It's beginning to appear to me that Democrats only act like Democrats when they are in the minority

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

There. I said it. Sorry. It appears to be the truth.

When we get into power we trip all over ourselves becoming "centrists" and triangulating with a Republican hypotenus and being bi-partisan by ourselves. It's ludicrous.

For all the people threatening expulsion of liberals -

its less and less of a threat

[flvegan]

1. Is that why it's so bloody crowded under this bus these days?

[Ignis]

40. You have to get here early to get a spot in the wheel-well.

:(

[walldude]

2. Right? Where is our ASS KICKER?

Where the hell is the person with a spine to stand up for what is right? Why is everything done to appease the people who are trying to destroy us? Why aren't the Democrats out there hammering home the point that these people are not Patriots, they aren't "God Fearing Patriotic Americans". What we have is a bunch of ignorant sheep being led around by the nose by people who are stabbing them in the back.

I guess you have to give the Repugs some credit, it cannot be easy to get people who you are royally fucking over to blindly support you to the point of violence.

[dem mba]

7. there's a handful

but that's it.

Grayson, Feingold, maybe Dean.

[rhett o rick]

3. I dont agree. Even then they kiss Republican ass and pass the IWAR and Patriot Act

and the MCA, and support domestic spying, and the Bush tax cuts, and DADT, and rendition, and torture, and Guantanimo, and the Afghanistan war, and on and on. The Democratic Party has been co-opted by CorpAmerica. Fuck the DLC, fuck the Blue Dogs. They are killing America.

[Better Today]

51. Ding ding ding! Exactly correct.

[theFrankFactor]

65. +1 Our party doesn't serve us. It couldn't be any clearer than it is now.

[donheld]

72. Right you are

[w4rma]

4. There are many DLC sabotours in positions of power. They pretend they are on our side, but are

in politics for the money and there isn't much money in helping people.

[NYC Liberal]

5. People here were complaining very loudly

when we were in the minority too, so I don't think that theory necessary holds.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. But then we were complaining most about Republicans and supporting our Dems

Things went awry permanently when Nancy took impeachment off the table.

We never recovered from that nor has the nation.

Political expediency trumped the Constitution, the Rule of Law, our history, our national ethos.

You can't run from that.

That's the exact point that Dems made themselves complicit in all that came before.

[NYC Liberal]

9. I still say we should have called the Repug's bluff on

the Nuclear Option with the filibuster. Told them "Go ahead, get rid of it."

How much easier would it be now to get things done? And it would have been the REPUBLICANS who got rid of it, so they'd have no standing to whine about the mean Democrats trampling all over the minority.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I agree. Both parties like to maintainthe fake threat of the filibuster

[BzaDem]

6. Why do you act as if this is somehow surprising or controversial? This always happens in parties.

Political parties are always closer to the middle than their base would like. This is essentially by definition of a majority. A majority is always more ideologically diverse than a minority, since a majority has to win races in less-ideologically favorable terrain to become a majority.

This is not specific to Democrats. The Republican base was crying bloody murder while Bush was in office. Hell, at the time, there were similar stories about the "falling out" with the base under Reagan.

[BootinUp]

10. a well reasoned post

unusual for DU these days. lol.

[redqueen]

60. Very. (nt)

[theFrankFactor]

66. A Load of Shit. There was NOTHING CENTRIST about the Bush Congress! NOTHING!

Democrats serve the right and Repiublicans serve the ultra right.

[villager]

11. The Republican party hasn't been close to the "center" -- as it was once defined -- in 2 -3 decades

Reagan shifted everything to the right, with the cooperation of the media (and the Democrats) and yes, nutty 'baggers might call anything less that pogroms too "centrist," but none of it excuses the repeated cave-ins/fecklessness of the Democrats...

[BzaDem]

14. Both party bases often claim that the center is much closer to their party.

Instead of defending ideas on their merits, they use argument-by-authority and claim that the center of America coincidentally happens to agree with everything they are saying. The Republicans say the exact same thing about the Democrats not being close to the center.

This has been happening since the dawn of politics. It is a not new phenomenon.

[villager]

15. You're free to put credence in Republican "claims." I don't

The "center" isn't what it was, and wanting to rush there -- it's now a spot on the right -- does our country, and potential solutions to our various crises, no good whatsoever...

[BzaDem]

16. Of course the center isn't what it once was. Who said the center doesn't change?

Complaining that the other party is far away from the center as it was defined 40 years ago is even sillier than complaining about the center today.

