if insane teabaggers can take over GOP, progressives should be able to take Dems

[yurbud]

Think about it: the GOP really made no bones (and still doesn't) about being the party of big business. So for clearly lower middle class people without the resources of an Enron, Exxon, or even Blackwater to be able to be able to stop the party from running ''moderate'' candidates is a watershed democratic moment.

The task in the Democratic Party should be even easier since true progressives would stand a better chance of winning than business-owned Democrats who only differ from Republicans by not wearing a Klan hood and having a Confederate flag tattooed on their asses.

The worst outcome imaginable outcome of such an insurgency would be splitting the party in two.

But think about it: which Democratic Party would get more votes, the progressive one or the DLC one that signed off on every trade, deregulation, and foreign policy that have cost so many Americans their jobs, and in the case of wars that only benefit corporations, our troops lives?

It is true that the rump DLC party would probably attract the last of the so-called ''moderate'' GOP, and would be flooded with corporate money and good press, but maybe we are on the cusp of the time when that is simply not enough to hold onto power anymore.

You can sell someone a hatful of shit and call it a chocolate cake, but they're only going to take so many bites before they figure it out.

[Richardo]

1. I think you're calling this idea chocolate cake

If a takeover by ideologues is a catastrophe for the GOP, why is it any better for the Dems?

[yurbud]

4. so corrupt-ologues are better? Do you ever read any progressive stuff?

Or just conservative? I know you can't be reading dlc stuff, because its so dull it would put you in a coma.

[emulatorloo]

7. Republicans have a better lock up on corruption. The dems may have a few, they have many

[yurbud]

13. the corrupt dems call themselves moderates

To excuse their actions.

[AllentownJake]

2. Well the DNC works the opposite of the GOP

When the GOP loses elections they string up the moderates, when the DNC loses elections they string up their left wing base.

In a two party system this is what happens, what always happens though in a two party system, is the public will always get weary of the party in power (because the act of being in power will create corruption) and a throw the bums out mentality comes into effect and the out of power party comes into effect. It really isn't a control on ideology, more a control on corruption. Remember in 1994 one of the biggest GOP attacks were how corrupt the Democrats were. In 2006 and 2008 the biggest attacks were how corrupt the Bush administration was. In 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 the strongest argument will be corruption not any policy issues.

So in 2,4,6, or 8 years the democrats will be booted from power and an ideologically right wing party will take their place.

Conservatives have had the better strategy, since eventually they will be back in power. When you are given two choices on a ballot this is the result.

Of course when this happens the Democrats will start screaming at the liberals, instead of focusing on the fact that corruption got them booted...same thing with the GOP.

[xultar]

3. I think the progressives should do to the Democrats what the Teabaggers did to the

GOP.

I think that would be great.

[depakid]

8. Republicans have been VERY successfuly procedurally and strategically over the years

Hell- they're STILL achieving policy goals even while ostensibly out of power- while progressives have been effectively sidelined and scolded.

Impressive, isn't it?

[emulatorloo]

9. They aren't going to be very successful once there are fewer of them elected

Far right Ideological purists don't get elected.

ON EDIT -- well ok maybe in some wacky Bachmann or Steve King type districts.

[depakid]

12. They've been batshit crazy for over 20 years

and managed to make "incredible" (and often very unpopular) progress on their policy agenda- while continuing to be re-elected.

Meanwhile Democrats- with the facts and popular policy on their side have languished- adopting instead to help further odious dysfunctional right wing policies. While more often than not continuing to lose elections.

There's something wrong with that picture.

[yurbud]

14. most repugs pretend to be batshit crazy with constituents but are all business

About carrying water for big business

[emulatorloo]

5. Most people aren't rigid ideologues, so there won't be any one for them to vote for

[yurbud]

15. you say ideologue as if all ideas are equal. do you actually believe that?

Is a nazi the same as a pacifist the same as a new dealer?

[emulatorloo]

16. no of course not. Nonetheless rigid doctrinaire thinking is not that appealing or practical

whatever side of the political spectrum it comes from.

No they are not the same, but that kind of rigidity leads to parallels.

For example:

Freepers are so rigid in their ideology that they haughtily call Obama is a "Socialist"

Some DU'ers o rigid in their ideology that think Obama is a "Corporatist"

Those are opposite viewpoints, but they are mirror images of each other, and both to me are totally out of touch.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but I thought you were wanting a similar purification of the Democratic party as the GOP is undergoing at the hands of the doctrinaire libertarians and their fellow travelers.

But like I say, maybe I am misunderstanding you.

If you want the party to be more liberal, and to elect more liberal democrats to office then I am right there with you.

[yurbud]

19. I don't mean nuts I mean the grassroots overpowering the gray suits

but the point of elections is not for the team wearing your favorite color to win but for the people you voted for to actually get certain things done.

When they do close to the exact opposite and call it pragmatism or moderation, everyone should see that as a problem.

[cali]

6. lol. total silly fantasy.

and I have the proverbial bridge to sell you if you think any kind of progressive is going to get elected in Oklahoma or Nebraska or Mississippi, etc.

[depakid]

17. Who gives a shit about those states?

Isolate them and draw the contrast in other states where you can win with STRONG (emphasis on strong) progressive leadership and principles.

[EFerrari]

10. It won't work because while the thugs play to their base, even encourage

their insanity, the Democrats beat up on theirs. We start from that marginalized ditch.

And more than that, the right wing media legitimizes the far right wing nuttery. The teabaggers could never have gotten a single moment of notice without the presstitutes making them respectable.

[Wiley50]

11. We'd need a Fox

We already have a Keith, a Rachel, a Randi and a Malloy, Not to mention a Reagan of a different stripe.

We need rich democrats do for us what Murdock and Ailes did for the GOP: lose a lot of money for a few years

[Lilith Velkor]

18. The moderate GOP has already jumped ship to the Dems

That's what the "DLC" actually is.