Ah Yes, Once Again, The "Split the Left" Strategy Is Hard At Work

[Yavin4]

Wanna know why union power has declined?

Wanna know why we don't have national healthcare?

Wanna know why the quality of life for working and middle class Americans has fallen in relation to other industrialized nations?

Wanna know why the Military Industrial Complex is bigger now than it was during the Cold War?

Wanna know why key social programs go unfunded?

Wanna know why income disparity has grown exponentially since 1980?

Because the left cannot stay united for five fucking minutes and lacks any real political maturity. If the left cannot get EVERYTHING it wants right now, they bitch, whine, and bolt for the hopeless true "progressive" star leader who never seems to materialzes. This Split the Left bullshit between the ideologically pure and the common sensical ones has been going on ever since the 1968 Dem convention in Chicago.

In 1968, anti-war protestors tore apart the Dem convention in Chicago, and Nixon was elected. In 1980, a sitting Dem president got a primary challenge from the left, and we got Reagan/Bush I for 12 years. In 1992, briefly, the left came together with Clinton, but that unity disappeared in 2000 when Gore ran and lost the presidency because Gore was not ideologically pure enough. The political reward for that piece of brilliance was Bush II for 8 years.

Obama has been president for less than 100 days, and once again, right on time, here comes the ideologically pure left starting up bullshit once more. Krugman is the latest leader of the "Split the Left" movement, and the defense of Krugman is that someone needs to push Obama more to the left. Really? Like the Chicago protestors did in 1968? Like Ted Kennedy did in 1980? Like Jesse Jackson did to Dukakis in 1988? Like Nader did to Gore in 2000? This shit has never worked in the past, and it has brought us Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Some Liberals will never learn and will never understand the dynamics of American politics.

Some would then retort: "Do you want us to be lemmings like the Republicans? They're out of power." Hmmm...let's see. When in power, the Republicans unite around their leader, and every Republican politician, pundit, and economist extoll their virtuous leader. So, yes, Republicans are lemmings and they're out of power. However, look at what they accomplished by being united whilst in power:

Compare the top tax rate in 1968 vs. today.

Compare defense spending as a % of GDP in 1968 compared to today.

Compare income disparity between 1968 vs. today.

Compare healthcare coverage between 1968 vs. today.

And on and on. Yes, the Republicans are out of power, but they have gotten almost everything they wanted whilst in power.

In sum, get off Obama's back. He's trying to make change in a political system that's been dominated by right wing ideology for almost 30 years, and it's not going to be easy nor simple. SUPPORT THE LEADER THAT'S TRYING HIS BEST TO DO RIGHT BY US AND PROGRESSIVES INSTEAD OF TEARING HIM DOWN AT EVERY FUCKING TURN.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT OBAMA, THEN DON'T FUCKING BITCH AND COMPLAIN ABOUT A MITT ROMNEY / BOBBY JINDAL ADMINISTRATION IN 2012.

[MADem]

1. Most of the "splitters" have a different agenda entirely. It's not even subtle. NT

[azmouse]

2. Yep...

It's time to fight the RW and not each other.
Let Obama do his job.

[babylonsister]

3. I love Obama, but a lot of what you wrote has to do with history

and what happened pre-Obama and the problems he has to tackle.

I guess that's the point. :fistbump:

[firedupdem]

4. I support my President. He's doing a fine job. n/t

[bluestateguy]

5. The Left has a lot of whiny selfish interest groups that are not team players

I'm not going to say who they are because I don't want to open up that can of worms, but it's pretty obvious who they are if you taker a look around for awhile.

[Skittles]

37. go ahead, say who they are

I fucking dare you

[LostinVA]

64. +1

[QC]

120. He doesn't have the balls to do it. n/t

[Bluebear]

136. +1

[Maven]

154. +1000

[CANDO]

43. I'm part of a selfish interest group!

I'm a 20 year Teamster member. I'm a pro-labor interest group, which makes me one of the most important parts of any Democratic coalition. I'm an advocate of single payer national health insurance as well as the EFCA and also taxing the hell out of the wealthy to pay for it all. When I see any Democrat not doing what I want them to do, I will god damned speak up about it! If you or anyone else around these boards don't like it, tough shit! If the left doesn't hold them accountable and expect Democrats to be Democrats, then let's just hand it back to Republicans! The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[HopeOverFear]

51. AWESOME! And when we DO hand it back to the Republicans

you'll be able to say "told you so!" Ah, what satisfaction. But at least you would be proven right. And isn't that all that matters, really?


:sarcasm:

[LostinVA]

63. What matters is Dems supporting Dem positions -- but you already know that

Gays, women, racial minorities, Labor, etc. should NOT STFU. They are not "whining" if they ask for their rights, ESPECIALLY when they ask for their rights from any Dem in power.

It is obvious that either you don't get it or you do get it but don't give a fuck.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted sub-thread

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

[martymar64]

129. You know, I'm liking you more and more every day

You really get it, not like the self-appointed commissars and arbiters of what constitutes valid criticism that have infested this site as of late.

Good on ya!

[Political Heretic]

151. We are strange allies these days.

You need to post more.

[Lord Helmet]

157. Bill Clinton screwed over the gays big time & you asked for a second helping with Hillary Clinton.

Maybe you are hoping others can't see through that giant hole in your rationalization of the Clintons throwing gays under the bus. And Hillary did women no favors by playing the victim card as often as she did.

It is obvious that either you don't get it or you do get it but don't give a fuck back at ya.

[Two Americas]

102. that is backward

The Republicans are out of power now because the people have rejected Reaganomics and the religious right - they did not reject the political Left, and the political Left is not the threat to the future success of the Democratic party.

The Republicans have been in power because of the compromising by the Democratic party, and the promotion of "moderate" and "centrist" politics.

You may not agree with that, and I would be more than happy to debate it at length.


...

[CANDO]

112. I just don't get the meme.

We strive to get our side elected, and then we're supposed to sit down and STFU so they can go about their business. No, that's not politics... it's being stupid! FDR had the left pushing him and giving him political cover. LBJ famously told MLK he needed support from the street to get Civil Rights through. But not now in the 21st Century, we're supposed to zip it and get the hell out of the way. Go vote and just STFU. Well, I sat and watched Bill Clinton run NAFTA right up our asses in the 90's. Perhaps the left didn't speak up loud enough or clearly enough for him to get it. President Obama, I promise you I will not go away quietly. I'm a Democrat and I'm mad as hell because we've had far too many Democrats in name only around our party for the past thirty years. The very people our leaders should fear the most is us on the left.

[Djinn]

140. if FDR was in today

he'd have no impetus whatsoever to push the New Deal, he was open about only doing it to save capitalism - there was huge LEFTY pressure and the ruling class were worried there'd be a revolution.

Were it to happen again (and it may well do given what seems to pass for economic policy in the Democratic Party these days) I'd not be surprised to see many here on DU yelling at folks for joining mass strikes because we need to "support the President and give him time"

[CANDO]

161. My greatest fear is the right will be leading the charge.

In the wrong direction! They have a populist streak in them and if we on the left are being told by our own people to sit down and shush up, we are in for a hell of a ride.

