Rift? I gothcer rift .... right here

[Stinky The Clown]

Where the hell did this meme come from? It seems to me 'rift' is being driven by agents at the right edges of the Democratic Party, not unaided by the opposition's 'journalist' operatives.

It also seems to me there's more unity in the work-a-day party, not less.

Ned Lamont is often cited in these 'rift' screeds. That's a cause for a head scratch, now isn't it? Ned Lamont is a Democrat. Ned Lamont wants to be the next US Senator from Connecticut. Using time honored traditions, Ned Lamont mounted a campaign to win that seat. Ned Lamont also faced a challenger. Just because that challenger is currently sitting in the seat Ned Lamont is aiming for does not give that challenger any more right to the seat than Ned Lamont. Mr. Lamont's challenger has the backing of some well organized and well funded groups. And that's fine. That's what makes for a race. But to call the normal course of a little-D-democratic process a 'rift' is more than disingenuous. It is a flat out lie. Mr. Lamont's challenger has every right to run. He's self described as a Democrat, too.

These same 'rift-writers' always seem to go the right edges of the Democratic Party for quotes. I wonder why that is? How would they frame a discussion of a challenger to a sitting California Senator who is 72 years old? Ageism? A rift? Surely not what it actually is - an exercise in party politics and a time honored tradition of little-D-deomcratic process.

When a party has been moribund for years and steadily declining in national power, it is a normal thing to see some changes. And if that party has been moving to the right, where its opposition holds sway, is it not just plain smart - and natural - to try to pull back to its base? If that happens not to be where some of its elite - and somewhat out-of-touch - 'leadership' is, so be it.

There's no rift in our party. Its just that, in this day and time, an actual little-D-democratic process is sadly all too rare.

[Clovis Sangrail]

1. I think there is a rift

opening up and I think it is being exploited by people on the right.

I don't think it is because of the Lamont race.
I think it's because with the latest Democratic congressional votes a lot of progressives have finally had enough.

Personally, I will no longer support any Democrat just because he/she is a Democrat.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Lamont is but one example

As the most well known, I used it in my comments.

As you say, the issue is much bigger. But it is no rift.

And ...... vote for a Democrat. There are many good ones.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. I won't vote for Feinstein

simply because she's running as a Democrat.
My choice as a Californian is likely to come down to Feinstein, who voted TWICE in support of the guy that believes probable cause isn't needed to invade my privacy, and somebody other than a democrat.

This will result in my either not voting for senator at all or not voting for the Democratic candidate.
I will not vote for Feinstein simply because she's a Democrat.
Not after what she has done.
I really don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.

When an incumbent candidate votes in a manner that is not only NOT representitive of their constituents but is considered treasonous by their constituents they should NOT be supported... regardless of party affiliation.

If a large amount of people feel that way, and that appears to be the case, I would consider that a "rift"

[Stinky The Clown]

4. No, that's opposition to a candidate

Or even to a number of candidates - mostly incumbents. But that's hardly a rift. A rift is whern there are two factions, out in the open, trying to rip the party apart. What we have here is a lesser struggle between the party base an a small but powerful group who want to take the party too far to the right.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. call it whatever you like

a number of people are no longer willing to vote for bullshit democrats just because they're democrats

I think this disillusionment is more likely to manifest itself in people just not voting than in people voting for a third party... regardless it's still a loss to the Democratic party.

Whether this turns out to be enough people to be considered a "rift"... we'll see come election day.

(I'm actually really curious to see what happens in the primary)

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I understand and respect your passion, but I think

you may have completely missed the point of this post.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. I don't think so

I think we just have different definitions in our heads about what a rift is.

You see it as a defined party split; I see it as anything that splits that party.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. No, I think the difference is that I **don't** see a split in the party

I see, instead, members of the party who are quite likely in the majority - at least of the base if not the elected elite - finally exercizing their political will.

Much like the country, a good bit of the party was being run by a cabal of sorts. I don't wish this thread to degenrate into a flame war as its intent was to have a message of unity. But the .... well ..... the DLC has been carrying power far out of proportion to their actual numbers. What some see as a 'rift' I see simply as the base wrestling back their rightful place as the power base.

The primary challenges against the worst of them - people like Lieberman, alluded to in the OP - is a single act in the larger effort to take the party back. The only poeple to whom seeing it as a rift is useful are those who do not have the best interests of the base at heart. They need to manufacture some sort of nefarious subplot to make themselves be seen in a better light. I prefer to see it the exact opposite way.

[Clovis Sangrail]

14. your an optimist

our country needs that :patriot:

I have very little optimism regarding politics and tend to paint things as I see them rather than as I'd like them to be

the country needs that too ;)

[heartofthesiskiyou]

5. It's a rift no doubt.

For too long the progressive side of the isle has taken it up the pooper. I am little burned out on 30+ years of this garbage being pedaled that we need to just shut up and work for the party.

People like Fienstien will not take me for granted any longer. A more proper position she should be taking is she's going to have to work for and earn my support. If the dems aren't interested in taking back the congress then so be it. How many times can we tell them get some spine? Keep on fighting us instead of working FOR us is a prescription for their final demise and will force us to go green or some other place to get the representation we want and deserve. As far as I can see they don't want our support.

[madfloridian]

9. It's about Iraq and internationalism, and spreading Democracy..

especially to the middle east. That is just about where the rifts begin.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Please see my post Number 10, above

I think we're on the same page, except, maybe, we don't agree on whether or not there's a rift. I argue that what some would call a rift is a manufactured device to make their position more tenable.

Unfortuantely for them, those would have us see a rift are the only ones who benefit from the rift by being seen as 'leadership under fire'. They wouldm only be half right. They're under fire. But they're not he leaders. they're simply the ones that managed to get enough people to vote for them ..... last time.

This coming midterm is 'this time' .... and if they go, then there is no more (fake) 'rift'.

Again, I think we're on the same page.

[madfloridian]

12. The word "cabal" you used was quite good.

Yes, we are on the same page basically.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Same pages

I know. And that's not a change of late.

:hi: