Skip to main content

Hello, 'lo, 'lo, 'lo. Is there an echo in here?  

In Congress and the State Senate, I am represented by corporate shill Democrats. I voted for them both and will do so again. In the White House, I am represented by a very moderate individual whose Administration has steadfastly supported actions and programs and initiatives that I personally abhor. I voted for him twice and, under similar circumstances, would do so again. Why? Because they aren't Republicans. When these Democrats are in heated campaigns against Republican challengers, I avoid acting to undermine those campaigns. If I see others on this blog striving to undermine the candidacies of such Democrats, I am prone to speak out against such political sabotage. It's not because I don't cherish progressive, even socialist ideals. It's not because I want to see those ideals sold out. It's because those candidates aren't Republicans.  

Some writers here decry that Daily Kos is a site created by its founder for the purpose of increasing the political power of the Democratic Party's power in Washington and the several United States. They cannot abide supporting Democrats who believe and act in ways they personally find morally repugnant. They utterly reject the practice of realpolitik.

Party politics, however, is about political power and only about political power. We must battle through election cycles with the parties and candidates we have, not the ones we wish we had. There are times on this blog to speak up for Medicare for all, against the Surveillance State, against austerity budgets, etc. There are times on this blog to criticize, castigate and decry ideologically inadequate Democrats, but not when they are locked in electoral battle with Republicans.

I wanted Medicare for all. Democrats delivered federally regulated private health insurance. I wanted peace in Iraq. I got three more years of war. I wanted peace in Afghanistan. I got five more years of war. I want, have wanted and still want a lot of things from Democrats. I don't get very much of it. But that doesn't make me forget that while not all Democrats are good, all Republicans are bad for America.

I am free at Daily Kos to speak up for the things I want and believe in. I am free to criticize bad action by the Democrats who represent me. But when those Democrats are locked in electoral battles with Republicans, I will not undermine them, not here, where my privilege to blog exists for the purpose of electing Democrats, even poor ones.

If that means that sometimes I want Daily Kos to be an echo chamber, so be it.

Goodbye, 'eye, 'eye, 'eye.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (121+ / 0-)

    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

    by LeftOfYou on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:30:01 PM PDT

  •  I disagree. (39+ / 0-)
    Some writers here decry that Daily Kos is a site created by its founder for the purpose of increasing the political power of the Democratic Party's power in Washington and the several United States. They cannot abide supporting Democrats who believe and act in ways they personally find morally repugnant. They utterly reject the practice of realpolitik.
    Folks here all want to increase "the political power of the Democratic Party's power in Washington and the several United States".  They (the people you say 'decry' such) simply believe the best and fastest way to increase that power is to actually provide principled, intelligent, moral candidates who actually care about the people and demonstrate that with everything they do or say.  Better Democrats create electoral victory.
    •  only if they get elected (27+ / 0-)

      when our voters are discouraged they don't show up, the right wing however votes every time and only for Republicans.

      "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." Lewis Carroll

      by Wordsinthewind on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:44:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same as any other candidate. And what discourages (17+ / 0-)

        voters?  Dems they think are too similar to Republicans, in which case, why bother to vote?

        Encourage voters by actually being unabashed Dems.

        •  Or voter disenfranchisement (11+ / 0-)

          Let's not forget that.

          I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

          by blue aardvark on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:35:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Encourage voters by letting heart and mind coexist (4+ / 0-)

          This is an argument that will never end until we realize that both of our sides are right. The pragmatists are right that sometimes we need to support a candidate who has let us down. The idealists are right that we need to find a way to ask for more, a way to organize and build a critical mass so that we're not just settling for second-, third-, or fourth-best by outdated habit.

          Or in more-concrete terms: there are times and places when a sell-out "DINO" is the best we're going to do; if somehow a progressive firebrand beat Pryor or Heitkamp in the primary, they'd only lose in the general. And there are also times and places where reflexively settling for "not a Republican" undermines progress; Feinstein is so much worse than anyone who could replace her.

          It is ONLY our voting system that makes these two impulses incompatible. Under plurality voting, if you were to try to vote for a pragmatic compromiser and an idealist progressive at the same time, your vote would literally not be counted. If we had approval voting, you could do both. There would be no reason not to at least vote for the candidate you liked best, so we'd always have an honest measure of true support for the progressive. There'd be no need to bicker about whether that support had passed 50%; we'd know, and then we could just stop supporting the sell-out, easily and without drama. In voting theory terms, that's because approval voting passes the Favorite Betrayal Criterion; there's never a situation where you shouldn't support your favorite.

          Voting system reform is something that has to happen at the state-by-state level. For instance, right now in Oregon there's a ballot initiative by Mark Fronmayer (@nardopolo) to use #ApprovalVoting for primary elections. This is very different from the top-two system in California; it will never pit R vs R in a D district, but will allow D vs D races in strong D districts where the progressive choice has a chance to win.

          tl;dr: Both sides here should agree on one thing at least: if we had approval voting, we wouldn't need to be having this fight.

          Senate rules which prevent any reform of the filibuster are unconstitutional. Therefore, we can rein in the filibuster tomorrow with 51 votes.

          by homunq on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:15:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Approval voting improves turnout (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bisbonian

            because voting is more fun when it doesn't pit your heart against your brain.

            Senate rules which prevent any reform of the filibuster are unconstitutional. Therefore, we can rein in the filibuster tomorrow with 51 votes.

            by homunq on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:17:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is that why we vote? Because it is fun? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman, DeadHead

              Not where I'm sitting.  I vote to effect change - real change, not lip service to it.  

              We are having this fight because some of you think you are entitled to tell others what to do.   YOU AREN't.    I don't care what you think.  That only matters to YOU.   When I need a mother or a father, I'll be sure to let you know.

              What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

              by dkmich on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:39:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please don't shout at me (0+ / 0-)

                I'm trying to offer a solution that would let both sides here do what we want, without having to fight with each other so much. And the response is... both sides yell at me?

                Senate rules which prevent any reform of the filibuster are unconstitutional. Therefore, we can rein in the filibuster tomorrow with 51 votes.

                by homunq on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:59:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I think voting with my brain is the most fun. (0+ / 0-)

              You're bound to end up heartbroken, otherwise.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:54:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Our voters don't vote when our leaders don't lead (23+ / 0-)

        Everyone gets discouraged when the party leadership governs only in the interests of banks, Wall Street and the corporate elite.

        If Dem leaders want those votes, they have to earn them.

        If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

        by Betty Pinson on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:27:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand why that's so hard, but (11+ / 0-)

          this seems to be at least one person's idea of reality-based logic. I'm sorry to say it isn't, but let's suppose that it is?

          If I see others on this blog striving to undermine the candidacies of such Democrats, I am prone to speak out against such political sabotage. It's not because I don't cherish progressive, even socialist ideals. It's not because I want to see those ideals sold out. It's because those candidates aren't Republicans.  
          Let's review this bolded print as a stand-alone, shall we?
          striving to undermine the candidacies

          political sabotage

          So correctly noting policy in my own party that I happen to disagree with--and that I dare to disagree with it in print on a blog before primary seasons and what-not really start kicking in--is political sabotage now? Really? On what fucking planet?

           How much more obvious is it that unbelievable group of sentences is designed to pluck peoples' emotions and divide them some more? Because there's nothing reality-based there. That's authority-based and it's supposed to be.

          If that is supposed to dissuade Democrats from disagreeing with anti-Democratic policy, it's a waste of time. Here or anywhere else. Manipulation via this kind of wretched sophistry should be anathema to any party. If you really, truly believe that it's based in reality to say such things, you should run, not walk, to your nearest education co-op or secondary school to sign up for a remedial English course.

          And that's just for one paragraph. Don't even get me started about the rest of it.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:23:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I cannot speak to your positions (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ccyd, Radical Faith, duhban

            But the thrust of the diarist is true. We are in this for political power and anyone who takes the side of an unelectable purist candidate over an electable Democtrat is undermining our party. And me personally I vote Green Party every chance I get. I work, through my vote, to support the most liberal candidate I can. I happen to live in a place where I have that luxury. And I vote for Dan Maffei (although in the past election I voted for Ursula Rosin). So these purity test arguments are complete fucking bullshit to me.

            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

            by slothlax on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 12:09:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  So basically "real progressives" were ok with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wordsinthewind, Check077

          Bush II and would have been ok with Romney as well? I don't understand.

          If there are strong progressives that cannot recognize how disastrous for this country Romney would have been that's their fault IMO. It's not Rahm Emmanuel's fault for saying mean things to them.

          We're supposed to be informed. We're supposed to be the reality-based community.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:03:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Active progressives vote (0+ / 0-)

            It's the hoi polloi, the average working class masses struggling to get by who throw up their hands in frustration.  

            If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 12:58:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  heh (0+ / 0-)

          cue the irony meter, speaking of "reality-based" references ;)

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:49:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  " the right wing however votes every time..." (0+ / 0-)

        No, they don't.  And they know that.  That's one reason they don't field moderates.

        Moderate Republicans run at a handicap in terms of party turnout and fundraising.  They might not say as many embarrassing things, which is a plus, but altogether, it seems to balance and tilt in favor of the crazies.

      •  You'll never find out as long as you keep voting (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, DeadHead, CenPhx

        for the corporate backed crap the DNC keeps putting out as candidates for the party.  

        AND all of this is beside the point.  What gives anybody here (except Kos) the right to tell someone else to STFU?  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

        by dkmich on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:36:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And telling Democrats that they hate the left (25+ / 0-)

      if the best and fastest way to get them on your side to vote for better candidates, right?

      Because that's how priceman started his diary.

      It's pretty clear that a lot of people here share a genuine hatred for the left.
      I have never met a Democrat who hated someone to the left of them.

      I have never even met a moderate Republican who hates someone to the left of them.

      The only people I have ever met who hate people to the left of them are people who are on far right.

      And half of them hate out of fear not animosity.  

      How about being fucking NICE to the Democrats you are trying to win over instead of treating them like they are right wing extremists.  

      The way Betty Pinson just did in this diary a few comments down.

      Voting against your own best interests sounds like the extremists on the right.
      What the hell kind of thing to say is that to people you want on your side?

      You know, the burden to win over Democrats who are to the right of you is on YOU not them.  Talking to them or about them like they are the enemy doesn't help you win for your cause.

      How about the people like priceman who fancy themselves as 'the left' stop treating people in the  Democratic party who are to the right of them like they are bad people and maybe we could work together to get some things done instead of just needlessly fighting with each other?

      •  You may have never met them... (15+ / 0-)

        But there are certainly plenty of people on this site who act like 'the left' or 'liberals' are to blame for everything under the sun.  Quite a few of your own diaries have come off that way in the past, in fact.

        How about being fucking NICE to the Democrats you are trying to win over instead of treating them like they are right wing extremists.  
        That's what we say over and over again to the centrists who spend so much time blaming liberals and leftists for electoral failure, "depressing the vote", and every other thing they think didn't go their way.  We don't even ask for much, just the occasional policy bone thrown our way.
        •  Blaming is not hating. (10+ / 0-)

          Everyone wants to blame someone other than themselves for an electoral loss.  That just happens.  

          But that is all that it is.  Just blame.  It's not hate.

          I blame people like Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart for the lack of a public option.  I do.  Why?  Because they started the over the top guilt trips when we were still in the middle of trying to win over moderates who were scared to vote for any health care reform let alone a public option.  Keith was crying that it was immoral to not have a public option.  Jon was cracking jokes that Obama was getting his ass kicked.  I was thinking about how that turned the public option isn't something liberal instead of mainstream (like Medicare) and make Obama look weak, which scared already timid moderates.

          Do I hate them, because I blame them?  Of course I don't!  I love those guys.  I mostly agree with everything both of them say.  I feel like they are both national treasures.

          And I know that there's tons of blame to go around to everyone else because of the lack of a public option.  To Obama.  To the moderate democrats.  Everyone shares in blame on that one.  We failed to do something that would have been really good for this country.  

          Yes, I think that a public option would be really good for this country.  Single Payer would be even better.  And I sometimes want to put tape on the mouths of people like Dennis Kucinich who make Single Payer seem liberal instead of mainstream (like Medicare) by being such extreme liberal personalities.  I think that making something mainstream is how you make it happen.  I don't think charging forward like a liberal army will win the day.  

          Are there conservative Democrats?  Yes.  Are they on Daily Kos?  I highly doubt it.  I don't think this place really feels all that welcome to conservative Democrats.

          But there ARE a lot of Democrats who aren't as far to the left as others.  I think it's a spectrum, really.  So, it's kind of odd to hear one group from the far left of the spectrum act like they never get what they want.  I'm sorry, but I think you mean what WE want.  Just because we may not want it as much or have a difference strategy for how to get it, doesn't mean we don't want it.  That is what I wish 'the left' would get about Democrats to the right of them.

      •  We need to define terms here (8+ / 0-)

        I don't "hate" the left or the right; I just disagree with a lot of people. I do get awfully mad at people who give a good imitation of dead armadillos, though.


        A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

        by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:26:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and btw, (20+ / 0-)

        every time we vote in those centrist politicians, we're 'working with you'.  But when it comes time for policy to be enacted, we're always left out in the cold, with the claim that the only things that can ever pass are the things that centrists all just happen to want.

        Unless politicians are willing to at least once in a blue moon actually enact some honest to Gods liberal policies, they aren't giving us much reason to care whether or not they get to vote to make the rich richer with more Dems or more Repubs.

        You know, the burden to win over Democrats who are to the right of you is on YOU not them.  Talking to them or about them like they are the enemy doesn't help you win for your cause.
        It's amazing how many of the things you write can be turned right back around at you.  You want the votes from the left, and not for folks like Nader to get them instead?  Quit blaming everything on them, and quit telling them to shut up about the crap Dem candidates are pulling.  Put up good candidates, and we'll vote for them.
        •  Amen (5+ / 0-)

          I've just recommended all your comments on this thread, which is probably dumb of me and maybe against policy, but I found them such a breath of fresh air. As someone new, I've noticed that there are people who think "pro-Democrat" means "yellow dog Democrat." I used to be a precinct committeeperson (when I was young, and stupider) but the D party was just recovering from 30 years or more of corruption, and there still were times if you wanted to vote for a progressive, you had to vote Republican. I didn't LIKE it, and I quit when the Republicans all turned cookie cutter to win, but anyone who says "I vote for X because it isn't Y" obviously believes a name = difference. Laws, not men; the only hope. If it walks like a duck...


          A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

          by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:06:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Two points: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          newinfluence

          1.  We need both houses of Congress to be majority Democrat in order to control the agenda;
          2.  The reality is that Democratic messaging sucks which is why we need to rely on Blue Dog Democrats in a country that leans Republican.

          •  One nit to pick... (6+ / 0-)

            The country actually leans Democratic.

            When asked, people tend to label themselves "conservative" more often than "liberal", but when polled on policy preference and party identification, liberal policies have the clear preference and Democrats enjoy a healthy numerical cushion in registration.

            In PARTS of the country, where gerrymandering and/or population doesn't come into play, then it may be fair to say those areas lean (R).

            No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

            by newinfluence on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:28:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see this argument frequently here. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              I don't buy it, based on the evidence I've seen. There are a number of liberal policies that a majority favor. But does the majority favor all, or even most of those positions, simultaneously? What is the cross section of people that favor most of these positions? That can't be determined by single issue polls. The best evidence we have is how people vote, I think.

              In addition, I'm sure conservatives can cherry pick their own list of positions where the majority agrees more with them, or on some issues choose poll wording so that it appears that is the case.

              Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

              by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:38:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you don't believe me, go to any poll... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, AaronInSanDiego, triv33

                HuffPost has a composite polling graph with breakdown. Party identification is anywhere from 6-12 points in our favor. When polled on issues, I'll give you that no single issue captures ideological preference. But when polled on the contents of the platforms of the RNC vs. the DNC, people overwhelmingly favor the D, but that doesn't always translate into wins at every level. You saw that in Congressional elections, where 1.7 million more Democratic votes couldn't deliver the House.

                In some areas of the country, for instance, the issue of choice is an insurmountable one for a Democrat on the ballot, even where people would favor every other Democratic policy (I had several people verbalize that to me during this last election cycle from Midwest and Southern states. Their quotes were strikingly similar, and were along the lines of "the issue of life is one that is important enough to vote on above any other.") I would agree with you if you said people don't lean liberal, or at least that they don't see themselves as leaning that way. That's one area that Republicans have been amazingly successful at over the last 35 years: making liberal a dirty word.

                But I don't know how you can say you don't buy it when all evidence is actually that people lean Democratic.

                No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

                by newinfluence on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:02:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's because of the disdain for the word "liberal" (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jan4insight, duhban, newinfluence, CenPhx

              Republicans made it a dirty word.  It's why I always describe myself as liberal, not progressive.

            •  Yes, gerrymandering nullifies political impl. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              newinfluence
          •  We had that. We got the ACA and tax cuts (0+ / 0-)

            for the wealthy.   Next?

      •  Hear, hear! (9+ / 0-)

        Pragmatism is a beautiful thing to behold. Puritanism often leaves me troubled even when the puritan shares my values.

        •  I think that finding good candidates is as (9+ / 0-)

          pragmatic an act as you can commit.

          Voters want to see daylight between the parties.  If they're too close in their opinions, there's no incentive to vote for one over another.

          •  I've rarely seen real candidates (e.g. for (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wordsinthewind, eagleray, Bonsai66

            Congress) from two parties actually close to each other in their opinion. It's usually quite clear who's farther to the left and the difference is usually quite significant. Non-partisan elections though (e.g. mayoral elections around here) can be a different matter entirely and candidates often don't highlight their policy differences.

          •  How about (5+ / 0-)

            finding good candidates who can win? There are many districts in this country that would not vote for a Democrat who even has a whiff of liberalism or is a progressive. If you run a candidate from the left it is a guaranteed R pick up.

            I'm all for running the candidate who is as far to the left as possible as long as that candidate can win. I hate purity tests, the whole idea is destroying the Republican party and we would be fools to follow them down that road.

            Oh, and before you ask what good is a blue dog Dem, they count towards a majority and that makes all the difference in the world.

            And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay. Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away. John Prine

            by high uintas on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:18:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am a liberal pragmatist (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, high uintas

              I grew up in a state that was mostly Republican at the state and local levels (aside from the few mining and industrial towns that were heavily unioinized), but tended to vote for Democrats in state-wide elections.  There was no way far-left candidates could win in that environment, but it did give us Senators like Mike Mansfield, Max Baucus and Jon Tester.  None of them were/are all that liberal, but nevertheless are reliable Democratic votes on most key policy initiatives.  If Jon Tester is a gun-rights guy, that is okay with me because he aligns with the rest of the Democrats on so many other issues.  And he is ELECTABLE in Montana.  Where I currently live, Bob Casey is anti-choice, but again, he is a reliable Democratic vote on nearly everything else.

              It seems to me that there are lots of people around here who wish they could be in the forest if only they could get out of the trees.

              Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

              by ccyd on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:15:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  'Pragmatism' is a word too-often used (7+ / 0-)

          when 'short-sightedness' and 'cowardice' are more apt.

          There were times in our history when 'social insurance,' 'women's vote,' and 'forbidding slavery' were mocked as impractical and pipe-dreaming.

          The criteria then for which word is correct to use in any given circumstance: Necessity and Justice.

           


          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:18:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A fuckin' men (9+ / 0-)

        I get a little bit tired of going out and working to get people elected, and then being shit on here. So maybe the candidates I support don't give me most of what I want. So what? They move the ball forward, and that's what's important. And to come here and be accused of "hippie punching" and be called a tea partier when I defend my position and the work I've put in really pisses me off.

        Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. Mark Twain

        by Deathtongue on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:34:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So how do you propose to do that (17+ / 0-)

      other than voting for Democrats over Republicans at every opportunity and persuading others to do so?

      You won't get your principled candidate within 100 miles of holding office if the Republicans have ensured that Democratic voters are disenfranchised.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:35:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and the fastest way to that is purity tests? (5+ / 0-)

      I mean if you really think that then by all means go for it but don't tell anyone that disagrees with you that they hate the left because they disagree with you on tactics and strategy.

      Though I do want to ask, just how many 'better' Democrats do you expect to elect in the South? How about the more conservative parts of the Midwest? Do you really think that say a Bernie Sanders type person has any chance of being elected in say Mississippi any time in the next decade?

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:58:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh. (18+ / 0-)

        I normally don't reply to you, since I think you're a bad faith actor, but wth, since you asked me directly.

        'Hate' was never my word.  You're not seeing it in my comments.  Who keeps bring up that word in the comments in this diary?  Why look, it's the centrists!  Apparently it was also used in a diary I never even read, though, so it must be thrown in my face repeatedly.

        Demographics are shifting, which is why Republicans are so desperate of late.  With every election cycle, we CAN elect better Democrats in places we never could before, even the south.  Hell, Texas is almost purple these days.  Sanders in Mississippi in the next decade?  Of course not, yet another strawman among many.

        •  'Hate' was the word choice of the diary you are (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wordsinthewind, ccyd, sviscusi

          defending thus it becomes your word choice and your word to defend.

          Sure we with some districts we have the possiblity of running better democrats but that doesn't directly answer my question you know. Really though you have because we both know the answer you just can't stand to say it out loud. And yet you accuse me of being a bad faith actor?

          At least I can face reality.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:33:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Demographics (5+ / 0-)

          It's not impossible to imagine someone with politics similar to Sanders' winning, though the candidate would need to have a whole different persona. I never would have bet on Tom Harkin in Iowa, the first time he ran, though admittedly it was more predictable if you paid attention to the most popular Republican governor up to that time. and Wellstone was quite a surprise because he carried the state, not just the Twin Cities, at around the same time a (pre) TeaParty type pro wrestler won governor.

          I think most voters, just to start with, are not the pols who write diaries here; politics may be important in an election year, but it probably still runs second to dating, dancing, and watching the game of choice, or whatever. I really wish sometimes I was one of those people -- so less stressful. Daily Kos politics remind me of faculty politics, which were intense, horrific, and engaged in by about 10% of the faculty max, usually.

          It's how the politics get packaged, and how the politician comes across, which explains the votes, usually. Though if I were a politics bookie, I'd place the odds according to urban v. rural mostly.


          A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

          by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:39:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  both of those situations are with (0+ / 0-)

            some very specific situations and in each of those situations  you are talking about what are to us at worst purple states. I'll concede with all the stars aligned a Bernie Sanders might work there but I'm talking about red states, red districts.

            Packaging surely can help as we saw with Heidi Heitkamp recently  but I don't think you can blame people for not always wanting to swing for the fences.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:53:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No blame (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, TracieLynn, CenPhx

              I was just proposing another perspective; as someone who used to work (paid and unpaid) for different political campaigns, I have the utmost respect for anyone with enough ovaries to go into politics as a candidate, if they're not in it just for the money. (Wouldn't be surprised if many candidates still really believe in whatever it is they're overall selling, rationalizing the odd cruising-boys-in-the-airport glitches.)

              I know the odds are stacked against us in many ways -- gerrymandering, SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution for its own benefit, a history of greed and selfishness deified -- but I also know that "the people" are capable of amazing insight -- or amazing fickleness, depending on perspective. I live in a state where they voted AGAINST voter ID and FOR gay marriage pretty resoundingly, considering the squeak-in records of (conservativish) democratic candidates. I think it would be interesting to try for candidates which match the voters' more progressive values. I mean -- we've got Keith Ellison! and Michele Bachmann! Admittedly from different districts, but districts aren't everything. In short, I always believe in potential to vote the right thing. My problem is figuring out what that is.


              A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

              by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:29:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  fair enough (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kestrel sparhawk

                and I have nothing against that either. What bothers me is when the name calling and insults starts along the not so subtle musing as to whether they are talking to 'real progressives'.

                Primaries are healthy things and are needed if we are going to keep pushing the nation to the left. Truly thank you for your work especially the unpaid part. Personally speaking I hope you get that brain storm and an answer as I'd love to have a truly progressive nation and representation.

                peace

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:09:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You hang with people debating "real progressives"? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban

                  egads, I feel old. I thought that was a college thing only.

                  I know there are people here still in college, and I believe the debate an important part of coming to political maturity, but surely the majority doesn't do that?

                  Or maybe I've just had a surfeit of labels in my life.

                  The only one I really take to is "she's right." I usually have to settle for "she's wrong."


                  A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                  by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:27:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I forgot to say (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban

                  thank you for the nice comment on my work! I was sympathizing with hearing people (presumably telling you) you weren't a "real progressive." With me, it was more often being told I wasn't a "real feminist," with a wide range of people making that statement.


                  A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                  by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:48:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Minnesota may not be the best example (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kkjohnson, duhban

            Wellstone ran in 1990 against IR incumbent Rudy Boschewitz.  Boschewitz lead up until the weekend before the election when some group loosely associated with the Senator sent out the infamous "good Jew, bad Jew" letter, which turned so many people off that Wellstone carried the day.  Ventura won in 1998 because the three-way race and the new, day-of-election registration created an unprecedented electoral environment.  Norm Coleman, the losing GOP candidate for Governor then ran against Wellstone in 2000.  Wellstone would have been reelected handily except he died in a plane crash.  The raw emotion at his memorial service was politicized by the GOP and that led to Coleman being elected.  In the mix was Rod Grams, who was elected to the Senate in 2004.  He was very conservative.  Then you have the Franken-Coleman election that came down to, what, 500 votes?  During this time, Minnesotans elected a moderate-to-liberal Republican, Arne Carlson, as Governor in 1990 and 1994 (Who I voted for twice because he was better than either of the two DFL candidates), Jesse Ventura and a conservative, Tim Pawlenty.  Minnesota is all over the map and has elected very liberal, very conservative, and in-between officials for a very long time.  I don't see any kind of trend or breakthrough.

            Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

            by ccyd on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:54:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wouldn't connect Ventura with Tea Party either (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban
            •  Perhaps the complexity fits (0+ / 0-)

              I wasn't in Minnesota for the earlier elections, but I came around several years after Wellstone died and there were still election signs up for him everywhere. To me it's the best example, because it's always up for grabs and the "political identity" of any particular candidate does not actual determine if they can win or not. Thanks for clarifying the events leading up to the 2000s politics, though.

              As for Franken, yes, I was one of those 500 -- and probably won't be in the next election.


              A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

              by kestrel sparhawk on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:02:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  "Better" does not always mean "Better for you" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      The Democrats that some around here decry may actually be the Democrats that best represent their constituents. Just because you disagree with their stances does not mean they aren't real Democrats. It just means they aren't the kind you would pick and that, if you are representative of your district, would not be picked to represent you.

      And that's okay.

