I'm not necessarily referring to the OP here- it's a LOT broader and deeper than that).

[dkf]

52. Yes reconciliation was and is the way to go.

Obama letting the insurance companies jerk us around will be the end of the democratic majority. We cannot let this happen.

[DJ13]

45. Why are some people threatened by those who want to offer real alternatives

.....to the muddled neo-liberal/conservative policies that have nearly wrecked this country?

Theres nothing wrong with giving voters REAL choices instead of pre-packaged Barbies and Kens that spout the same fiscal nonsense no matter which party label their operating under.

[firedupdem]

48. Rec'd...

It's truly unbelievable.

[WeDidIt]

50. They're politically naive. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

53. Because it is easier to stay pure and call for revolution than to get dirty an make one...

Governing is messy and ugly. It calls for compromise. People who demand all or nothing find it easier to live when the other side is in power. They can keep their conscience clean and do nothing to change things.

[Sebastian Doyle]

55. Ask your boss, Mr Emanuel about that.

He wants to cut the tent in half with a chainsaw, and burn down the left side.

[Ildem09]

60. Let's see what the GOP was able to do with their pure base

damn near everything they wanted.

what have we done with moderates and feckless rubes?.......... damn near everything the republicans wanted.

[verges]

71. They wanted to lose in '06 and '08?

Because that's what their purity achieved. They pushed the pure agenda and got booted out!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

62. When the 'tent" gets so big it includes ---

people who want to take away my rigths, deprive others of theirs, or sell out the very values of the "tent" they are in, then it is time to ditch the fuckers and reach out to others who may be more in line like the Greens and Libertarians.

[niceypoo]

66. What is considered the 'center' now was the 'right' 20 years ago

The frogmarch continues

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Because those people ARE teabaggers.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

90. Better get used to it

Because unless things change rather quickly and dramatically- that'll be the theme for 2010 and beyond.

[hulka38]

73. There should be an unrec tally at DU if only for this ridiculous thread.

[jenmito]

92. Well, it's at +3 right now.

:shrug: ;)

[hulka38]

106. Sky's the limit jen.

Straight to the top! :hurts: <--- figured if i'm gonna use an emoticon it might as well be this one

[boppers]

74. WP:UNDUE... it's everywhere.

I can tell you from working on Wikipedia for almost 7 years, that no matter what the issue is, there is a small, vocal, minority insisting that the world *can* and *should* agree with their perspective, and that everything else is a conspiracy of some kind.

[hulka38]

77. Is it a conspiracy to claim that big banks, health insurance companies and big pharma

are paying for legislation under this Democratically dominated government?

[boppers]

80. Yes.

Anytime a person thinks that any sort of massive "conspiracy" is against them, I refer to one guy, getting groceries.



A conspiracy may be real, but complaining about it is silly.

Taking action is not.

[hulka38]

86. The word "conspiracy" has morphed into meaning false, zany paranoia. That's false.

I'm taking action by pointing out to people what keeps running them over. Tank #1 would be Wall Street bankers, tank #2 would be the war complex, tank #3 big insurance, tank #4 big pharma..

[grahamhgreen]

78. Right, since we all agree on the public option, lets not be 'small tent' coporatists!

[DrToast]

79. I just don't want the party to be run by Joe Lieberman. Is that too much to ask for?

[MadHound]

81. If you don't want a small tent party,

Then you need to start addressing liberal issues and throwing liberals a bone once in a while. It isn't the liberals who have defined the Democratic party in increasingly smaller circles, it is the centerist/DLC/DNC sector who have done that. After all they have the power in the party now, they are the ones who have refused to give liberals a bone, they are the ones who have told liberals that if you don't like it, leave.

Well then, we're leaving. Why the hell would we stay with a party that punishes us everyday of the week except on election day? Liberals aren't asking to have everything our way, but we would like a few things to go our way once in a while.

Blaming liberals for leaving a party that has essentially kicked them to the curb is like blaming an abused spouse for leaving their abuser.

Don't like liberals leaving, then get the party to change. Give liberals something to vote for, not simply something to vote against.

[jenmito]

105. That's bull...

The fact is that there are quite a few conservadems in congress. Look how many are anti-choice in the House! But to say they're as bad as Repubs. is ridiculous. There ARE issues on which even the most conservative Dem. is on our side. It's better than nothing, bottom line. But the "purists" would rather have nothing, rather vote all conservadems out and be in the permanent minority.

If you seriously think the libs. have nothing to vote for, you must be purposely ignoring those very things. I won't give you a long list of these things since they're always ignored or minimized. But we DO have things that we wouldn't have with a Repub. president and a Repub. congress and you KNOW it.

[mochajava666]

82. "When voters are given a choice between voting for a

Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time". Harry S. Truman

Thom Hartmann does a great job of illustarting that an energized base is much more powerful than policies that are so compromised that the base is left out of the process. Here is the link.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0324-12.htm

I suppose that makes Thom Hartmann also a small-minded simpleton that can't count to sixty and wants a pony, hates Obama, and wants the Republicans to win.

That Senate Gang of Six was very conservative, and that group shaped HCR more than anything else. Complaints about Obama shitting on his base are not the same as the complaints that the tea-baggers have. Quite opposite, actually. I wish Obama was actually somewhat of a socialist, and less of a pawn to the banking, military and health care industries.