[Djinn]

169. in my more bleak moments I think they've truly won

the introduction of the term "middle class" has totally muddied the waters, which was a deliberate ploy by the ruling class to "split the left". I've had members wail at me that they're not working class they're "middle class". If you rely on your income to survive you ARE WORKING CLASS and you have nothing in common with the leeching class who are entirely opposed to your interests.

You might be middle INCOME, but if you could only keep your house for a month or two following loss of income you are working class.

During the Depression this became starkly obvious, maybe if the economy bends us all over as much as I fear it will in the coming years we'll see it again - and your avatar will be far more prevalent.

Until then quite a few will identify with the boss class because they continue to labor under the misapprehension that they too could some day become one of them. Bizarrely this misapprehension seems more prevalent in the USA than in any comparable western developed nation despite the fact it's far less likely to happen there than in UK/France/Germany/Australia etc

[bluedawg12]

110. I'm pro-labor, I am not labor pre se, but I am a Democrat

and I support you and the labor movement.

I also have my own special interest and we all make up part of the Democratic coalition and I expect we should all support one anothers causes.

I don't understand where personality has come to trump party and policy for some.

I also support your right to speak up.

We are not monochromatic, monolithic repigs.

No one says it like a teamster! You rock.

[Djinn]

138. Exactly

n/t

[indimuse]

143. bingo!

Maybe President Obama DOES NEED our voices..Power in #'s... :) besides...you don't ask(demand) you don't get!

[Arkana]

48. We certainly do.

Both sides of the political spectrum have their demons, as much as we do not like to admit it.

[Barack_America]

49. Yup. That's just about it. Nobody splits the Left...

...like the Left.

[Raineyb]

69. When fellow "team" members sell us out we ought to speak up. And damn loudly at that!

The Democratic party has a lot of selfish corporatists who don't give a damn about their actual constituents. These wolves in sheep clothing aid the Republicans every chance they get. It is not those who try to hold Democratic officials feet to the fire who are the problem.

You've got it exactly backwards.

Regards

[Lyric]

70. Yeah, I just can't IMAGINE who you might be talking about.

Your sneaky subtlety has just undone me.

:eyes:

[yodermon]

127. PETA. He's talking about PETA.

I'm series.

[Jamastiene]

99. What? Are you too chicken shit to come on out and say who?

It sure seems that way. :eyes:

[Vanje]

100. Its....

Its those fucking GAYZZ again isnt it!!???

[Two Americas]

106. what on earth?

What on earth is this little post about?

Are you hinting around about some group of "them" here? On a board full of Democrats?

That is disgustingly vile and bigoted.


...

[Bluebear]

139. Don't be surprised, unfortunately.

[Bluebear]

137. Chickenshit

[roughsatori]

164. ...

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. Common sense says 8 years of horrific damage aren't going to be made all better in under 90 days

Obama isn't being called any names by the Republicans that FDR wasn't called

Lincoln's first 3 years were fraught with failure and frustration. If you think Obama has problems with his cabinet, you should see the problems Lincoln had with people like Simon Cameron.

Let's see where we are a year and a half from now.

[Political Heretic]

7. I both support President Obama and am critical of some of his decisions....

....as is my right, no my responsibility, as a citizen in this democratic republic.

The more people keep telling me to sit down and shut up the more I am certain I am doing something right.

[Laelth]

44. Hear, hear. Well said. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[MannyGoldstein]

8. We're Still Going Full Speed Ahead Towards The Iceberg

But there's a new captain, so be nice.

[TBF]

145. K&R this excellent post. n/t

[Maven]

155. !!!

:applause:

That was beautiful.

[Political Heretic]

9. Also you keep using that word "left." I do not think it means what you think it means.

I have never been united with corporate centrists whores and I never will be. So if "unity" means things like supporting the new Blue Dog coalition of Democrats, or if it means that I am never allowed to disagree loudly about a single decision our commander and chief ever makes then, with all due respect, you can fuck right off.

[napoleon_in_rags]

26. I think the problem is that we don't realize we don't HAVE to act like Republicans.

Specifically, we don't have to elevate personalities to God/Devil status which has the effect of obscuring what's really going on. How else could Republicans convince America that they had a bad leader not because of his policies, but because of his penis? We just have to refuse to get in that form of argument: whether Obama is a God or a Devil. He is neither, and to debate it plays into plutocratic hands. He has some really good progressive policies and some bad ones. And us DISAGREEING on those POLICIES is part of what moves us forward and makes us an informed electorate. So yes, disagree.

[Runcible Spoon]

53. !

:applause: :yourock:

[denem]

10. Marxists, in fact, generally consider Democrats as worse than Republicans.

The Democratic Party is the 'Good Cop' to the GOP's 'Bad Cop' for the Ruling Class police. Change, real change, can only come with a popular(ist) uprising, overthrowing the system. Band aid progress only delays the inevitable, and therefore should be marginalized or critiqued.

Hillary after all was worst than Bush. She was an enabler. And there's the rub. The Democratic Party enables an inherently exploitative, morally bankrupt system, capitalism, to stagger on past it's use by date.

Enablers, aka liberals, even social democrats, are the worst kind traitors of all. The revolution will not be televised.

[Pirate Smile]

12. How many Marxists are on DU bitching about Obama?

:wtf:

[camera obscura]

14. Hey, why should the Republicans get all the red-baiting fun?

Next up, someone can ask the administrators to investigate DU for anti-American sentiment!

[Pirate Smile]

17. I'm used to Republicans like bat-shit crazy Michelle Bachmann calling Democrats

Marxists but I haven't seen a lot of people calling themselves that.

[denem]

15. Front Page: Flim-Flam Obama Man by Paul Street. 70 Recs.

Mr Street is a disciple of Leon Trotsky, most recently bemoaning the absence of a popular mass uprising.

[chill_wind]

22. That makes THEM MARXISTS? n/t

[LooseWilly]

113. Uhh, Trotsky was a Marxist...

So, if he's a student of Trotsky, then yes it does make them "MARXISTS".

On the other hand, not everyone considers that to be a bad word (after all, it has considerably more than 4 letters...) . Your response seems to take for granted that it is a bad word. It is, however, simply a reference to a socio-economic philosophical theory/model devised by a man named "Marx", hence "Marxist". Kind of like fans of the economic theories of a guy named Keynes being referred to as "Keynesian".

[bluestateguy]

13. Oh, brother

Is that drivel from the book your professor put on the reading list this week?

[denem]

16. No it's marxist orthoxody. You might start with a history of the Spanish civil war.

[napoleon_in_rags]

24. Your ignorance was revealed when you said "Hillary was worse than Bush"

How? On what issue? Oh, on NO ISSUES.

[denem]

29. The point was obviously that Hillary WAS NOT worse than BUSH.

[napoleon_in_rags]

132. hehe. Sorry, see #131 below. nt

[LooseWilly]

114. I think you missed the point

The point was, from the point of view of the Marxists, given a belief in their interpretation- that Democrats are worse than Republicans as far as the eventual mass populist uprising that is desired like a left-wing apocalypse-- from that point of view, Hillary can be seen to be worse than Bush, in that she turns back the tide of the surging anger that will lead to that proletariat uprising.

Of course, if you're not a (Tyler) "Dyrdenian" Marxist/anarchist... well you're interpretation is liable to be different...

[napoleon_in_rags]

131. Apologies for knee jerk.

I had a sudden flashback to the trenches and gunfire of GD Primaries when good dems were getting shredded here :(

[Odin2005]

25. That's why I get pissed off when DUer start pushing Marxist BS.

People that think they to fuck things up in order to bring on their "glorious proletarian revolution" are sick, evil, immoral bastards. Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.

[Two Americas]

160. that is a malicious smear

That is a malicious smear. You are calling some group of people here - not defined, but implied to be any and all people who may disagree with you - as "sick, evil, immoral bastards."



...

[Laelth]

45. That's true.

Socialists criticize FDR for saving capitalism. We could have had a real socialist revolution in the U.S., socialists argue, had not the New Deal made capitalism more palatable for the masses. Personally, I am a liberal ... one who wants to use the power of good government to save capitalism from its own excesses ... but you are still correct, as far as I know. Socialists see liberals and conservatives, both, as part of the problem and not part of the solution. Liberalism enables capitalism. There's no doubt about that. It's just a little less vicious than conservatism, but it's part of the same economic machine.

Pay no heed to the ignorant responses you have gotten. It's clear you know what you are talking about and that many here do not.

:dem:

-Laelth

[CitizenPatriot]

11. Cheers to you- Well said

It's really bad when the first blood-suckers we see are from our own camp. Sure, things will never be perfect and there are times and ways to apply pressure. But must people publish every fucking whine they have? We need to grow up if we want to get things done. We must not be the hall of mirrors the right has become -- and we are much more prone to that than they are. Which is scary.

We can't unite for longer than several days.

Some of us get so focused on one agenda we can't see the forest for the trees.

We should be paying attention to politics and trying to win back the language and frame the issues in NEW ways. That's how we can help accomplish our agendas in the long run. The right did it to us - they reframed the way America thought. They stole the language and "owned" "values". We need to let moderates know what values we stand for and why they want to stay in this party. Not just as a reaction to bush, but for the long haul.

every thing we do publicly should be geared with that idea in mind. the moderates win us the power to achieve our agenda. I don't mean we cater to them by changing our agenda, I mean we woo them to see things the way we do. We frame issues in non-threatening and positive ways.

My two cents for whatever it's worth.

[Odin2005]

27. Exactly, too many people are obsessed with pet issues and ideological sacred cows that they miss...

...the big picture. Every time we try to unite and get things done the ideological purists start screaming and flinging manure people people refuse to agree with them 100%, usually over some minor issue that for some reason is some sacred cow of the Baby Boomer Culture Warriors.

[Raineyb]

46. Right because universal health care is a "pet" issue.

Not trusting the same people who ruined the economy to fix it is a "pet" issue. Not wanting to escalate war is a "pet" issue. Because these things will only benefit oh everybody.

You do people a disservice when you reduce criticism to a mere "pet" issue.

Regards

[Pisces]

62. Were your ears clogged when Obama said 2000 times he would send more troops to

Afghanistan??? I heard him clearly and still voted for him.

[Raineyb]

72. No. But that doesn't mean I gave up my right to petition him to change.

If you think it does then you are the one with a problem.

Regards

[PassingFair]

88. I never heard the bit about leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq, though.

Must have missed that part.

[Pisces]

98. You missed the part where he said we would have noncombat troops stationed in Iraq

even after we left? I heard that in the debates and his Q & A's.

[PassingFair]

128. 50,000 of them....?

I never dreamed he meant that many.

[martymar64]

130. So when are you shipping out?

Or is it only OK if other people's kids get sent off to die in a foreign land?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

174. so did I

[Starry Messenger]

116. Thank you. n/t

[cliffordu]

18. Yep, K&R.....

[quickesst]

19. That's as close as anyone....

...has come to nailing it so far. There are two ideological wars. The one between the left and the right, and the one between the left and the left. It's small wonder we rarely win anymore, and when we do, seem not to want it for very long. Like it or not, we'd better hang on to it because I don't think Kucinich will ever see inside the White House except as an occasional visitor, and if this president fails, or is even perceived as a failure, "the people" won't be too eager to elect another dem anytime soon, although quite honestly, I don't believe any of this is lost on the harbingers of doom. It's the price they're willing to pay for "purity", future generations included. Thanks.
quickesst

[TreasonousBastard]

20. I hear ya! And while we're at it...

the calls for Reid and Pelosi to eat shit and die can go, too. From Day 1 of taking over the House, the Senate, and then the White House, before anyone actually took office there were calls for impeachment, resignation, and drawing and quartering.

I see Reid finally got all pissed off about it and told the self-described "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" to eat shit and die themselves. Fat lot of good it did him for his troubles.

This is still a democracy, and for every issue there is at least half the population that does not agree with us 100% and they have to be dealt with. Too many of us don't get that complaining about our leaders not getting 100% of what WE think is best doesn't get us anywhere.

The Republicans were succesful largely because they could argue amongst themselves, but when the battle lines were drawn they united to win the war. We can't seem to do that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. You defend Spineless Reid in the name of "unity"

Yet that piece of shit stands behind the Republican asshole Evan W. Bayh and all the other obstructionist DLC/Blueballed 'Pukes who are doing exactly the opposite.

And Pelosi took Chimpeachment "off the table". Think we might have averted at least SOME of this economic disaster if we had gotten that piece of shit out of the White House in the first half of 2007?

[TreasonousBastard]

34. And here we have the problem...

impeachment was not a possibility and both Pelosi and Reid have been doing decent jobs in most respects.

But, the screaming about them continues, not because anyone can compare their performance to others in the past with those jobs, but because they didn't do a few specific things some people thought ought to have been done.

It's just so damn easy to sit up there on a cloud and demand that things be done the way you think they should be done. That's the upside of not having any power or responsibility.

[Runcible Spoon]

61. The fact that you think Reid/Pelosi's problems are restricted to the impeachment issue

tells me as much as I need to know about your perspective on this.

I'm not on a fucking cloud, I'm in the streets every week busting my ass to try to end these immoral and illegal wars. Not that I deserve any special fucking medal, but it sure would be nice if some of these "Democrats" lifted a finger to enact change. Yes, enabling the status quo is much much easier.

Pelosi et al could have chosen to do any number of things and they chose to enable Bush on everything from war and torture to the mass selling-out of our public lands and resources for corporate exploitation.

I don't know why I bother with you; you've got your mind made up so it's just gonna go round and round and round.

Enjoy the path of lazy capitulation while it lasts.

[TreasonousBastard]

134. Terribly sorry to point out your reading problem...

but my post was in response to another one which seemed to assign too much importance to impeachment, or the failure thereof. Nowhere did I ever say whether or not Reid or Pelosi had the problems people here ascribe to them, much less over impeachment. I always thought impeachment was a sideshow.

I don't know what you're out there on the streets doing, but how's it been working so far? We've been in at war for how many years now? And who's listened? I've been protesting and acting out since the 60s and can't see a damn thing it's ever produced but Attaboys for being a good activist. Running around with petitions has been just about as effective.

And, as far as "enabling" goes, I've been watching Congress long enough to know that they can rarely do anything all by themselves. Especially Democrats, who are constantly divided into two or three parties, each screaming at the others.

My Democratic Party out here is nothing like the one I was part of in Queens, which was nothing like the one in lower Manhattan, and which was a world removed from the three, possibly even four, Democratic Parties I was involved with in New Jersey.

Out on the street is a great place to get people help with food, housing, and other good stuff, but it just ain't where the power is if you want anything changed. For that you gotta go to the Permanent Government, which means start with your local party boss, and be sure to bring introductions and money.

[Runcible Spoon]

147. Unfortunately, on the streets is the only place left to be.

It would be nice if there were larger numbers.

Nobody is giving us SHIT. It's time to demand it. Of course, I'm fresh back from Argentina so I've seen the possibility of a country where the government fears the people. It was empowering.

[PassingFair]

77. Hell, we could have averted the IRAQ WAR if we had stuck together!

Blaming protesters for Nixon!

War profiteering corporate dems are
our REAL obstacles!"

That we haven't already dissolved into
a feudal system is entirely due to the
"divisive" influences the OP so derides.

:hi:

[Sebastian Doyle]

80. The OP is right that the Left has been "split"

However, the blame doesn't go to the left. I won't name the guilty parties, but their initials are D, L, and C.

[jmondine]

21. Fucking Judean People's Front!

[LostinVA]

65. WTF is this supposed to mean?

[NoPasaran]

76. Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

[struggle4progress]

23. Grooving in Chi (Terry Southern / November 1968)

... "This is a final warning. Clear the park. Disperse. You have five minutes to disperse. You have five minutes to get out of this park!" ... Burroughs looked at his watch, and with that unerring awareness of which he is capable, muttered, "They're coming." At that instant, the banks of searchlights blazed up on the armored van which was already moving toward us. Fanned out on each side of the van were about a thousand police ... They didn't arrest them, at least not right away; they beat the bell out of them, with nightsticks, and in one case at least, the butt of a shotgun. They clubbed them until they got up and ran, or until they started crawling away (the ones who were able) and then they continued to hit them as long as they could. The ones who actually did get arrested seemed to have gotten caught up among the police, like a kind of human medicine ball, being shoved and knocked back and forth from one cop to the next, with what was obviously mounting fury. And this was a phenomenon somewhat unexpected, which we were to observe consistently throughout the days of violence, that rage seemed to engender rage; the bloodier and the more brutal the cops were, the more their fury increased ... Tear-gas fumes began to permeate even the locked door, and at the height of the slaughter five or six kids were pushed through a plate-glass window on one side of the bar. The cops rushed in after them. "Get the hell outta here!" a cop was yelling, which they were trying to do as fast as possible. But something was wrong with one of them, a thin blond boy about seventeen. "I can't walk," he said. "You'll walk outta here, you little son of a bitch!" said the cop and clubbed him across the side of the head with his stick ... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/retro/southern.html

[olegramps]

144. Don't you just feel the love that the cops have for people.

I always wonder about people who actually believe that cops are good guys with just a few bad apples. Every time that they have been in control they have abused their authority. Who would want to be a cop except some bully that longs for authority.

[Odin2005]

28. Ideological puritanism leads to a totally worthless party of one.

This pathetic ideological puritanism, if taken to it's logical extreme, leads to totalitarianism and the brutal suppression of criticism. These people have become what they claim to hate. Compromising with those you disagree with is not some moral fault, it's an essential part of Democracy.

[dcindian]

30. My question is why do you love the right more then the left?

Just another shut up post by another rightist.

All of the affects you wrote can be as just as easily explained by using the right.

You rightist just don't get it. It is because of you always telling us liberals to shut up we have all of those things. You never stand up for whats right and fold at the drop of a hat.



Whhaaaaaaa it's so hard being a lefty its o.k. repukes we won't try hard for what we believe in.


My question is why do you love the right more then the left?

[tkmorris]

32. What a load of unmitigated horseshit

You pose a number of questions and then blame the Left for the answers. That's crap. CRAP I say.

"Wanna know why union power has declined?"

I know why. Because Republicans have worked hard to destroy unions while some Democrats have cowered in the corner instead of supporting them.

"Wanna know why we don't have national healthcare?"

Again, because some Democrats didn't have the guts to stand up for it.

"Wanna know why the quality of life for working and middle class Americans has fallen in relation to other industrialized nations?"

Same reason as above

"Wanna know why the Military Industrial Complex is bigger now than it was during the Cold War?
"

Because defense contractors have shitloads of money and Democrats take it too. Between that and voting for pork for their state, even if it's unneeded defense department pork, plus an innate fear of being seen as "weak on defense", you get stupid spending on the pentagon's pets. Go ask Diane Feinstein about it, she's got all the good gossip.

"Wanna know why income disparity has grown exponentially since 1980?"

Because virtually every Democrat politician at the national level sees themselves as being on the top part of that chart, besides which those are the people who pay for re-election campaigns and too many Democrats would rather hold onto their seat on the gravy train than support their actual constituents. Every single one of them knows that their constituents and the people who pay the big bucks to keep them in office are two VERY different groups of people. Guess which one they care about?

Your presumption that protesters in Chicago, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, or even Nader cost us ANY of those races is specious at best. The reasons for those losses are myriad. Putting them all down to a simple "opposition from the left" meme is just plain addle-minded.

Virtually, no I just checked, ALL of the questions you asked have to do with corporate and monied power versus the needs of plain middle-class people. Consistently Democrats have failed to stand enough for those middle-class people in favor of corporations and the rich instead. Why do you think that is? Because the Left whines too much? I'd say it has more to do with the way campaigns are paid for in this country than anything else. When every single politician of note is FORCED to start raising re-election campaign monies starting the day they first take office, is it any wonder we the people are losing ground?

[Yavin4]

36. The Republicans Thank You

Liberals like you are the reason why they get their way because in the end they can always count on your disillusionment.

[Runcible Spoon]

55. And "liberals" like you are why we have "Democrats" like Pelosi, Reid et al.

Idiot.

[PassingFair]

92. "Liberals" like YOU are why we don't have health care and are

bogged down in an immoral and illegal war.

Don't get me started on NAFTA and
Wall Street deregulation...

[LooseWilly]

119. Theres a difference between disillusionment and analysis.

And, as has been said, all the problems of "divisiveness" that are blamed on the "left" in the post can just as easily be attributed to the divisiveness of the "right" (or Democratic "right", which should more properly be called "center").

In other words, go fuck the high horse you rode in on. Some of us are not willing to just buy into the notion that somehow the "center" is inherently the correct point of view. Remember, the "center" is just an arbitrary definition used for a rough collection of political notions... it is not some sort of holy Platonic Golden Mean.

And yes, I do believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth... the problem is that the math is more complicated that way...

[stillcool]

41. Why wouldn't the interest of

the corporate and moneyed be paramount? They are the only ones that lobby the government. 'We the people' are too busy doing other much more important things to get involved with those people that represent us. So busy, that we keep re-electing them, expecting different results. But wait until the next election, when some other poor schmuck is elected. That'll fix everything.

[PassingFair]

91. Post of the DAY!

Thank you!

Ted Rall Award for you!

[Djinn]

141. evil lefty!

:sarcasm:

It's amazing that substantive posts like yours are viewed as "bitching" or (as I see below) "disillusioned" while the OP - which presents a series of baseless assertions and demonstrates a woeful misunderstanding and/or ignorance of labor history (I didn't get further than the first issue, didn't seem much point) are getting K & R'd

Because virtually every Democrat politician at the national level sees themselves as being on the top part of that chart, besides which those are the people who pay for re-election campaigns and too many Democrats would rather hold onto their seat on the gravy train than support their actual constituents. Every single one of them knows that their constituents and the people who pay the big bucks to keep them in office are two VERY different groups of people. Guess which one they care about?

Wish you could recommend posts - the only reason to read this crappy thread is to see your post

[KakistocracyHater]

33. we need "tent poles" film jargon

there HAS to be some elements we have in common. How about strongly supporting the Bill of Rights, unswervingly, immovably defending this? Human rights seems an easy choice, clean water, clean air, safe food, safe medicine.

Each person has an interest, a passion for a few things related to the Left. I think we need to come together & coordinate as the real Left.

[JTFrog]

35. Seems to me Krugman is trying to ensure Obama only serves one term.

Most Krugman worshipers have their own dog they'd like to see in the race in 2012. And I hope they all choke on our President's success.

[Skittles]

38. OMG

fucking pitiful

[burythehatchet]

86. Did u no he compard Obama support hose to NIXON's PEEPUL?

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Hear! Here! I think that you'll find that "activism" is much more lucrative...

when Republicans are in charge. Some of the more infamous bloggers & talking heads have found a way to try & remain relevant, and that's by taking on the Dems in the WH & Congress. If you take a good look at some of the leftwing blogs, and listen to many supposed "leftists", you'd think they were still fighting Bush.

[LWolf]

39. If you think the left was EVER,

even for a moment, united behind Barack Obama, you need to think again.

Uniting to prevent the election of McCain/Palin is not the same thing as uniting to support Obama.

[depakid]

40. The problem lies with DINO's and their enablers

People who sell out traditional demoocratic values in order to curry favor with lobbyists.

And oh yes- also with their whinging sycophants, who will never get a clue.

[ArchieStone1]

42. define unity

Please.

[Sebastian Doyle]

176. Well, for purposes of this thread, it means

"Line up behind whatever the Wall Street Whores want, and never question it".

[Blue_Roses]

47. very well said!

Thank-you!:)

[HopeOverFear]

50. AMEN! n/m

[AZBlue]

52. THANK YOU!!

k&r

[Runcible Spoon]

54. How sad that you bought the biggest lie of all.

Screaming about "ideological purists" splitting the left" in a thread used to...split the left.

All the while the greedy corporate machine continues to suck off the nation's blood while people like you point fingers at the activists who gave up their time, energy, freedom, and even LIVES to fight.

Pathetic that you think you're even remotely aware and qualified to lecture ANYONE about this topic.

[Truth2Tell]

56. Bingo. nt

[bluedawg12]

81. Oddly trying to drive a wedge among progressives

when the very essence of this presidency has been a call for national unity and encouragement of debate.

President Obama is not afraid of debate and welcomes it, yet some of his so-called supporters have just the opposite and flimsy view of things. How curiously divisive indeed.

[butterfly77]

57. Say it again!

kicked and recommended!

[Runcible Spoon]

58. Why are you here? Got bored marginalizing gay rights?

:puke:

[butterfly77]

68. Hi there

:hi: I am here because I am a member of DU who asked and some are angry with me because I think they are fighting over a WORD. Now,I didn't say I was against gays or for gays having full civil rights. Take a chill pill...

[Runcible Spoon]

73. Why don't you sacrifice a civil right of yours and get back to me

YOU have no grounds to lecture ANY GAY about what that word does/doesn't mean to people who don't have equal recognition and RIGHTS under the laws. You have been told over and over again about how civil unions do not even guarantee that state governments have to recognize them and grant them the full spectrum of rights, but you choose to cling to your ignorance.

[butterfly77]

79. For one thing I haven't done any lecturing...

You need to check yourself because you are proving my point,you can't tell me what that word does/doesn't mean to me or anyone else. I have been following the movement and from what I have heard and seen I continue to believe even if all rights many have stated aren't being allowed were given, you would not accept it because it does not say marriage.

Lastly, you have also proven my point from my other posts that, everytime someone brings up the subject and ask a few questions they are attacked and followed all over DU. So inform me again in clearer language and not three or four pages which I have read. How, calling it marriage will make people treat you more equally than if it were called civil unions. Will you change some people's hearts if they want to discriminate.

If someone passes a law that mandates that it be enforced all over the country civil union or marriage what will be the difference. Won't you be able to do everything under the law as everyone else? Just asking, did you take that chill pill before you bite my head off..

[Runcible Spoon]

82. .

If it's "just a word" then why are so many bigots offended by gays being allowed to call themselves "married"? Symbols are POWERFUL.

Not to mention-

There are 1400 legal rights conferred to married people. FOURTEEN HUNDRED LEGAL RIGHTS. Creating a separate "civil union" distinction for gays opens to door for legislatures to challenge the right of civil unions to be entitled to those rights. The only way to guarantee equal protection is to EXTEND equal protection, not write some disingenuous new status into law that invites challenge from every direction.

Look, if you haven't learned why separate but "equal" is wrong, I can't help you out here.

[butterfly77]

158. See there you go...

there is a way to have equal protection under the law...
If it's "just a word" then why are so many bigots offended by gays being allowed to call themselves "married"?

You spell it out correctly many bigots(something which I am not) are offended by gays being allowed to call themselves MARRIED. I don't fit into that category,frankly, I don't care if you call it civil union or MARRIED. I just asked the question if you can receive all of the same rights then what is the difference.

You said:
" The only way to guarantee equal protection is to EXTEND equal protection, not write some disingenuous new status into law that invites challenge from every direction."


Well,get to work and stop attacking folks because they ask a question about the difference between the two..

[Runcible Spoon]

159. I AM working for it.

What are YOU doing?

[Thrill]

59. Democrats are all too happy to help the media with its strategy

Which is why they don't stay in full power long

[Pisces]

60. Well written, couldn't agree more!!! Not to mention we are only 69 days into the administration.

It is incredible to me how quickly people lose confidence. This crowd is especially fickle. Imagine if we got behind him like repugs get behind their guy. How much could the Obama accomplish. Obama has done everything he said he would on the campaign trail. I am not surprised by Afghanistan. He clearly said we focused on the wrong country. Nothing he has done so far has surprised me. The only surprises have come from the outraged left and this board.

[LostinVA]

66. -1

[Zuiderelle]

67. -1

:nopity:

[Two Americas]

71. projection

It is the thinking you are expressing here that splits the Left.

[Terri S]

74. I think the energy used to nit-pick Obama

would be best spent to marginalize the blue-dogs and conservatives. There is going to be one hell of a fight to get anything Obama proposes done, and if it's more important to scream, for instance, 'single payer or nothing' then nothing will get done. Again.

Obama is on record, consistently, that if he were starting from scratch, he'd go single-payer. He knows what he is dealing with and what he can get accomplished. He's working probably not fast enough for some and not nearly radically enough for some, but he knows where he's heading us and he's doing it in a way that is feasible.

The polls show his approval ratings are still very high, so someone is out of touch .. and I think that those who keep making the good the enemy of the perfect will find themselves marginalized .. which is not where any of us want you to be. Keep pushing for where we want to go, but at least allow the man who will help get us there the room to move without kicking him in the kneecaps every time he isn't perfectly aligned with everything you want right this minute.

[Raineyb]

78. According to the OP and their ilk going after the blue-dogs is more

lefty ideological purity testing.

Regards

[bluedawg12]

75. You wanna know why? Huh? Huh?

It's because for the last eight years a f8ckwad and his cronies have been running the country.

Do you remember that?

Oh,and "Obama has been president for less than 100 days, and once again, right on time, here comes the ideologically pure left..."

Yes, he's been in the white house for less than 100 days, not enough time for him to change the course of this nation, by your reckoning, but enough time for the "ideologically pure left" to screw it all up????

WTF? I needed a good laugh today.


How about this for size? Why was it that both 2000 and 2004 were so close that asshat could at the very most steal it, or at the very least we lost it?

Could it be the not so ideologically pure "moderate wedge issue" voters, who famously "voted against their own economic interests" in favor of wedge issues? Huh? Huh?

Could it be when times were flush and the Dow was rising, jobs were more plentiful, pension plans were still worth the paper that the monthly statement was written on, that back then, some socially conservative, not so pure lefties, were cavalier with the other persons rights and said screw it, I'll be a Reagan Democrat or Bush Democrat? You do recall the wedge issues and how people thought nothing of buying in to the whole rw package? Because they also thought their stocks would rise ad infinitum and forget poverty, forget the environment, let's talk about kicking some Iraqi ass ( that had some pretty high national approval ratings) because the majority bought chimp's Saddam attacked us bullshit. They weren't too far left, they were too far to the right, like this POV.

[Runcible Spoon]

83. +100000000000000000

DEAD. ON.

[bluedawg12]

84. Could I have that in yen please? BTW, a scary look at recent history

this might be interesting to some, especially those of us who recall the Reagan years followed by the shrub boys.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,725075,00.html



How The Wedge Issues Cut
A campaign about Iraq and jobs abruptly shifts to the fraught territory of God, gays and guns. But will the values debate help Republicans this year?
By JOHN CLOUD


Sunday, Oct. 17, 2004

<snip>
In the summer of 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush was foundering. His opponent in the presidential race, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, was doing well in the polls. That fall, however, pro-Bush forces deftly used wedge issues—particularly crime and the specter of encroaching liberalism—to cleave white working-class voters from the Democratic Party. The nastiest and most effective '88 political ad featured the hardened visage of convict William Horton, a murderer who had fled Massachusetts during a prison furlough and then stabbed a man and raped his fiance. Republicans said Dukakis had turned his state's prison gates into "a revolving door." Dukakis pointed out that he had actually ended the furlough program, but his protest was late and languid. Bush won comfortably, 54% to 46%.


At the start of the 2004 campaign, it seemed that Bush the son would also use wedge issues to repel a Massachusetts rival. Earlier this year, just as John Kerry was celebrating primary victories, the top court in his home state affirmed a decision unpopular in most of the U.S. that legalized marriage for same-sex couples. The court ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gays by mid-May.

Social conservatives despaired at the ruling, but Republicans savored the idea that, all summer, newspapers would run pictures of men kissing each other on Cape Cod. It would help frame Kerry as a liberal.

<snip>

But as the race nears its end, you can expect both sides to try to hack away wedges—or at least slivers—of voters with appeals to religion and morality. It is already happening. Desperately contested Ohio is one of 11 states that will decide on Nov. 2 whether to amend their constitution to ban gay marriage. Phil Burress of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, which favors that state's proposed amendment, is preparing to mail 2.5 million bulletin inserts to some 17,000 Ohio churches. His group has already submitted nearly 55,000 voter-registration cards. "The church will show up on Nov. 2," he says, and although his effort to ban gay marriage long precedes the Bush re-election effort, Burress knows that his new registrants will disproportionately support the President.

On Saturday, Bush himself devoted part of his radio address to wedge issues, smacking Kerry for voting against bills proscribing partial-birth abortion and against the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages but otherwise left the matter to the states. Kerry says he voted against the abortion bills because they didn't contain sufficient protections for a mother's health. He now agrees with the marriage act's provisions, but he has said he voted against it because he didn't want to support "gay bashing."

<snip>

"A woman holds a baby wearing a bib that says “Bush loves my unborn friends,” during a campaign rally for the President ."

Shrub, the wedge years.

[Yavin4]

89. How Did That "f8ckwad" Win Exactly?

Oh yeah, that's right. Nader voters in Florida tilted the election to Bush that's why. Maybe if the Nader voters hadn't made it too close for the election to be stolen, we would not have had 8 years of Bush and his cronies.

[Runcible Spoon]

93. HA! Complete with Nader-blame. Now this thread is complete.

Predictable garbage.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Two Americas]

123. what is the matter with you?

That is completely unacceptable.

[bluedawg12]

125. Telling someone "Do me a favor. Don't reproduce. " Is not political debate.

Nor is calling another DU'er an "idiot."

[Starry Messenger]

126. Do us all a favor and switch to decaf.

Really. You sound like you are up in a clock tower. If you are trying to win people over to your ideas, this is the opposite way to produce results.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Political Heretic]

153. Holy Crap. You hit it OUT OF THE PARK.

[roughsatori]

165. Brilliant post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NT

[burythehatchet]

85. Your rant assumes that there is a "left". No such thing in the halls of power.

The left only exists in the electorate, not on the established political spectrum.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[burythehatchet]

117. .

[Jennicut]

94. So the ultra left is attacking the liberal to moderate left while the Blue Dogs and Rethugs attack.

Lovely. We are all pretty much on the same side.

[Enrique]

95. the Left is very supportive of Obama

as is almost everyone at DU, including the people criticizing him.

Very supportive, very patient, at times almost worshipful.

[ellie]

96. Thank you

[Starry Messenger]

101. I've watched this thread all day.

A question: is there anything you like about being a liberal? Maybe some examples to help me understand your message here. You've gotten a few dozen recs and some attaboys here, and I'm honestly puzzled. Is there something progressive you enjoy that we could all discuss in a positive manner? I'm willing to listen.