      I don't support a candidate simply because they support the things I support. I support a candidate if doing so means that the things I support will have a better chance of becoming real. And if that means supporting a candidate who favors some things I vehemently oppose, then so be it.

    •  Bernie Sanders wouldn't get elected in Georgia (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      The United States is incredibly diverse.  What works in one neck of the woods won't work in another.  Bernie Sanders is the perfect Senator for Vermont, but there is no chance he would be elected in a conservative state like Georgia.  But Michelle Nunn has a good chance.  And even if she is not a "good" Democrat, she is electable and she would caucus with the Democrats in the Senate.  Call your Senator and Representative and try to persuade them to vote the way you would if roles were reversed, by all means.  But get them elected first.  Michelle Nunn can't help break a filibuster if she is defeated.

      Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

      by ccyd on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:50:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's not an election year... (9+ / 0-)

    it's time to have these fights.

     and you really should have finished with Rhianna's Umbrella Ella ella ella... for your echo sound effect.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:46:00 PM PDT

    •  It is almost exactly ONE YEAR to the next election (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wordsinthewind, eagleray, Onomastic

      and now is the time to start gaining momentum heading toward the goal of taking back the House and keeping the
      Senate, not trashing Democrats who need to be reelected.

      Last time this site had folks demonizing Dems was in 2009, and continued right up to losing the House in 2010.  Let's not repeat that debacle, shall we?

      Best. President. Ever.

      by Little Lulu on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:13:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't wait (5+ / 0-)

        until your next diary, when you explain to us all exactly when we're supposed to hold our own politicians accountable.

        Not here!  Heavens no, we might destroy the entire Party with such dissent!

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:36:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When we don't complain (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, CenPhx

          about how they are governing, they think we are giving them consent to keep shitting on us.
          We pretended Obama was playing chess for 3 years.
          Look what that got us.
          And just maybe Lulu, people did not like what the Dems were doing or what Obama was doing and stayed home.
          What he promised is far different then what he delivered.
          And don't give me the thugs blocked him on everything shit.
          He made many back room deals before the negotiations started.
          NOW is the time to tell them what we expect.

          Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

          by snoopydawg on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:30:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This Is Only True a Few Months of the Cycle. (14+ / 0-)

    This is what's been dragging the party to the right for 40 years, treating the entire 2- 4- and 6-year election cycle like it was the last months of a general election when we're trying to attract moderates.

    This site BTW is for electing more AND BETTER Democrats and that's what we the nonright have been bad at for so long.

    Candidates are only locked in battles with Republicans for a few months in the political cycle. The entire rest of the cycle we can be working the on the "better" part of the formula by pressuring those in office and meanwhile recruiting and actively creating better candidates, especially at the state and local levels.

    So it's not either-or.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:51:36 PM PDT

  •  Yay! (15+ / 0-)

    I agree with you 100% and you said much better and much nicer than I ever have.  

    Bravo.

    Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

    by Miss Blue on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:27:26 PM PDT

  •  IMO, we need (8+ / 0-)

    to quit settling for crumbs.  

    Sure, vote dem to keep repubs out, but we need more than that from our representatives.

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:34:31 PM PDT

  •  Voting against your own best interests (11+ / 0-)

    sounds like the extremists on the right.

    If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

    by Betty Pinson on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:35:42 PM PDT

  •  What is "undermining", though? (7+ / 0-)

    It IS possible to criticize politicians behaviors/positions/decisions without undermining them, right?

    I'm pretty pragmatic and am usually willing be happy with even just an inch of progress and then continue fighting for another inch.

    And I tend to get impatient and frustrated with people less um, willing to take just an inch, because they don't seem to understand that while they may be correct in their thinking and goals, the cynicism and cries of 'this isn't good enough' actually turns people off and so makes it harder to reach the goals.

    So while there are a lot of people here who have no idea how to criticize and push for change in a way that makes people feel positive and validated, that doesn't mean all criticism is problematic.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Lisa

    All Kossacks are my allies, but if you can't express your thoughts in a civil and kind manner, I won't be engaging in a conversation with you.

    by Boston to Salem on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:54:55 PM PDT

    •  Criticize the policy - long and loud (15+ / 0-)

      That's not undermining. Undermining starts when the critcism is leveled at the person. And that is too often accompanied by assumptions and presumptions about the persons motives or good faith.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:19:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nonsense (6+ / 0-)
        Undermining starts when the critcism is leveled at the person.
        My disgust at Chained CPI starts with the policy. Then I'm told that the PERSON who is backing such a thing isn't really doing that and it's not going anywhere anyway. It's just a "technique" or some such and I should just shut up and let him do that.

        Next thing you know, it's all about personalities because I dare to say "NO, you (PERSON) don't be gambling with our futures".

        Your differentiation is disingenuous. At best.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:42:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Someone raises the "person" into the discussion (5+ / 0-)

          It may be you - "Obama sux because he's putting this policy on the table".
          It may be someone responding to your criticism of the policy "But Obama and the Dems are only putting it out there to challenge the Repubs."

          What seems to escape too many is - it's entirely possible to criticize the idea, present facts and data explaining the negative impacts of such a policy, suggesting action steps to spread the information and challenge the 'critters who can influence policy, etc. without every once mentioning any person. So if your disgust starts with the policy, speak to the policy. Educate others on the potential impacts and results of such a policy. Counter any arguments for the policy.  It is entirely unnecessary to deal with the persons - unless one chooses to do that.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:01:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You say this as if no diarist ever does this (0+ / 0-)

            in a diary they write:

            it's entirely possible to criticize the idea, present facts and data explaining the negative impacts of such a policy, suggesting action steps to spread the information and challenge the 'critters who can influence policy, etc.
            What you're talking about happens in the COMMENTS.
            without every once mentioning any person.
            If the facts are already in the diary, then you'll have to pardon me for my blunt question--what the fuck is the point of rehashing the diary in the comments, again? To repeat it verbatim? No, I don't think so. It's to DISCUSS it.

            Where, invariably, as I said--and I'll thank you to acknowledge the truth of it--you end up with this:

            My disgust at (policy) starts with the policy. Then I'm told that the person who is backing such a thing isn't really doing that and it's not going anywhere anyway. It's just a "technique" or some such and I should just shut up and let him do that.

            Next thing you know, it's all about personalities because I dare to say "NO, you (person) don't be gambling with our futures".

            That's STILL about the policy. Policy does not exist in a vacum. People put it together. There's no way, really, reasonably, to not bring PEOPLE into this. What you are advocating--and you have to know this--that those of us who criticize bad policy, which happens to be put forth by a Person, are now critical of the Person. And so now, the problem is that commenters brought People into it and that's The Whole Problem.

            Nope. Not cutting it. Sorry. "Specious" is as polite as I can be.  Your initial, seemingly-reasonable position sets an impossible standard in a forum like this one.

             

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:14:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hate to echo your other commenters (17+ / 0-)

    But I think you, and people who say we should support "Democrats" are wrong. Pragmatically, politically, and morally wrong.

    Pragmatically: As a rhetorician, I have studied a lot of social movements, most from the last 150 years, some from thousands of years ago.  Progress is made from the middle. When there is a voice viewed as "extreme," the middle moves more quickly to that side. The middle, in short, is the most fluid part of politics.

    To give a couple of examples, liberals made the most progress in the 60s and 70s when there was a radical movement. "Free abortion on demand" made "pro-choice" sound like a good idea. "Smash the state" made "get out of Vietnam" workable. Richard Viguerie took that lesson and incorporated it into the New Right, and suddenly "lower Social Security" made sense in the light of "end government handouts." There are many other examples. A whole history's worth. Study the abolitionist movement sometime. Or union organizing. Anywhere Democrats won. Anywhere people won.

    Political: As hinted by my last sentence, political parties thrive when there is a strong, independent voice and no guaranteed voters. Compromise is forced through -- forgive the term -- dialectic. Since little-D democratic leaders horsetrade for votes, the fear of losing votes is one of the few powers that make people whose jobs depend on voting listen. Guaranteeing your vote is throwing that vote away.

    Ethical: I'm perfectly willing to settle for less than everything; I came up through movements and organizing, and know that the real definition of consensus is "when you get enough that disagreement is too much work," not "when everyone loves the outcome." But everyone, and I mean everyone, who isn't a psychopath needs to have a moral bottom line.

    Mine happens to be not helping the state kill people so severely damaged they don't even know the state's killing them, and preventing the state from enthusiastically killing innocent civilians in the name of getting a killer. I won't vote for people who do such things because that means I'm complicit in those actions. Fortunately, i don't usually have to make such choices at the state and local level -- but I certainly would.

    There is a certain defensiveness in your statement which suggests to me that you are trying not to think about your complicitness in murder, but I hope I'm misreading. Whether or no, your argument pretty much boils down to that you would vote for the pigs in Animal Farm because they're not the farmers.

    I see no logic in that.


    A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

    by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:07:22 PM PDT

    •  The diarist and the kossacks he speaks for (8+ / 0-)

      sincerely (and wrongly) believe that it's the centrist "pragmatists" who get things done. They fail to understand, and will never admit, that it's the radicals on the left who historically have created the opportunity and the framework for the enactment of progressive legislation. It's the radical left who made it toxic for the PTB to continue to support policies and programs that didn't serve the interests of the people.

      The dramatic shift of the Overton Window these past three decades is testament to the success of the right in demonizing the left, and the self-described pragmatists have unwittingly enabled that shift. Their call, their demand, that every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a D-suffix must be supported electorally serves only to strip the Democratic voters of any power to influence their candidates for office.

      It matters not how impassioned is our advocacy for progressive change in the off years, if we make it clear our votes are guaranteed come election time, regardless of performance.

      The pragmatists retort, "But that's what primaries are for!" What a sick joke that is. Time after time, the Dem establishment undercuts the challenger and lays its heavy thumb on the electoral scale. When (inevitably) the incumbent proceeds to the general, we conveniently forget the very deficiencies that gave rise to the primary challenge and go all in for the candidate we had judged worthy of defeat.

      Again, it's the left, the uncompromising, principled left, who make progress possible. It's the left's declaration that their votes are not guaranteed that forces our representatives to legislate in the peoples' interest. Or, at least, that was the role they played prior to the Reagan "Revolution." In recent decades the pragmatists, the centrists, the 3rd way accommodationists have successfully undercut the influence of the left. much to the detriment of our nation's welfare.

      If we want real, sustainable change, we must stop demonizing the left and, rather, promote and amplify their voices. We must have the courage to risk occasional Republican victories in the short term, as a function of withholding support from the faux Democrats. The surest way to defeat Republicanism in the long haul is to make them take responsibility for their own agenda.

      President Obama didn't choose his advisers to help identify the correct path, but rather to clear obstructions from the path he'd already chosen years ago.

      by WisePiper on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:46:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Overton window (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisePiper, CenPhx

        Fascinating. Not a theory I'd run into (by name, at least) but it explains the demonization of the word "liberal" in the 80s so much. That theory runs completely opposite everything I know works, but it explains why there's such an impassioned debate.

        The flaw with the theory is obvious -- at least, the current, overwhelming flaw. Quantitative science, on which the choices of advocacy would be based, is simply inadequate to determine what that range of ideas would be. Michael McGee, among others, spent a good portion of his scholarly life showing how Americans hold contradictory values and beliefs, which can be called-up/made dominant by a good rhetorician.

        Therefore, the "narrow range" centrists advocate simply could not explain, much less allow for, how within remarkably narrow periods of time a citizen or a voting community could advocate fascist policies and socialist policies, depending on how the ideas are framed. Or any individual conversion experience, for that matter.

        So yes -- as I said, and I think you were concurring -- the idea of the middle as the solid center is not merely inaccurate, but simply wrong. Those are the ideas which change the most. If the current batch of New Righties agree with Overton, no wonder they're running around threatening to take their balls and go home. They don't know what hit them.

        That also explains why the neo-con Democrats are so bewildered by the criticism from the Left -- they must think they have the Answer, and want the Left to shush so it works. Whereas we think the neo-con dems are crazies, to give away the store rather than call the police.

        Needless to say, I agree with you -- except perhaps the implication that the left is the "principled" group exclusively, which may be a misreading on my part. I think the big problem (if Overton is to the Dems what Rand is to the Reps) is that we're all believing we have the best way to win. Which is a completely different rhetorical problem than I was thinking... well, somewhat different.

        Who, though, is "we?" I don't demonize the left. Even those to the left of me.


        A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

        by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:52:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't have time right now to give your (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10

          comment the detailed and thoughtful response it warrants. However, do check this link for a short-hand explanation of the "Overton window."

          President Obama didn't choose his advisers to help identify the correct path, but rather to clear obstructions from the path he'd already chosen years ago.

          by WisePiper on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:58:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look forward to more conversation later (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WisePiper

            I confess I googled and read a couple of articles before responding to you, but missed this one. (I also followed a link to someone writing about using Alinsky against liberals, who referred to him as "evil." You can tell from my icon I was not pleased. But yes, interested.)

            I would love to hear more from you on this. The more I hear, the more I feel like doing an in-depth analysis which hopefully would bring it into the rhetorical theory community for ridicule, though I'm a bit out of touch with that community so of course they may have fallen in love with it by now too.

            btw, i like your sig and think it's quite fair. I voted for Obama. Once.


            A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

            by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:51:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Policies and personalities (9+ / 0-)

    Along the lines of your position to not undermine our candidates.

    The challenge arises with some regularity that we would never put up with things from Bush that we put up with from Obama. I have explained that my general position  is that if their guy is doing something I don't like, I'm going to go after both the bad policy, and the candidate/elected. If it's my guy doing it I'm all for going after the policy with everything I have, but not the person.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:15:45 PM PDT

    •  Personalities (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn

      I am always grateful when I find someone echoing the original Whig Liberal concept of "Laws, not men." The "men" may have been expanded a little, but the idea as far as I can tell has never been improved.

      My greatest problem with civic discourse these days is that people who should know better (ie democrats) still have one set of rules for some people and one set of rules for the rest.

      Thank you for your comment!


      A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

      by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:30:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What do you do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, high uintas

      when their candidate pushes a policy you like while yours is against it?  

      See, I'm deadly afraid that in '16, the GOP will nominate,  not Christie or Cruz, but Rand Paul and Paul will promise to end the wars and torture, get rid of the NSA and close most, if not all, foreign bases. Now, he'll also propose many policies I HATE. I won't vote for him. But if the Democrats nominate a corporate hawk (as they often have), Paul will peal off enough pro-peace votes (especially among young men) to win.
         I'm a pragmatic progressive, but it only goes so far before it is self-defeating.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:54:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rand Paul scares me too- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas

        it scares me even more that Chris Matthews thinks he'll be the nominee. I know I know- Matthews can be a knucklehead but he's pretty astute about electoral politics.
        Hopefully by 2016 we'll be sufficiently disentangled that our candidate can also be a peace candidate.
        And if we don't get smart about pot legalization, we'll really lose a lot of young people.

        •  I was not aware that Chris Matthews (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLeveller, gramofsam1

          thinks that it'll be Paul. I've been going around saying the same thing for a while. Maybe this plagiarism thing will derail him, but I think he's the most likely to be nominated. And he scares me, too.

          And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay. Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away. John Prine

          by high uintas on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:25:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Recc'd for your sig line (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas

            and it's Western KY reference.

            "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

            by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:49:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What You do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie

        I think, is have your own moral compass. You raise a horribly good point. Here are things I'd think about:

        1. Is there a chance that voting for a third party candidate will pull the Demos to the left, since they can't take the left in their own party for granted?

        2. What is the greatest good for the greatest number? (Yes, cliched, but still available to be argued at the dinner tables and in the blogs of every decent citizen everywhere. And loads of other dinner tables and blogs.)

        3. What difference will it make in 20 years if the Democratic candidate doesn't win?

        My conclusions since my first Presidential election (George McGovern) have varied; I voted for Nader and had to re-examine all previous assumptions to factor in the possibilities. My final conclusion was a) Gore did win, despite 3rd parties, and it was the corruption of the Supreme Court which actually led to Bush; b) I am only responsible for my own vote ultimately, unless I'm actively working for a candidate. But believe me, every four years I re-evaluate like crazy. And for the record, I have NEVER voted for a candidate who was very wrong. There are always candidates I can support. The demos in Seattle I hung with used to talk about making a t-shirt that said, "I'd rather vote for someone I like and lose than someone I hate and win." with the graphic of a melting snowball.

        Your mileage varies, I'm sure. But we need to have these conversations. In public. For the public good.


        A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

        by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:23:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I campaigned for Bradley over Gore (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhillyJeff, mconvente, chicago minx

          but I couldn't vote for Nader. I wanted to. I wanted him to get enough of the popular vote to raise the Greens' profile. But Nader KNEW how close that election was (completely Gore's fault--and Donna Brazile's) and yet insisted on campaigning in swing states/districts instead of just in ones that were safe (too red or too blue to affect the election). Then he came up with that vote swapping scheme that had people across the nation trading votes--very dangerous. Had Nader stayed out of even NH with its 4 electoral votes, Gore would've CLEARLY won both the popular and electoral votes and we could've investigated FL in Jan. of '01--which would probably have resulted in Katherine Harris' arrest, if not John Ellis Bush's.

          Nader's prima donna insistence on campaigning in swing states and districts cured me of EVER voting 3rd party unless/until we get 50 state proportional elections,  abolition of the electoral college, and instant run-off voting!

          I'll vote for the most progressive candidate of the  2 major parties. As things stand now, that will always be a Democrat, but I can remember a time when that wasn't so. Suppose the 1992 GOP candidate had not been GHWB, but Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR), one of the last liberal Republicans. Could I still have held my nose and voted for corporate Dem Clinton? I doubt it.

          "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

          by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:58:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Not a dime's worth of difference between Bush (0+ / 0-)

            and Gore."  Nader's quote gives me chills.