[Vinca]

83. The party might consider not taking the left so much for granted.

Right now, we're beloved when there is an election underway and tossed aside once the votes are in. They should throw us a crumb once in awhile. DADT would be a fast and easy fix. What are they waiting for? I like the previous poster's Harry Truman quote. Democrats shouldn't pander to Republicans.

[Phx_Dem]

85. I can't imagine. And you're so right about what a disaster that would be.

[IndianaGreen]

87. Corporations are NOT persons! Yet they occupied the best seats under the tent

while the people are outside in the freezing rain.

You should have never sold out the people for the health industry!

[Aramchek]

96. the Health Industry was so eager to cover all those people with pre-existing conditions, huh?

[Warren Stupidity]

100. No but their investors were quite happy at the mandates

and the lack of meaningful reform. Why would the health insurance industry oppose legislation requiring people to purchase their product?

[Aramchek]

102. having to cover people who are really sick is going to cut deeply into their profit margin

[treestar]

104. Oh baloney

For fuck's sake!

[PassingFair]

88. Why can't we be just like Republicans and still win elections?

Why can't we slam unions?
Why can't we undermine abortion rights?
Why can't we serve Wall Street and corporations?

It's JUST NOT FAIR!

:puke:

[freddie mertz]

91. It is the DLC-inspired politics of the last year that is killing us.

"Purists" are not the ones painting us into a corner.

It's Rahm and the WH "Centrists."

There is a lot of "populist" anger and anxiety out there in the general public.

They are fed up with a political establishment owned by the banks and insurance companies.

The pukes are doing everything they can to exploit that anger and anxiety, while Dems seem to be in the hands of the forces they resent.

The WH seems, at long last, to be getting the message, and suddenly, Obama is starting to TALK a bit more populist.

If they can get from that stage to the actual promotion of good, working and middle-class friendly policies, then we may have a chance in 2010.

We need a change of plan, and it has nothing to do with being "purist."

It is about returning to solid Democratic principles.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. I just want it to be 'our' party.

Right now it isn't, and it hasn't even remotely been the party of working people since the early 80s. It is owned and operated by the corporate kleptocracy. We have a deformed crony capitalist 'republic', a republic of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. The kleptocracy operates both major parties and all major media outlets. If the center right half of the duopoly wins an election it is fine with the kleptocracy, if the far right half of the duopoly wins, it is even better. Until we, the people, wise up about what is going on and why, nothing is going to change.

[showpan]

97. Our BIG Tent is being occupied

by the same corporations. What we need is a strong anti-corporatist party that stands up for the common people. As seen by most of us, the Democrats are no longer the answer. We either need real Democratic candidates or a new party since this party has been overrun with people who call themselves conservatives but aren't really conservative at all, just like the other party.

[ShortnFiery]

98. "What we need is a strong anti-corporatist party that stands up for the common people."

Amen! :patriot: :toast:

[golfguru]

99. How about "REAL" healthcare reform instead of

Health INSURANCE reform and mandates?

[LWolf]

108. I haven't seen any who want that.

We want to "be" the change we wish to see; not "be" the change the opposition wishes to see.

I think that labor, women, educators, environmentalists, supporters of civil liberties, supporters and defenders of the U.S. Constitution, leftists, liberals, socialists, communists, atheists, human rights activists, and practitioners of all ecumenical faiths make for a pretty big tent, myself.

I don't think it's wrong to want to exclude fascists, fundamentalists, corporatists. misogynists, racists,and homophobes.

[jenmito]

113. All you have to do is read some of the replies on this thread and you'd see it.

Conservadems ARE better than teabaggers.

[LWolf]

116. A quick glance at replies

shows a hell of a lot more people bitter about supposed "purists" than any actual "purism."

[jenmito]

118. You said, "I haven't seen any who want that."

Would you like to retract that since your latest post says something different?

[LWolf]

119. No, I wouldn't like to retract that, and

I don't have a "latest post" that says I, or anyone else, wants Coakley to lose.

If I ever feel I need to retract anything, I'm sure I can handle it without any prompting on your part.

[GreenPartyVoter]

109. I think big tents don't work. I think it's too great a spectrum that they are trying to serve and

it winds up with so many people trying to go in different directions instead of pull together. (Obviously you can experience similar issues in smaller groups, but it's just guaranteed in groups the size of the two big parties.)

[jenmito]

112. It managed to work with HCR so far. And people thought it WOULDN'T work...

and if there were Repubs. in their place, it wouldn't work for sure. If this bill gets passed, it will be historic. It wouldn't be possible without the majority, and a majority wouldn't be possible without a big tent.

[shadesofgray]

110. Because I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-civil rights. That's why!

[jenmito]

111. So am I. But some of the Dems. in Congress are not all of those things...

but they're most likely at least ONE of those things compared to the Repub. in their state that is NONE of those things. If Dems. aren't a big tent party, we won't get ANY of those things addressed.

[depakid]

114. Reality check.

Those issues don't get addressed BECAUSE people like that are not only invited into the tent- but into positions of power )or empowered by shortsighted leaders) where they block legislation or policies.

Worse- in so doing, they blur the contrast between the parties (making it seem that Democrats are weak and stand for nothing) and they alienate the base.

Lose/lose all around.

[Odin2005]

115. I don't want a "small tent", I just want to kick the corporatists out of the tent before they...

...burn the tent down.

Our politicians need to learn the difference between real compromise and capitulation.

[cornermouse]

117. Up is down.

Left is right. Black is white. Ben Nelson is now liberal, Kucinich is now conservative/moderate. Yada, yada, yada.