[JayMusgrove]

104. Yes, good insight.

People with un-diagnosed depression ... probably need some competent health care services at a reasonable price.......and use the DU as their group therapy session.

[Starry Messenger]

105. Are you responding to me?

I think we all come here for support and information...

[JayMusgrove]

107. I am responding to your question

Do you think the OP had a good frame of mind, or needs drugs?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Anyone who considers themselves a "progressive" or a "liberal" needs more than 66 days to evaluate Obama, no intellectual would be so stupid as to accuse/berate Obama before 100 or 200 or 1000 days.

[Starry Messenger]

111. Ah, I see. :)

I'm a school teacher so I was hoping to elicit a positive response from the OP and not rush to negative judgment on the OP's frame of mind. I try to give the benefit of the doubt. I was a little concerned for this person.


I just seemed like they were on their last nerve and was not having fun in the scrum here. I guess worrying about Bobby Jindal in the White House might do that to a person though. But I think some of the warriors here need to come out of the hills for awhile. That's all I meant.

[Phx_Dem]

108. NO FUCKING SHIT!! Best post in ages!

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Roadless]

109. Great post. Thank you.

nm

[Marrah_G]

118. Steaming pile of STFU bullshit.

:nuke:

[Joe the Liberal]

122. Couldn't have said it better myself...........

There are just some people out there that no matter what happens they will NEVER be happy, they will always find something to nitpick at. I support Obama 100% and I don't listen to any of the naysayers and nitpickers who are trying their hardest to split the left.

[LooseWilly]

124. Ahh, sounds like there are centrists out there that're worried the left might not shut the fuck up..

My response to you, you want to be sure the "left" doesn't split... try throwing us a fucking bone. This "shut up or else we'll lose control" bullshit I ain't buying.
If the "center" doesn't want the "left" to split, then maybe the "center" ought to do something to keep us united. Telling us to shut up already is what the "right" does... and it does not win a lot of loyalty.

And besides, as has been pointed out already, every example you list of things not accomplished are things that the "left" of the Democratic party might well've been willing to fight for til the bitter end... in each case though, it was the "center" that caved.
I take it that that's you ! So why don't you fuck off already in your attempts to blame all that shit on the "left".

If you are going to try to blame it on "splitting the left", well then why don't you concentrate on lecturing the "center" and tell them to hold strong with the "left".

That's not really what you're ranting about though, is it? From where I sit, I think the real problem is that the "center" is pissing their metaphysical pants now. I think that the suburban lawns and 2.3 children shuttled to soccer in a leased minivan truly feels threatened. I think that the "center" is pissing its metaphysical pants in fear that all the selling out they've done of ALL of the things you listed in the OP, settling for just securing those things for themselves, they're terrified that, in turn, they have been sold out by those they dealt with (Corporate Pension Plans... even 401Ks... it all turned out to be a lie, didn't it?)
And now the "center" is pissing its metaphysical pants because now they need the "left"s support to take power long enough to restore their old expected benefits of whatever "social contract" they like to think they can re-negotiate with the corporate powers that be.
The "centrists" are afraid that the "left" might abandon them, the same as the "centrists" abandoned the "left" for the last 30 years.

Those who are still of the "left" after all this time though, we're used to being without voice. Now, however, we feel we're entitled to a little voice in how things go down. If you fucking "centrists" think you're gonna shut us up with threats of being thrown out of power... well you don't seem to get it. If You aren't willing to take the time to hear us... then we don't have any voice now either... in which case I don't see anything to be lost by burning down the coalition.

[bvar22]

133. It is NOT "The Left" who have formed a coalition in the Senate...

...to BLOCK Obama's agenda.
It is the fucking "Centrists", led by Evan Bayh who are voting WITH the Republicans.

It was "The Centrists" voting WITH Republicans who enabled Bush with his War, Funded the WAR, and seated Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court.

It was "The Centrists" working with Republicans who passed NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN for China, and deregulation of Banking/Lending/Investment/Telecommunications.

You are correct in claiming that The Democratic Party is split, but you are waaaaay wrong in identifying the culprits.
It was the influx of Corporate Money into the Democratic Party that caused the split.

You won't find too many members of the Progressive Caucus obstructing Obama's Agenda.


"Centrism"...for those who are OK with being Half Republican.

[cleveramerican]

142. WE have become them.

thoughtful calls for more discussion, more consideration, while we assume a generation of debt,
are met with "YOUR JUST A REPUBLICAN".
Not that different ,when your on the receiving end, than the ole "you just hate America"

Any who thinks the members of this party should shut up sit down and get in line is a fool,
who thinks like a child and hasn't the slightest grasp how politics ACTUALLY works.


No member of congress should stop representing their constituents because we won,they should re-double their efforts.
No voter should hold their tongue in the face of absurdity because we won, you should speak up even more.

The past is just that, lets leave it there.
Genuine change is what we all had hoped for.
A different team playing by the same old rules is a huge let down for most of us.
a different band of crooks,robbing different places just isn't the stuff of campaign slogans.
There is still hope at this address.
There is still cynicism and sarcasm at this address.
I'm pulling for Obama and I vote.

I don't think every utterance of his is holy scripture, no one should.

[bvar22]

148. I'm NOT talking platitudes.

I'm talking POLICY !
Your OP is absurd, as is your reply to my post.


*I am a tireless advocate for PEACE.

*I m a tireless advocate for Single Payer Universal HealthCare.

*I am a tireless advocate for Equal Rights and Equal Protections for everyone...NO Exceptions.

*I am a tireless advocate for Universal Free Education through graduate levels to anyone who wants it.

*I am a tireless advocate for Organized LABOR.

*I am a tireless advocate for strict regulation/oversight or Nationalization of Banking, Lending, Investing, Energy, Transportation, Trade, Communications.

*I am a tireless advocate for limiting the size and power of Corporations and leveling the playing field so Mom&Pop can compete with the Big Boxes.

*I am a tireless advocate for Local Ownership.

*I am a tireless advocate for Public Financed Elections and Instant Runoff Voting.

*I am a tireless opponent to the concentration of Wealth and Power into fewer hands.

*I am a tireless opponent to Corporate Personhood.

*I am a tireless opponent to the MIC.

*I am a tireless opponent to the occupation of other countries.

*I am a tireless opponent to "Free Trade".

*I am a tireless opponent Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

I am a tireless opponent to the failed ideology of "Centrism".

I WAS ALL these things BEFORE Obama.
I will BE these things after Obama.
It makes little difference which Political Personality occupies the White House.
When our politicians move TOWARD these goals, I will praise them.
When they move AWAY, I will shout my opposition.

[Raineyb]

150. Thoughtful consideration? The only consideration Blah takes up is what benefits

him. He hasn't put out anything so far that looks like it might actually help the American people. But he sure as hell has ideas that will help his corporate masters. There isn't a goddamn thing thoughtful about what Blah is doing unless you think screwing the American people even further is a thoughtful thing to do.

Blah is supposed to work for the people who elected him not the corporations who feather his nest. What he needs is to be afraid to lose his job in order to rein him back in. This man helped the Republicans when they were in power and now he's helping the Republicans sabotage Obama. None of the things we want like Health care reform, infrastructure, investing in this country will happen with the Senator pretending to give a damn about the budget when he made no objections to the budget deficit when it came to Bush's illegal wars.