          •  OMG Hatfield (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, perfect example of having to choose a really fine Repub or a really... not so fine Dem. As a Washingtonian, I came of Age with Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson and envied Oregon Hatfield. It was worse in state -- At one point, the democratic candidate for Governor was Dixie Lee Ray and every vaguely progressive woman I knew (every one I knew!) voted for her because she was a woman -- and she was one of the worst things ever to happen to Washington State, far worse than the Rpublican candidate, who was bad, could ever have been.

            I loved reading about the Levellers in British Public Address in school. It made me switch allegiances really, as well as theoretically, from King Charles to Cromwell. Weren't there Diggers than as well?


            A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

            by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:02:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My Response? (0+ / 0-)

        may not work for you but it works for me

        What do you do when their candidate pushes a policy you like while yours is against it?  
        I remember two life lessons we all should have learned before middle school:

        1.  Teams are more effective than individuals
        2.  Sometimes being on a team means giving up something individually

        ie, we can accomplish a lot more together but we may not get exactly what we want.

        Obviously this response doesn't apply - or is harder to live with - if the specific compromise involved is on your personal highest priority issue.  If you wake up every morning driven by pro-choice activism it's gonna be harder to support a forced-birther for the team than an NSA-lover, for example.  

        (Of course in your example the choice for me is a lot easier because I don't think there's a chance in hell that Rand Paul would ever do any of the things you're saying he'll promise to do. So in this case I think obviously the Dem - whoever it may be - is still the best bet to see any progress even on those issues.)

  •  The only way that criticizing inadequate Democrats (16+ / 0-)

    on this blog hurts them in their electoral battles with Republicans is if you think this blog has such enormous electoral power with all sorts of voters.  Is that what you think?  

    •  In a sense, yes (7+ / 0-)

      DKos is an influential voice among liberal/progressive activists.  If the bloggers on here spend 18 months dissing Joe Conservadem, it's more likely that the base in his district is going to sit on its hands the last six months, with the result being that Susie Teabagger gets elected.

      My rule of thumb is to support "the best (i.e., most progressive) Democrat that can get elected."  In many places, that means a reasonably liberal Democrat with a solid voting record we agree with 90% of the time.  In some  states and some districts, that means putting up with a "moderate" who votes the party platform only 70% of the time.  Guess what?  He's till better than the GOP Zombie who votes against us 95% of the time.

      •  This is, of course, pure speculation. (7+ / 0-)

        I could just as easily speculate that the base will vote anyway.  Do you have any facts to support your speculation that the base will stay home?

        Because here is the CNN exit poll from the 2010 midterms, and 20% of voters identify as liberal.

        And here is the CNN exit poll from the 2006 midterm, and 20% of voters identify as liberal.

        So there is no change in the percentage of voters who identify as liberal.  In fact, in 2010, 90% of voters who identify as liberal were Democrats, while in 2006, 87% of voters who identify as liberal were Democrats.  That might just be statistical noise, but there was a slight increase from 2006 to 2010 in the number of voters who identify as both liberal and Democratic.

        The real difference is in self-identified moderates.  In 2010, 38% of voters identified as moderate and 55% voted Democratic, while in 2006, 47% of voters identified as moderate and 60% voted Democratic. In fact, in 2006, 32% of voters identified as conservative and 20% voted for Democrats, while in 2010 42% of voters identified as conservative and 13% voted for Democrats.

        So the difference is moderates who stayed away and conservatives who voted Republican.  Therefore, your speculation about the base staying home doesn't hold up, unless you want to argue that moderate voters are the Democratic base, read Daily Kos and are influenced by it.  Is that what you're saying?

        •  No (5+ / 0-)

          I'm talking about volunteers, not voters.  Sorry for the confusion.  When I say the base is sitting on its hands, I mean that they are not making phone calls, knocking on doors, and doing the other grunt work to get the average voter to get off the couch and vote Democratic.  Without that effort, the low-information moderate either stays home or (possibly) is swayed to vote Reep.  

          BTW:  Percentages alone tell only part of the story.  What were the raw numbers?  

          •  This is simply more speculation. (0+ / 0-)

            It might happen.  It might not.  You have not presented a single fact to support your claim that what gets written here can or does have any affect on volunteers.  Perhaps one of your upraters has such a fact.

            As for your question about the raw numbers, if you follow my links they are right there.

  •  Some writers here (6+ / 0-)

    Want a 1000 comment pie fight, that was the real point.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:21:10 PM PDT

  •  The immorality of tribalism (7+ / 0-)

    brought on by happy cognitive dissonance

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:34:34 PM PDT

  •  THANK YOU! (12+ / 0-)

    Getting damned tired of the Friday Night "all you lib wannabe sheep suck" blog dump that the "better progressives than you" crowd seems compelled to "honor" us with each week.

    The arrogance fairly drips off the page. The paranoia screams for attention and the lack of any seeming knowledge about what it actually takes to WIN elections smacks you in the face with it's raw emotion.

    I was actually going to write a diary and title it "the echo chamber of the extreme left" because they don't actually seem to be interested in having a conversation or admitting there might be valid points, but every single comment that replies to a comment that points out where they might have some problems in their arguments gets recced up.

    The simple fact is any further power for the GOP is a potential death knell for this country. If Ted Cruz becomes President we are so seriously fucked it's not funny. More so given the number of seats that will turn over on the SCOTUS in the next 10 years. So I'm going to vote for Hillary in 2016, not because I think she'll tear down the NSA, end the drone strikes, reduce the defense budget and turn the USA into a progressive paradise, but because she's still several orders of magnitude better than the alternative and she'll hopefully lead this country slowly but steadily in the direction I think it needs to go.

    Of course we can kick and scream and cry and wail and insist the Dems go as far left as possible and watch as the GOP splits into the GOP and the TBP and the GOP grabs all the moderate Dems and marginalizes both extremes.

    You can't stomach voting for a Dem, go post on a freaking Green Party site and heck vote for them too, but stop lecturing me on how foolish I am for wanting to take a long term view and concentrate on keeping people like Sarah Palin and her ilk as far as is possible from any kind of serious power.

    Voting straight party D 'til there's no GOP...

    by jusjtim35 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:51:38 PM PDT

    •  You are welcome. (7+ / 0-)
      Getting damned tired of the Friday Night "all you lib wannabe sheep suck" blog dump that the "better progressives than you" crowd seems compelled to "honor" us with each week.

      The arrogance fairly drips off the page. The paranoia screams for attention and the lack of any seeming knowledge about what it actually takes to WIN elections smacks you in the face with it's raw emotion.

      I laid awake until about 3:00 AM this morning ruminating over similar thoughts and wondering if there was any way to answer. Then I finally got some sleep. Then I got up, thought about it some more and tapped out the OP.  

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

      by LeftOfYou on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:17:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You said the bottom line and it bears repeating (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bonsai66, mconvente, jusjtim35, Check077
      The simple fact is any further power for the GOP is a potential death knell for this country. If Ted Cruz becomes President we are so seriously fucked it's not funny. More so given the number of seats that will turn over on the SCOTUS in the next 10 years.
  •  nicely said and I concur (11+ / 0-)

    maybe not on the specific policies but like you at the end of the day I recognize even the worst democrat is still better then any republican. This is at the end of the day about electoral power and the sooner people recognize that the better.

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:54:40 PM PDT

    •  If you concur... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie, LaEscapee, Occulus, CenPhx

      It would be helpful if you encouraged LeftOfYou (and the others saying "ditto") to please tell those of us who aren't agreeing how exactly -- with vote tallies -- the worst Democrat proves to be better than the best republican. Naming whomever among progressives of any stripe are arrogant and extreme, or mentioning one or two who disagree who aren't, would help me listen better as well, if I didn't feel disagreement was going to end in invalidation.

      I am not being sarcastic. I'm truly puzzled why calling us names and writing us off, and not producing any evidence which might persuade us, is a reasonable and practical act. I mean, I know how to call my opponents names. Is that the standard here? I got angry enough to make a comment concerning his motives, and definitely deserve to be called on that; but it seems to me that kind of discussion needs to be discouraged, rather than egged on.


      A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

      by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:56:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think in years past there might have been (7+ / 0-)

        "better" Republicans here and there in local or statewide races.  Perhaps.  The problem now is that the Republican party has degenerated into a cesspool of venal, anti-intellectual, theocratic, misogynistic, racist idiots.  There is no reason now to vote for a Republican, ever.  In presidential races there has never been a reason to vote Republican, at least in my lifetime.

      •  so let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

        you apparently have no problem when those you agree with call me or those that agree with me on this topic actual names, claiming that we hate liberals but the moment there is push back on that it's me and those that agree with me that are name calling?

        I'm not being sarcastic either, I want to know how you make that logically work cause I don't see it. Because I defy you to point out the name calling. I know for a fact that no matter how much I have ever disagreed with you or anyone else on this site I have NEVER accused them of hating liberals. I have NEVER wondered aloud whether they might be shills, double agents, traitors or any of the other terms bandied about by those that agree with you. I have NEVER cast dispersion on the motives of you or those that agree with you.