The center is a factual concept. It changes (in both directions) with the parties and the people. It is not just what one wishes it were, or what it was at a convenient time.

It is a logical fallacy that there can be a long period of time when the party in power governs far away from the center. Either the center moves towards them, or the people throw the government out of office.

[villager]

17. Your hall of mirrors rhetoric aside, the point is that using "center" is a mask for rightwing policy

thus, Dems who try to shield themselves by claiming they're in "the center" are really aiding and abetting the rightwing dismantling of America.

And covering for them is kinda doing the same thing.

[BzaDem]

18. Just because the center could be right-wing or left-wing doesn't mean it isn't the center.

Right now, the median voter is much more Republican-leaning than in 2008. Likewise, in 2008, the median voter was much more liberal than today.

If you don't like the fact that this definition succumbs to short-term fluctuations, you could take a moving average of the median voter over some longer period of time. Under this metric, the center was left-leaning in the middle part of the 20th century, more right-leaning in the latter part, and somewhere in between for the last decade or two.

But you can't just say "the center used to be more left-leaning than it is today, so therefore the center is just a mask for right wing policies." That is not intellectually honest. If the center is currently more right-leaning, then it doesn't stop being the center just because you don't like it. It just means you don't like it.

And I don't like it either. My politics are left of center, and I defend my ideas on their merits. Not by claiming the center matches my view.

[villager]

19. Am glad to hear about ideas and merits. Yay!

(A sincere yay! In the "new DU," I suppose that could get mistaken for snark...!)

But we can't cover for elected Democrats who use "the center" as a way to dodge any responsibility to change business-as-usual, offend their financial sponsors, etc.

The "center" is actually "the right," and Democrats claiming to reside there are on the right.

How can we ever start to budge things back if we cooperate with this yet-another-myth concocted by the right (i.e., crypto-fascist policies are "centrist," etc.?)

[BzaDem]

20. I don't think we are cooperating for the most part.

Out of the stimulus, HCR, and FinReg, we got no more than 3 Republican votes in either house.

We budge things back by trying to convince the median voter to come to us. It is difficult now because of the state of the economy, but it won't always be so difficult (especially since, in my opinion, we have the meritorious positions).

[villager]

21. Well, we also budge things back by sticking to our principles

...as with FDR's financial reforms, LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act, etc.

Preemptive caving in -- taking things "off the table" before we even get to the table -- succeeds in moving the mythical "center" even farther right, making it harder and harder for the Democrats to get anything "meritorious" accomplished.

Instead, "vaguely half-assed" is about the best they can do. And since they'll still get called Commies for it, why O why do they continue to "keep their powder dry," etc., etc.?

[BootinUp]

23. Sticking to principles

is fine, but there has to be a well understood reason and an opportunity. The Progressives on the nets greatly oversimplify and created this narrative that is more fantasy than reality.

There have been no great opportunities like the two you mentioned since for example. Or you tell me which ones I am forgetting?

And the Civil Rights effort as you know cost us for decades, worth every bit of it though.

[villager]

24. no great opportunities? Let's start with vetoing media consolidation and NAFTA

...which a Democratic President allowed. Which further helped the GOP.

Then we had the great moment where we could've struck a blow for real health care reform -- instead of insurance subsidies - and real financial reform, instead of, well, the usual "vaguely half-assed."

Next up: Ending the war(s) and responding to Climate Change!

Rampant, gutless compromise is fine (in quiet times, in a sad, soul-sucking kind of way) but not when history demands Otherwise.

[BootinUp]

25. poor examples

Nothing like the first two you mentioned. But I knew that was what I'd get from you.

[villager]

27. I knew I'd get a snarky, useless reply like "Poor examples" from you

Since what you really mean is "oops, I didn't realize you'd actually give me examples that would blow apart my weak thesis."

[BzaDem]

26. You are assuming that by "sticking by our principles" that we could have gotten "real health care"

and "real financial reform."

This is just factually not accurate. Sorry. It isn't an opinion that can be debated, it is a fact. We did not have the votes to enact what you wanted. We had close to the number of votes, but we did not have the votes. Unless you wanted Obama to disolve Congress and enact legislation by fiat, you could not have gotten what you wanted no matter how much self-proclaiming principle-standing anyone did.

[villager]

28. Oh? Then what is "factually" "accurate" O Great All-Seeing BzaDem!?

since you alone, are evidently, in possession of the Facts when it comes to Alternate Histories of "Might Have Been"

[BzaDem]

29. Several things.

One is that Lieberman was not going to vote for a public option, and Republicans were certainly not going to vote for such an option. Lieberman had a personal grudge against Democrats, and this became clear when he reversed his own position on the Medicare buy-in after hearing that progressives like Anthony Weiner supported such a buy-in. (He essentially admitted this was the reason why he switched.)