Just in case you haven't noticed we've already got the debt of a generation. The difference is we don't have anything to show for it. Deficit spending to make sure we have certain infrastructure that we will need for the future is an investment eventually it will pay for itself. Deficit spending to get universal health care is an investment. Making sure everyone is covered will cost less in the long run. Deficit spending to invest in green energy and jobs to get us away from fossil fuels is good for the planet, good for the economy, and will allow us to spend less on military since we won't have to send soldiers to fight wars to protect our oil sources. Deficit spending on war doesn't do anything but enrich the private contractors whose presence there ironically enough was supposed to save us money by not having to use soldiers for things like kitchen duty. So instead of discussing these things we've got Senator Blah complaining about deficit spending when it is most needed and will benefit the American people.

Thoughtful my ass. Blah is only interested in himself and he knows this stunt will make him a little more powerful. He's a tool and needs to go. But I will not let you pretend that this man gives a damn about any of us as we can't put millions in his campaign coffers.

To say that Blah is being disingenuous is an understatement.

And your sycophantic defense of this DINO is vomit inducing. :puke:

And just to be clear, Senator Blah is a big reason for this split at this time and he does not in any sense of the word qualify as the left.

Regards

[Djinn]

135. You think union membership/power

has declined because of disunity on the left? REALLY?

You don't think it has anything to do with shitty laws enacted by a series of politicians from BOTH sides of the coin?

YES the Republicans have "gotten everything they wanted" and that's precisely because the so called progressive party has moved so far to the right (eg "Progressive" poster boy Clinton's "welfare reform" and NAFTA) that even centre positions are howled down as politically untenable, even though VAST majorities of the US population wants them.

There are many reasons for the decline in labor power but your childish assertion (with zero evidence) that this is down to evil lefties throwing spanners in the works is pathetic and offensive to the lefties who are the only reason you still HAVE a labor movement (however weakened). There's a few issues you seem to have omitted (or known nothing about - your pick).

Someone who actually knew about labor and trade history in the US (and worldwide) might mention the following issues (just to name a few)

Taft-Hartley (heard any Democrats stump for it's repeal recently?)
Failure of DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES to pass the Striker Replacement Bill
GATTS
Concentration of the means of production (assisted by BOTH R & D admins)
Manufacturing flight to the third world
The World Bank
WTO

Honestly you can stump this kind of assertion all you like, however it'll be patently obvious to anyone who actually knows about this stuff that you're pulling it out of thin air...and that's just on the LABOR part of your screed :eyes:

[TBF]

146. You really believe that Marxists are the reason that -

Wanna know why union power has declined?

Wanna know why we don't have national healthcare?

Wanna know why the quality of life for working and middle class Americans has fallen in relation to other industrialized nations?

Wanna know why the Military Industrial Complex is bigger now than it was during the Cold War?

Wanna know why key social programs go unfunded?

Wanna know why income disparity has grown exponentially since 1980?


Seriously? You are blaming Marxists for these things? Did it ever occur to you that your unwavering support of capitalism, and all that means, results in these factors? We've argued against bailing out billionaires (and in fact making that wage gap larger), many of us are vigilant in calling for healthcare reform (while apologists say it's not the "right time"), many are anti-war (as opposed to certain dems out there gung ho on war-mongering in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan), and we want social spending to be increased exponentially.

Are you sure you know what a Marxist is?

[Chovexani]

149. For the 500 billionth time.

Gore did not lose in 2000 because of petulant Nader voters. He lost because the Republicans stole the election.

In the future if you want to tell an entire group of Democrats to STFU because they don't know about history it would probably make yourself look less self-righteous and douchey if you got your head out of your ass and learned some your damn self.

[Djinn]

168. always a favourite of mine

when anyone spouts the inanity that Nader caused the Democrats to loose an election they actually WON means I can pretty much discount their knowledge of the electoral process and history.

[treestar]

152. K&R

[Maven]

156. No, you have it wrong. Those of us who actually are on the left won't be aligned

with Centrist Party Line Enforcers, regardless of their current boss.

What you're doing with this post is blaming the left, not from the left, but from the "center" (read: the right) which is what is TRULY responsible for all the failures of leadership you listed. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

166. No, the real problem is that the Democratic party is comprised of

about 50 special interests groups who, if they don't get everything they want yesterday bitch and moan until the whole thing shakes apart. Patience? Nah. Happy to see some progress made on the issues they care about? Nah. If you want to see why your agenda slips away look in the mirror. Your inability to compromise in the least bit or realize political reality makes you blind to any reason.

[Djinn]

170. yesterday??

exactly how many Democratic Presidents and Congressional majorities do you need to get national health care?

How many for a repeal of Taft Hartley?

How many for a living wage?

How many for and end to war for profit?

If you truly believe people have only been waiting since Obama election for these things then you're either very young or very naive.

What has the right wing compromised on? and I'm not talking Republican here I'm talking right wing (hint for those taking politics 101 - abortion and god are NOT right wing issues they are wedge issues, right and left are economic descriptors)

Union busting? NO COMPROMISE

Erosion of real wages? NO COMPROMISE

Increasing wealth gap? NO COMPROMISE

Socialising loss while privatising profit? NO COMPROMISE

Trade regimes that benefit the rich? NO COMPROMISE

Making more money off the backs of others people's labor? NO COMPROMISE

Devolution of political power? NO COMPROMISE

Massively unjust war for profit? HELL NO WAY NO HOW NOT F'ING EVER COMPROMISE

[RepublicanElephant]

162. bingo, yavin4!!!

and may the force be with you!

[Uzybone]

163. too late to recommend

but its a great OP. Thanks for seeing the forest and not just the trees.

[Number23]

167. +2009!! Man, you win the world wide web

Why oh why couldn't I have seen this in time to rec??!

But just know that sooo many people here have your back. Fantastic post!!!

[Romulox]

171. Just another call to STFU and rally around the "centrists". Sorry, no. nt

[Life Long Dem]

172. Because MSM keeps spewing out the propaganda.

Maybe we should just go on what we know and hear and see on our own through an alternate source? And I thought we were doing this but for some reason it's getting lost again with some type of merging between TV and the internet news.

[mix]

173. you want group think, not debate

supporting Obama and criticizing him are not mutually exclusive

[Sparkly]

175. Why are you so afraid of what people post on message boards?

So what if people "bitch, whine and bolt?" What people believe and post doesn't predict a win or loss in 2012. Let's get some perspective.

[paulk]

177. yes, there are groups on the left

who want to split the Democratic Party - Greens, Socialists, and the more radical elements on the left side of the circle,

but to call Krugman the "latest leader of the "split the left" movement" is nonsense.

Krugman is a Democrat and supports the majority of Obama's positions - he just has different ideas on how to achieve them.

I think your little rant here is mostly an attempt to shut off legitimate criticism .

There are real and credible differences within the Democratic Party, and you do the party no favors with this sort of blind cheerleading.