View Story | 920 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Sister Soulja is fooling themselves. Her move "back" to the middle will include playing her moderate credentials off against those crazy left-wing liberal bloggers.
The playground is open -- Philosophers' Playground: One part sandbox, one part soapbox
by SteveG on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
And that was while she was looking for votes.
If she's elected the netroots will be a DLC whipping boy.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM PDT
I'm no longer a Democrat. I'll be shopping for another party, if not another country.
www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!
by chuckvw on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM PDT
What if the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party in Congress were to all leave the party, form a new one, and then present Pelosi, Hoyer, Enamuel and the rest of the DLC a choice: end the Iraq war, impeach the criminal regime now in power, and push progressive legislation -- or else the new party will not caucus with anyone, thereby throwing control back to the GOP?
And please, no accusations of naïveté on my part; I know this is ridiculously unlikely to happen. It's just pursuing a train of thought (one of many that go through my head at any given moment). I just wonder what would happen if it did. Would the DLCers cave in, afraid of losing their tenuous hold on power, or would they be stupid again and reject the terms put forth? My money would bet on the latter, with the result being that the new party would follow through on its promise not to caucus with anyone.
More to the point, if the progressive wing of the party were to break away, what might some other consequences be? They'd already have a sizable number in Congress, with a lot of constituents potentially following them in terms of party affiliation.
Like I said, it won't happen. But it would be interesting to see what would be the result if it did.
Gravel2008.us | Re-Elect Dennis!
by Archangel M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:58:39 PM PDT
Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken.
Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM PDT
But a Republican/DLC-Democrat coalition government.
It would become obvious that there's no significant difference between to two parties - especially the reduced Democratic party.
Sort of like the NFL, everyone has the same goals, the difference is in organization and personnel.
Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool most of the people some of the time, and 30% 24% 19% all the time."
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:52:25 PM PDT
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM PDT
But I agree about the likelihood, alas...
by chuckvw on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM PDT
Vermont's Progressive Party has been growing steadily, and at this point they have the strongest challenger to neocon Jim Douglas in the governor's race - Anthony Pollina.
State by state is the only way, and that takes time. But without the progressives we wouldn't have had an impeachment debate on the State House floor, and a resolution passed by the Senate. They strongly influence the debate and agenda, though as yet without a major administrative electoral win. It's unrealistic for any party to appear on the national scene all at once - the scale is far too big.
Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.
by kamarvt on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:15:59 AM PDT
I'm not donating any money. Period. I'm a strong supporrter of the 50 state strategy.
by sjgman9 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM PDT
......in setting a progressive course than the general election will be. Although there is not as much diversity in the positions of the Democratic candidates as I would like we still have a variety of methodologies from which to chose.
Hillary definitely espouses the old guard status quo which is beholden to corporate interests.
Obama naively believes that the mega-corporations and the right-wing extremeists will happily make efforts work with the progressives and the environmentalists for the common good.
That leaves us with Edwards who is committed to take on those invested interests that are plundering our country's wealth and resources in the name of more and more profits into the pockets of this country's billionaires.
by calibpatriot on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 920 comments