When someone goes against the progressive policy for the sole reason that it is the progressive policy, no "leadership" by Obama would have changed his mind.

As for Financial Reform and the Stimulus, we didn't even have 60 votes, so we needed at least 1 Republican. If you think Republicans are at all susceptible to "leadership" and "pressure" by Obama, then having this conversation is not going to be productive.

You are basically saying that no one should try to use obvious, in-your-face evidence available to them to apply to current events, solely because it would be an "alternate history of what might have been." This is baloney, and this logic would render obsolete the field of economics and many other fields of social science.

After all, your argument about "histories of might have been" would imply that gravity does not pull objects down to Earth. After all, even though all the evidence indicates that gravity does pull objects down to Earth, we can't make any conclusion about something I haven't dropped, because that would be an "alternate history of what might have been." For all we know, this time, the object might fly away from Earth.

[Spheric]

37. Johnson would have turned Lieberman in the time it took to say...

"Come, let us reason together." Just how much do you think Lieberman values his chairmanships and privileged status? And, the issue isn't whether I'm right or wrong about this - it's that nobody even really tries to get progressive legislation passed. No one is applying enough pressure even where it might do some good. Even though they have a mandate from the people.

Why, oh why would they campaign for Democrats that are supposedly thwarting their agenda? Blanche Lincoln comes to mind. No, I'm not buying into the meme that we can't get change because the Republicans are stonewalling. The piece of crap they passed as HCR didn't receive one Republican vote. The agenda is set, and it's not just the Republicans who are carrying it out.

And to me, it matters very little if we go over the cliff at ten miles and hour or at one hundred miles an hour. We need to change the direction the car is traveling - away from the cliff. The DLC faction of the party, which is in full control right now, appears not to wish to do so. In fact, even slowing down to ten miles an hour now seems to be "off the table."

[villager]

39. Interesting counter-history, but of course the Public Option was off the table

...during the closed-door White House meetings, long before Holy Joe's shitfits.

Thus, his shitfit was used to pull the legislation even more to the right, since it was already compromised, on its knees for Big Insurance, etc...

I am saying that we need to be more obvious and in-your-face about what we want, instead of being the "recklessly feckless" party we have so clearly -- and so sadly -- become.

[BootinUp]

42. If anything the reports suggest

the Whitehouse worked those deals to protect the public option from a massive direct assault. But go on with your fantasy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

44. They stabbed it in the alley to protect it from being hung in the public square?

Oh, thank you for explaining that to me.

That is a twist I had not heard before. Most enjoyable. I am going to print the best ones on a set of cocktail napkins I am designing.

*******************************
If anyone cares to read about what really was going on behind the scenes in the Healthcare "reform" they should read this

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64819
Sick and WrongHow Washington is screwing up health care reform — and why it may take a revolt to fix it
By Matt Taibbi
Apr 05, 2010 4:04 PM EDT

[BootinUp]

45. .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

But unlike the drug companies, the insurers have not pledged specific cost cuts. And insurers have also steadfastly vowed to block Mr. Obama’s proposed government-sponsored insurance plan — the biggest sticking point in the Congressional negotiations.

The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. Let's see. The insurers "vowed to block" the proposed government

insurance plan. Looks like they got what they wanted. Notice how they didn't even NEED to run ads against it. The fix was already in. Rahm himself said they "preserved the private delivery systems" in case anyone was ever in any doubt.

We all know how Pharma was taken care of. The White House "negotiated" a deal with them for 80 billion over 10 years in exchange for no negotiation of drug costs in Medicare and no drug-reimportation, both of which would have saved consumers and taxpayers far more than the paltry 80 billion over 10 years.

What was your point again?

[BootinUp]

47. There WAS NO deal with insurers

the cost to them as ask for by the administration was too high!!!!!!!!!!! The OBVIOUS implication is that the administration attempted to ALSO get a deal from them to protect the PUBLIC OPTION as they DID from pharma.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

48. Which is even sicker. They dropped the public option and didn't even get anything in exchange

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 5, 2009

skip

But unlike the drug companies, the insurers have not pledged specific cost cuts. And insurers have also steadfastly vowed to block Mr. Obama’s proposed government-sponsored insurance plan — the biggest sticking point in the Congressional negotiations.