        You can complain about name calling when that happens. Till then it sounds more like whining to me about being called out on bad behavior then any actual grievance.

        As to your demand there have been diaries on it, I'll see I can find one but I don't have a current one handy.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:07:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How you ever got a Degree with your vocab... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          run around

          and grammar, I'll never know.

          'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

          by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:42:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  exhibit C (0+ / 0-)

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:51:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Incoherent as usual, duh. I just had a thought... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lunachickie, run around

              Are you actually a native German speaker using Google translate to post in English? Because that would explain a lot.

              'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

              by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:56:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  like most of us (6+ / 0-)

                he don't go over his posts with a fine tooth comb, looking for any possible error of articulation.

                You do realize that ad hom's (which picking at grammar in comments in a blog, sheesh) is probably a reliable indicator of a true big hat no cattle poser?

                47 is the new 51!

                by nickrud on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:27:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That would be 'all hat no horse' poser to you... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie

                  and yes, I've written a few English texts for kids, and duhban would fail my class. So forgive me for trying to uphold a certain standard of written communication on this blog, because at the moment that's all we have. If you fail to communicate in the written word here, you fail to communicate at all.

                  Now I invite you to peruse duhban's comment history and try to find a single grammar, spelling and vocabulary error free comment.

                  'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                  by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:34:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ummm, I disagree here. (0+ / 0-)

                    In fact, dubhan said something angry to me in another thread, but frankly, if you'd been making those comments about me (and I thought you were at first) I would be far too furious overall to write reasonably, or correct my errors. In fact, I suspect there would be words like "fuck" involved. so now I begin to see why s/he might react more furiously than seemed called for at the time.

                    Unless you're friends, in which case it's teasing and I missed that.

                    Still, you are aware that addressing people's language instead of their argument is classist, right?

                     


                    A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

                    by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:58:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Classist? Yes, I agree. But since duhban... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DeadHead

                      claims to have a BS in Chemistry, I feel vindicated in criticising him on his poor use of English. If I had the impression that English were his second language I wouldn't (because I spent 10 years teaching Chinese kids, I know and understand the foibles they have in picking it up).

                      duhban has been behaving in this way for a long time now, and not just with me.

                      'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:01:50 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  clive is not my friend (0+ / 0-)

                      and frankly between me, him, DeadHead and their clique there's a bit of history and none of it pleasant.

                      You can see a sample of said viciousness above and below. That said I am sorry if anything I wrote to you earlier sounded angry that wasn't my intention.

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:30:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Speak for yourself! (2+ / 0-)
                  like most of us he don't go over his posts with a fine tooth comb

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:26:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  In bolded letters (2+ / 0-)

          where have I seen that before

          Victim of the system~Bob Marley

          by LaEscapee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:49:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Straight as I gets (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          If you look at my comments on threads generally, you'll see I do call people on their namecalling, etc., although I avoid doing it to people who seem to have no hesitation being really, really mean, because I'm cowardly like that. I had no idea this writer was responding directly to the other diary, though, so for me this whole debate all came out of the ether. As did many comments.

          I suppose I do see more problems in stuff I disagree with, because I am decidedly imperfect, but I try to interrupt nasty argument, unless it seems someone who just doesn't know how to argue any other way. I give those slack. and I was reacting to a lot of comments farther down, which I'd read first, for no good reason. I'm sorry.

          To be honest, I asked you because you seemed reasonable in this particular subthread. I didn't want to wander out of the eye of the hurricane, and I don't easily remember a lot of names of new people. I'm beginning to get a little more sense of the kinds of fights people have, but not their factions yet.


          A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

          by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:25:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry it's a sore topic and one that probably (0+ / 0-)

            is not going to get any better any time soon because as I see it certain people here routinely get away with everything and anything short of murder here.

            I'd cite that diary accusing some nebulous 'them' of actually hating liberals as proof. Not to mention most of the comments here from the usual people some of which have been to me, some not.  People get tired of being told they're not 'real' progressives or to 'clap more' because the self righteous holier then thou segment here has found you wanting or really most of the arguments that comes from so called critics.

            That's not to say that there should not be criticism on this site but some here seem to use that argument as a loophole to grind their ax against Democrats in general or specific ones.

            I have a lot of flaws and I know that but I always try to remain reasonable but I have no patience for self righteous holier then thou arguments. I never have and truthfully I never will. I left Catholicism largely because of that, I tend to reject labels because in my experience they lead to that arrogant holier than thou state.

            Mostly what you're seeing right now is an old disagreement between those that think that if they send enough democrats to the general that meet their own personal definition of liberal/progressive eventually they will start winning. I'll only speak for myself when I say I personally disagree. People like Bernie Sanders are simply unelectable right now in places like GA but Nunn? Well she has a chance.

            That argument isn't going away any time soon I think and perhaps it's for the best.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:47:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'd be fascinated to know what or whom your (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango

      worst Democrat would be.  And why, despite their awfulness, a moderate Republican would be even worse.

      Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as shall never be put out.

      by Bollox Ref on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:14:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  by all means please point out the best republican (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kalmoth, kefauver, Bonsai66

        you can find in office and I'll point out the worst and we can compare notes then.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:20:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When someone asks you a question (5+ / 0-)

          it's considered weaselly to avoid the question by asking another.

          This is what you were asked, and did not provide an answer to:

          I'd be fascinated to know what or whom your worst Democrat would be.  And why, despite their awfulness, a moderate Republican would be even worse.
           

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:29:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I avoided nothing (0+ / 0-)

            they expressed doubt and I think the fairest way to address that is to give them the chance to pick the best republican they can.

            More over you shouldn't be talking about avoiding the question considering that's about all you do.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:28:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  He also deliberately mischaracterized it (4+ / 0-)

            Notice how he changed the challenge of finding

            a moderate Republican
            into
            point out the best republican
            and made that the challenge for the other guy?

            I'm going to bell the cat: duhban is a troll. He is not here in good faith, does not answer direct questions, alters the wording of what he is asked, and throws it back just to stir shit.

            I have been online since NCSA Mosaic was the browser of choice and Usenet was the place to discuss things. Duhban is a troll by the definitions set forth at the beginning of the Web. He should be banned as a commenter on Daily Kos, as an objective conclusion given the overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence.

            I am willing to use stronger terms and even more certain language, given the opportunity, and will back up my opinion with background at the admins' request.

            •  since you're throwing accusations (0+ / 0-)

              Wouldn't  the best republican be a moderate Republican? To me they are interchangable if they are not to you or the person demanding this 'proof' then fine but that's not trolling. That's just what happens when people talk.

              Btw I reported both you and allenjo for your abuse.  I've been on the nets since usenet too you know and I've met your kind before. I am more than willing to stand by my words and even admit that at times I've edged closer to the line then I should have. But I am no troll and your self appointed, self righteous troll hunting is toxic to any community.

              You don't like me? Then leave me alone but you persist in this and you will lose because you have no actual evidence just your own personal bias and rather apparent intolerance of dissent.

              You have a good day, I will not be responding to you again anytime soon without an apology from you for your  behavior and false accusations.

  •  progressives have never been the majority (15+ / 0-)

    of elected Democrats, unfortunately.

    However, for those of us who are progressives/liberals, it seems to me that our goal should be to continue to push the party into the progressive direction so that, one day, not only will Democrats be in the majority in the House and Senate, with a Democrat in the White House, but a majority of Democrats in the the House and Senate will be progressives, with a progressive Democrat in the White House.

    It's easy to bemoan how corporatist Democrats are. It's true. A majority still are. Be they are a far cry better than any Republican, for the most part.

    For anyone who, like me, has been around long enough to remember the 1960's and 1970's, they will also remember that it was far worse then. Yes, we had some progressive icons then, but we also had some of the worst, right-wing Democrats, warmongers and even some out-and-out racists. People like George Wallace, John Stennis, James Eastland,  Richard Russell, Lester Maddox, and others were rampant in the Democratic Party.

    If people think today's Democrats in Congress are too moderate or conservative, that's nothing compared to the ideology of many Democrats, especially Southern Democrats, in the 1960's and 1970's (and even into the 1980's) not to mention hawks like Scoop Jackson from Washington.

    By my calculation, we have more progressive Democrats in the Senate and House than ever before. But we need more. We need to keep working on it...until we have a clear majority. We're making progress.

    •  Amen. nt (5+ / 0-)

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

      by LeftOfYou on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:18:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm old enough, but disagree (9+ / 0-)

      I remember when the Democratic Party had to ask, back then, whether to keep the racists or edge them out. They kept them. Despite their presence, other Southern Democrats could muscle them along occasionally. The Johnson administration was the the last time it was possible, because they were socially New Deal.

      Today's Democrats are worse because they are now corporate rather than right or left. I.e. they speak for the NFIB, for example, or the Chamber of Commerce. They are anti-labor. Their legislative staffers are stocked by corporations, and they get their bills from lobbyists.

      Thus, without being "conservative" or "liberal," they're champions for putting a meter on Internet speeds, on putting backdoors into cell phones for the police, etc. They don't have an ideology, because they serve contributors, not constituents.

