What does it say about the Democratic party that...

[hootinholler]

We have a thread nearly at the top of the greatest page thanking an Independent/Socialist for vigorously defending what once was a traditional Democratic position in the face of the party leader's abandonment of that very position?

I am seriously baffled by this. The leadership's move is so 'in your face' to me, and defies historical data about what happens when similar things that didn't work have been done by the opposition.

:shrug:

-Hoot

Edit: grammar fix.

[leftstreet]

1. I don't know, but it says a lot about DUers. WE B LEFTIES !!

[eleny]

2. +1

[lunatica]

3. It says Progressives can be in any party

Well, I take that back. Certainly not in the Tea Party or the Republican Party.

[Goldstein1984]

4. A few explanations come to mind:

Arrogance
Disdain
Contempt
Condescension
Imperial

Obama has shown that he's just another neoliberal member of the ruling class.

The people are peasants--producer and consumer units.

[NorthCarolina]

8. "The people are peasants--producer and consumer units."

You forgot to add 'meat shields for the war effort'.

[Goldstein1984]

14. That's why the recession is so convenient

Unemployed people trying to feed themselves and their families make willing fodder for IEDs.

[Edweird]

5. Nothing, so I have been told. They have the 'silent majority' and 8908295% of liberal dems approve.

The 'usual suspects' arguments have gone from specious to flat out delusional. If you want, I'll tell you about the 'centrist independents'.

[Octafish]

6. ''If you want to get along, you have to go along.''

What happens when you don't:



The leaders who don't are changed and the Constitution becomes a thing of the past...

[hootinholler]

12. I think that was sort of the Big Dawg's message yesterday.

Well without the SS standing down, lol.

I hope you are well my friend.

-Hoot

[bomberman]

7. Elections have consequences

Maybe if everybody had got out to vote in November instead of staying home and bitching on the Internet about how mad they are at the Democrats, this wouldn't have happened. I'm just saying. Obama has little choice in what he does now. The Republicans have the House and the Democrats never had the Senate, not even before.

[bobbolink]

9. wish I could unrec your post for sheer inanity

[Enthusiast]

25. Me too. nt

[girl gone mad]

13. The ones bithcing did go out and vote.

The people who stayed home were the supposed moderates that Obama's 3-dimensional capitulation chess was supposedly going to win over.

Oops.. they don't like being ground up and fed to the banks and health insurance industry so much, either.

[LaurenG]

16. How many people complaining on the internet but didn't vote do you know?

I don't know any. Those unsophisticated enough not to vote are not sophisticated enough to carry on a political discussion on places like this.

[BlueJac]

17. You are make my head spin.....

[hootinholler]

20. I'm not convinced that is true anymore.

Given what happened after the 2008 election. Perhaps that had something to do with voter turnout that you seem to think would have changed what the President would do.

Personally, I have my doubts it would have made any difference in the 'deal' being 'shoved down our throats.'

-Hoot

[Celtic Raven]

22. We did.

We're bitchin' because we're paying attention - not glazed over in front of DWTS.

I've never missed voting in 30+ years. Not starting now.

[tavalon]

23. Suspect well over 90percent of DUers voted

Far fewer in the meat world did. Bitch about voter apathy somewhere else.

[Enthusiast]

26. Exactly nt

[JoePhilly]

29. Looks like you found a nerve ...

The Dems lost some blue Dogs, and some key liberals. Any attempt to claim that Obama caused that is silly.

We lost because Dems in the House and Senate are cowards. Obama can not write the legislation for them. The Dems in the House and Senate needed to stand AS ONE.

The GOP's plan was to stand AS ONE, and block all legislation ... and failing that, to WEAKEN all other legislation. And then, when the economy moved too slowly, to use that to anger the American people, most of whom follow none of this, and are currently voting for the next Dancing with the Stars winner.

The GOP wants those folks to suffer, and have them blame Obama and the Dems. And their plan is working.

The Dems in the Senate can pass a resolution that the sky is BLUE ... and the House was petrified to pass a tax cut for the middle class extension until AFTER the 2010 mid-terms.

The GOP was able to get the racists to the polls. They were able to tell the galacticly stupid that a Kenyan raised their taxes. And the media helped.

And now, the left is doing what the GOP wanted all along ... BLAME OBAMA, and not the GOP, for every ill.

[bvar22]

30. Obama CAN and HAS "written the legislation for them".

The recent "deal" he cut behind closed doors with the Republicans and dropped on the Democratic Caucus is a perfect example.

Giving Away (excuse me..."compromising away" the Public Option) behind closed doors and then telling the Senate what they must do is another example.

[Laelth]

33. Any attempt to say Obama DIDN'T cause that is silly.

Congress carried water for Obama for two years. Congress gave the President pretty much everything he wanted. We had a very disciplined caucus. Most Democrats in Congress supported the President's agenda and did not make waves, even if they privately disagreed with him. They did not challenge him, for the most part, in public.

Then came the 2010 elections, and Democrats in Congress got to see, first hand, what they gained by following Obama lock-step. They were slaughtered.

Now, Congressional Democrats are finding their independence again. Personally, I think that's a good thing.

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It says that the "dimes worth of difference" has shrunk to a wooden nickel.

[bobbolink]

11. !!!!

:applause:

[hootinholler]

15. Well that's succinct

And cogent!

-Hoot

[EFerrari]

18. I've been having a similar mental struggle over the Wikileaks issue.

The administration's response was to vilify Assange, try to criminalize him and to extra legally bump Wikileaks off line.

And just when the rhetoric at DU was moving back near "civil" again. :(

I don't know where to step right now. Can't support the administration's behavior, don't want to see Obama trashing here for the foreseeable future. :shrug:

[hootinholler]

21. I feel very similarly

I think for me it's the recognition that I have lost hope. Perhaps I'm simply mourning what should have been.

:hug:

-Hoot

[EFerrari]

24. I felt chilled, literally, when I watched Secretary Clinton say

that Wikileaks wasn't revealing misdeeds because I've read some of the cables and knew that she knew what she was saying was not true.

That's what "appalling" means -- having the life scared out of you to the point where you are "white as a ghost".

So. It's difficult to have our two former candidates intimately involved in this Wikileaks situation. It's difficult to stay in the mindset of a Democratic party supporter when it's not Bush but your own party that's so actively persecuting someone like Julian Assange.

But maybe the idea is to disagree with the kind of response to the Wikileaks crisis that we are seeing. To disagree rationally and civilly as possible, to try not to be swept up in the (understandable and even healthy) emotional response.

[Individualist]

19. It says DLC has succeeded in destroying the party from within.

[bobbolink]

27. And while we are accused of "bashing" and "hate", the reality is that your sentence

is tragic, and we are :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[ibegurpard]

28. says what a lot of us have been saying for a long time

the party has been taken over by corporate water-carriers

[tomp]

31. it says the democratic party is useless and is being exposed as such....

....AGAIN!!!!!!

when will enough people get it?

[Time for change]

32. It says that the Democratic Party is becoming corrupted by a corrupt system

[mmonk]

34. It means the banner is now carried by an independent.

I will follow suit.