The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards.

skip

Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.

Like clockwork when this story is posted, one of the anti-truthsquad vigilantes shows up squawking about "Sure, let's believe the drug Lobbyist (Billy Tauzin), ignoring the fact that the story is confirmed in writing by a White House aide and has never been denied by the White House. Please, don't embarrass yourselves as usual. This is also the story that is referenced in the famous Tom Tomorrow cartoon featuring Chuckles the sensible woodchuck.



Edit - this was meant to be a reply to post #47

[BootinUp]

49. Your interpretation doesn't work

in this universe far as I can tell. You seem to be suggesting it would have been easier for congress to pass a bill with the public option if BOTH insurers AND pharma were fighting it (spending money lobbying against it).

1 + 1 still equals 2 right?

[villager]

50. They had to destroy the village to save it.

n/t

[bvar22]

73. Ex Chairman of the DLC Joe Lieberman merely "took one for the Team".

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

Joe Lieberman was NOT the Superman you and the others make him out to be.
Obama & The Democratic Party could have crushed Joe Lieberman anytime they wanted to.
He served a useful purpose to the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party, and has been well paid for his performance in the Kabuki Theater.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[BootinUp]

22. This concept is not accepted well at DU for some reason. nt

[jgraz]

30. Wow, that is complete nonsense

"The center is a factual concept"

In what universe? "The center" is determined by whatever parameters go into whatever method someone uses to determine the bounds of the political spectrum. The parameters are infinitely variable, the method is completely arbitrary and the person using them is almost always doing so in order to support a pre-ordained political agenda. How is that even remotely factual?


"It is a logical fallacy that there can be a long period of time when the party in power governs far away from the center."

Seriously? A "logical fallacy"? Do you know what the words "logical fallacy" mean? They do NOT mean "something that disagrees with my unsupported political opinions." Assuming you define "the center" as "the interests and beliefs of the majority of the population" (see above re: arbitrary methods), you can show that practically every government from the beginning of time has governed far away from the center. Things like coercion and propaganda actually exist and are extremely effective at controlling a powerless population.

In our case, the federal government has been far to the right of the general population for decades, and there's no sign that we're about the throw the perpetrators out of power. It's unclear whether we even have the means to do so at this point.

[BzaDem]

31. "In our case the federal government has been far to the right of the general population for decades"

"and there's no sign that we're about the throw the perpetrators out of power."

I think a more accurate description would be that the federal government has been far to the right of YOU for decades, and there's no sign that YOU are about to throw the "perpetrators" out of power. I would agree with both of THOSE statements wholeheartedly, without hesitation.

But that is really missing the point. Because in a democratic system like ours, it is actually not possible for the federal government to be "far to the right of the general population for decades" (or to the left). The people who claim otherwise are not just wrong emperically. They are wrong by definition.

Alternatively, you can argue (like you appear to have done) that we don't live in a democracy. In other words, people are just mindless subjects to "coercion and propaganda" that "controls" a population, similar to a dictatorship.

This is a textbook example of someone equating not liking the current state of affairs with the idea that the people agree with them. You are implicitly arguing that some people's opinions "don't count" (since they were arrived at by propaganda), and we should just "switch" their positions to something that we think they would have come up without propaganda. Under your brand-new metric that involves discounting opinions you don't like (due to "propaganda"), suddenly everyone agrees with you.

I would first disagree with you from a philosophical standpoint. As far as I'm concerned, if people want to let themselves be influenced by propaganda, their opinion doesn't suddenly become invalid (even if it disagrees with your opinion).

But even to the extent of your empircal claim about "coercion and propaganda" (independent of its philosophical application), I would argue that you are wrong.

But there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. You do not look at evidence and facts to form opinions. If I were to show you survey research that showed that there is a large distance between you and the suitably educated median voter, you would just say that such a voter were "coerced," and that propaganda "got to them."

In other words, in a world where everyone had to judge evidence like you do, your thesis is not falsifiable. No data could possibly convince you otherwise, since any such data is ipso facto evidence of a conspiracy to "coerce" and "propagandize." The more evidence I showed you, the more of a conspiracy you would find. If I showed you evidence that there was no conspiracy, you would accuse me as being part of the conspiracy and covering it up. It's not just that I won't convince you -- it is that there is nothing in ANY hypothetical world that COULD ever convince you.

So in response, yes, I know what a logical fallacy is. What I said is a logical fallacy is in fact a logical fallacy. It is not a political opinion (supported or otherwise). To the extent you disagree with that, you are not correct.

[jgraz]

32. Wrong again, Bob.

Time for you to start moving beyond the conventional wisdom. Start here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=489046&mesg_id=489046

Once you've digested the video and the links -- the ones that completely prove you wrong -- we can start dealing with your quaint notions that we live in a democracy. But I do have to ask: were you in a coma for the years 2001-2008? Do you feel the values of this country were democratically represented during that time?


As far as you not understanding concepts like definition and logic, there's nothing I can do to help you, other than to continue to show where you're dead wrong. One thing I find hilarious is that by incorrectly insisting that "it is a logical fallacy that there can be a long period of time when the party in power governs far away from the center", you are committing an actual logical fallacy: specifically, begging the question -- attempting to prove a conclusion by stating a premise that assumes the conclusion. In this case, you assume we live in a flawless democracy, thus rendering unthinkable the concept that a government may not completely represent the will of the people. But, of course, the idea that we live in a flawless democracy is just something you asserted, all evidence to the contrary.


So no, dear, you do not understand what a logical fallacy is. You barely understand what a "definition" is. (Actually, I'm being kind. You have no clue what a definition is.) These discussions will go a lot more smoothly once you realize that a thing is not true simply because you wish it to be so.

[BzaDem]

33. We seem to have a broad philosophical disagreement as to what makes a democracy.

Obviously, what is and is not a matter of logic depends on agreement on the definitions the words that make up statements. If you disagree with those, then that is where the disagreement comes from.

In a simplified form, when I look at a democracy, I look at whether people have the power to vote freely, anonymously, and have access to information on all sides. If people have access to information but choose not to look at it, or only look at trivially accessible information, I do not regard that as evidence that we do not live in a democracy.

(Unlike some very left-leaning people like Glenn Greenwald, I support things like campaign finance reform because I support making information on all sides more easily accessible to all. But I do not believe that the abscence of a strict campaign finance regime like in Europe indicates that we don't live in a democracy, because I don't believe there is a barrier to getting the information that prevents people who want it from getting it relatively easily.)

"But I do have to ask: were you in a coma for the years 2001-2008? Do you feel the values of this country were democratically represented during that time?"

In 2000, the election was close, but Gore won and Bush became President because of a Supreme Court decision that had no basis in the law. If you wanted to argue that we actually don't live in a democracy, that would probably be your strongest argument. I would obviously agree that the episode reflected badly on our democracy, and that repeated episodes like it might very well call it into question. But I would not go as far as to say that one incident in over 200 years indicates that we don't live in a Democracy.

In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by a few million votes. (I am not going to get into the conspiracy theories regarding the flipping of millions of votes, the "true vote," etc.) So at least in 2004, the people made their choice, and at least within a period after the election, a majority of the country was represented democratically.

Obviously, the tide turned against Bush in 2006 and later. But we have presidential elections every 4 years, so the fact that an elected leader's approval collapsed before his term was up is not evidence that we don't live in a democracy.


"These discussions will go a lot more smoothly once you realize that a thing is not true simply because you wish it to be so."

Obviously, if we both have a fundamental disagreement on what the words in our statements mean, then that is the source of disagreement.

You don't look at what people actually think -- you look at what you want people to think. More specifically, you seem to think that people who are subject to "propaganda" have opinions that don't count (or at least don't count as much), and that we should benevolently "switch" their opinions (in any metric) to whatever we think they would be in an information environment we would approve of. Unsurprisingly, to you, the propaganda is all right-wing, so therefore in a metric looking at people's opinions, you would "adjust" their opinion to the left. And then, TADA! Everyone agrees with you. What a coincidence.

This is precisely why your link is not persuasive. You look at various polls worded in various ways, providing various amounts of various sides on each issue, and look at what the results are. You conclude that most people are progressive. Its validity would depend on how the polls were worded, how much of each side was presented, etc.

But as far as "whether we live in a democracy" is concerned, we have a different metric. Instead of trying to point out how words in polls affect opinions, or how considering ideas in the abstract is different than considering ideas in reality, or whether both sides were sufficiently presented, I look at something else.

It's called an election.

An election where both sides present their points of view. More of one point of view might be available on television, but both sides have their view in a way that is accessible by most people without too much trouble. Whether the people avail themselves of this data is not a problem with the idea that we live in a democracy, provided that it is accessible.

If Americans keep voluntarily electing Republican presidents, then the "will of the people" is not progressive by definition. Period. Unless you can show me that the Democratic point of view was not able to be accessed in a non-burdensome way, or that voter supression flipped the election result, or other problems with the voluntary inputs into the election system, then the "will of the people" is defined by the way they express their will at the ballot box.

So if Americans keep electing Republicans, then those that do so are by definition not progressive. It is likewise impossible for a government to be far from the views of the people for a significant period of time, because the choice of the people in electing their government is the will of the people (with the caveats listed above).

If you want to "flip" their position to "progressive" because they choose not to avail themselves of the necessary information, or succumb to "propaganda," and then declare that "WOW! Everyone is progressive," then be my guest. That is not how I define the will of the people.

[BootinUp]

34. I love this post.

brilliant.

[jgraz]

41. I'm going to die of not surprise

:eyes:

[YOY]

52. And I love Smiley Cat!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUpwvokdmH8

It's just about as useful and informative too!

But shit! Both that post and smiley cate make you and I respectively feel good!

[BootinUp]

53. Anytime someone makes a decent effort to

counter a ridiculous narrative that is spewed all over the nets like a virus, its most definitely useful and informative.

[YOY]

54. YAY!!! Here's to feeling good!!!

n/t

[inna]

63. Of course, we do not live in a democracy. It's ridiculous to suggest that we do.

But feel free to persist in your illusions/delusions.

[no limit]

74. I appreciate your arguments here, they are well reasoned. But I don't agree with you

You are right when you make the argument that the democrats have to cater to the "center" to stay in power. It sucks, but that's what it is. But when you have policies such as the public option which have upwards of 70% support in this country there is absolutely no excuse for the democrats to drop these. You can use Lieberman as a scapegoat, but I don't think that's fair. Obama never even pressed the guy on the issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/lieberman-obama-never-pre_n_399355.html

Not only did he not press him on the issue the administration down played the public option. So I can't come to any other conclusion outside of Obama and the democrats using Lieberman as an excuse. The president has a lot of political power, to pretend otherwise is absurd. And he never even pressured Lieberman on this issue? Why?

[BzaDem]

12. .

[Ganja Ninja]

35. They ran on a platform that is more liberal then they are.

So on almost everything we cared about we were foiled by our own.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

36. If I could edit the OP I would add the words "or campaigning" to the end

You're so right about the platform.

[mmonk]

38. The overall strategy to get the voters behind them seems to

be to act and run left but govern right.

[paulk]

43. it's safer that way

when they are in the majority they run the real danger of exposing who they actually work for...



ed for sp

[radhika]

55. Not into using Power and creating Results -

Their whole 'cover story' is of the well-meaning OUTSIDER unable to do all the wonderful things they would do if in Power. Thought they'd be safe from being called upon to produce, but Bush was just too damn bad. It's all so clear, now.

[WillyT]

56. The Democrats Are The Trojan Condoms Of Politics, The Republicans Are The Dicks...

We're just left holding the bag after trying to prevent the damage.

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

57. Guess you weren't paying attention during the Bush years

They didn't act like it then either

[Stoic]

58. Got to play to the base.

And when they're in power they have to serve their corporate masters.

[mother earth]

59. Why apologize when speaking truth? What the hell has the

democratic party become? Our leader is no different than the GOP ex-occupier of the WH, he is lower because he was supposed to turn around the great fuck we were delivered. He's part of the same rape of America. I have taken too long to realize there is no difference in either party, the corporate takeover, the economic hit men rule not only our country, the world. Everything we hold dear is at stake, while the profits are at unprecedented levels, terrorism at its best. This is the game, the boogeyman is the final corporate fuck, while democracy is our most vivid illusion.

[fascisthunter]

61. Bravo (nt)

[laughingliberal]

62. K & R nt

[theFrankFactor]

64. Democrats are cut off at the knees by DLC - Power serves rower.

Congressional Democrats sucked ass as a minority and as a majority. Basically... they suck ass. The Republicans control both parties on issues of financial importance. Democrats make noise like they give a fuck and blame the minority party for their cowardice and treachery.

[Roland99]

67. Both parties are bought and owned by their corporate masters. We have no power. It's all an illusion

[bertman]

68. I'd say it more than "appears" that way, Phoebe. But you're right on track.

Rec.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. huh? We sucked as the opposition party too.

[on point]

70. It may be worse: They pretend to be democrats when they need our vote!

[unkachuck]

71. "...Democrats only act like Democrats when they are in the minority"

....corporate money has a way of doing that....

[defendandprotect]

75. Well, it's one or the other of those excuses ... but the reality is whether they are the

minority or the majority . . . the GOP gets to run the show!!