      Everyone's innocent of some crime.

      by The Geogre on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:33:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Top Comment n/t (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Geogre, Nada Lemming, tardis10, CenPhx

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:49:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  they were just as corporatist then (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wordsinthewind, high uintas

        ...in fact, my guess is that there were just as many, if not more, Democrats in the 1960's and 1970's who were just as "corporatist," if not more so, than many corporatist Democrats today. On top of that we also had all of those other conservative to moderate Democrats of all kinds, from war hawks to racists.

        •  We apparently have different perceptions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, The Geogre

          the bottom line, to me...is that it seemed like we had far fewer progressive Democrats then than we do now (though we still do not have nearly enough).

          Perhaps it would be an interesting exercise to assess the makeup of a Congress in the late '60s, one in the late '70s, and compare it to today.

          •  By our standards? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wdrath

            If we define our progressive agenda, which includes environmentalism, then there are more progressives now. We have to remember that 1970 was a watershed (pun intended) in environmentalism as a national agenda point. Our progressive position is also dove, and that was the issue the fractured the block. We also need to know when our "then" is.

            Let's say that our "then" is 1968. My original position is that we lost the cohesion in 1968 (I know it's not original of me) with the hawks & doves fight that simultaneously cracked southern and gave license to the southern candidates to follow their inner freak of Dixiecrat.

            Kennedy and Johnson had both taken Realist positions, and both had been hawks when it came to the cold war. However, the Realist position was much, much more "liberal" than the alternative (cf. Goldwater's 'bomb them into the Stone Age'). Yes, it was "liberal" to believe in containment and a big wall. It was moderate to believe in dominoes instead of wall states. They all look stupid now, but that was then. More importantly, our position of internationalism and spot intervention by treaty was unthought; it's a synthesis of a dialectic playing out then.

            The racists were very, very, very unhappy, but they could be threatened with funding (and were). They could be shamed (and were). Their national careers could be threatened (and were).

            The corporations themselves weren't playing the game, though, because we didn't have "globalism" (thanks, Bill Clinton 2). We didn't have international capital flight to the degree that even the 1980's imagined. We didn't have people even thinking of trying to destroy every job but their own, take every pension plan's assets, and make "the government" pick up the rest, while simultaneously fighting against government funding. Anti-labor Dems existed, in the south, but they were simultaneously lovers of New Deal programs. Pro-labor was both Dem. and Republican in the midwest.

            The destruction of national borders on capital and on jobs of the Clinton "boom," which no Democrat dare criticize, was a grievous move that combined with a constant Republican pressure to have "speech equals cash" at the courts. The corporate Dems today weren't even possible before.

            Everyone's innocent of some crime.

            by The Geogre on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:15:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  They were just as bad (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chicago minx, The Geogre, wdrath

          There was a reason that we hippies were warning against corporations and that was in the middle of the Johnson administration.

          I remember the progressive icons of the early to mid 70s, there was a reason that people like Frank Church and Barbara Jordan are remembered, because they were rare.

          The pendulum always swings, but now it is different. We have Citizens United for one thing, and the fact that an astroturf group actually managed to grow some grass roots and start fucking with those who gave birth to them.

          We are in a real crisis, climate change and a deep recession and the worst income inequality that we have seen in a long time or maybe ever. And in the middle of that crisis we have an obstructionist party that has literally brought the government to a halt.

          This situation is different than any I have seen in my life. How we are going to get out of it and get going again is anyone's guess. These are the things that keep me up at night.

          And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay. Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away. John Prine

          by high uintas on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:12:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "As bad?" Bad very, very differently. Not as many (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wdrath

            The hippies were marching around because of the hawks and their belief that "What is good for General Motors is good for America." That "corporatism" -- the belief that American corporations based in the U.S. with U.S. workforces and U.S. concentrated capital were an indirect route to the prosperity of the citizens -- was plenty stupid, but it was radically different from "What is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street."

            The hippies protested Dow and the others inventing and pressing for napalm use. Ok. And now? Now, is there a single member of the House with a single defense contractor who does not press for the interests of that contractor? Isn't it now expected? "Just as" bad or many isn't even close.

            I'm sorry, but the fact that there were vast numbers of hawks then was bad. However, hawks != "capital in flight is a beautiful bird."

            Everyone's innocent of some crime.

            by The Geogre on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:21:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that things are different (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wdrath

            This is why I reject "just as bad."

            One major feature of the difference is that we have ceded all power to capital. We had 80 years of building walls against its influence, and it took twenty or less to remove every blinkin' one. "Money speaks for money, the devil for his own," as Billy Bragg sang.

            It starts and continues with the House cycle and campaign cash. It continues and triumphs with one Party's fear of criticism due to a perception of being a perpetual minority.

            Everyone's innocent of some crime.

            by The Geogre on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:19:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I live in WV. I vote Democrat. (11+ / 0-)

    Many of the ones I vote for are to the right of Bush Sr., but the alternatives are populists who will never get elected and Republicans who are to the right of Joe McCarthy.

    I talk to and work for the conservative Democrats, and every once in a while they surprise me by taking a progressive stance. I get my conservative Republican congressman's emails and respond to him. Even he sometimes surprises me.

    I try not to take the "conservative" label too seriously. They are all individuals, and sometimes I can find common ground with someone I disagree with on most issues. Teddy Kennedy knew this, and it is why he was so effective.

    Of course the opposite is also true- sometimes I disagree on an important issue with a progressive champion. Which of us fails the purity test?

  •  Psssttt... Nope, not voting for them. Enough is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, lunachickie

    enough.

    In Congress and the State Senate, I am represented by corporate shill Democrats.
    I'm a Democrat.  I would never from here on in vote for a Democratic shill.  Actually, it began in October.  
  •  I never support enablers. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    (Trust is I used to, but then I was naive.  Not anymore)

  •  I am a dem who never voted for (4+ / 0-)

    Bill Clinton , and I am still glad I never did

    The diary is spot on to the degree that a person from outside of your state should never tell you who to vote for

    But it crosses the line when you tell everyone it would be best if every dem voted for the dem running  , I do not want to be a member of " THE DOOR MAT PARTY "

    For some , all they have to offer is themselves as a voting block , in the modern world of communication that is now a political tool , you get enough people telling a candidate you will not vote for the policies they are presenting , you are making a difference , if you just vote for a dem no matter what , you are not really fulfilling your civic duties

    But every state is different , I will never vote republican , but that does not mean I am voting for just any dem either  , refusing to vote for a complete sell out while fighting for a better candidate should never be frowned upon , everyones breaking point is different in that regard

    Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

    by Patango on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:44:34 PM PDT

    •  Did you vote third party in 1992 and 1996? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango, kefauver

      Or just not vote?

      •  I voted for Purot (0+ / 0-)

        feel free to make fun , I can take it , he was the only one demanding we keep jobs in America back then

        Clinton came and campaigned here in Iowa at our unionized work place , when asked what he would do about NAFTA , he said he had no comment , which was what he said his whole campaign , I knew then he would pass it right away , I did not agree with his welfare reform policies either

        I have been spoiled by having liberal reps in congress for years tho

        By 92 I just abstained from the pres race , if it had been close , I would have voted for Clinton here

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:51:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perot was right about the giant (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, mconvente, Patango

          sucking sound that was NAFTA, but he was wrong about almost everything else. He was MORE corporatist than Clinton. The man was a Texas oil baron, for crying out loud! Nader voters may've been frustratingly naïve, but Perot voters have no right to call ANYONE else "corporatist," or too centrist to be progressive or whatever.

          I agree with pushing the party and the candidate. I DON'T want an echo chamber and I DON'T want a left version of teabaggery purity purges. Majorities get things done, but the majority party, party of the big tent, is always going to be frustrating.

          The fly in the ointment now is that, unlike  in the past, too many are elected who'd rather have 100% ratings from some ideological group than to enact legislation. Ted Kennedy could work across the aisle with conservative GOPers on SPECIFIC LEGISLATION. Person X disagreed with Person Y on ALMOST everything, but on one issue they'd agree and work to get it past no matter which party was in the majority. That no longer happens and it makes the "better Democrats in the blue states, more Dems, even if sucky" in the red or swing states strategy difficult from a POLICY standpoint.

          I don't have answers to this. I'm reading these diaries from all perspectives in search of answers. I find strong, healthy, vigorous debate to be helpful. Pie fights and name calling among those who should be allies--not so much.

          "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

          by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:14:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oops! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Patango

            That should read "work to get it passed." It's late.

            "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

            by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:52:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't make fun of you for that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Patango

          I had several very good friends who voted for Perot in '92.  They didn't like Bush and Clinton didn't do it for them.  Your vote is your vote.

      •  Would you please stop dragging (0+ / 0-)

        fifteen and twenty-year old election results around in order to judge someone's bonafides?

        God, how tedious!

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:31:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I echo your sentiments many times over. N/t (4+ / 0-)

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:08:31 PM PDT

  •  False Dichotomy is your friend? (10+ / 0-)

    I want to be polite, but I can't be when you write as if realpolitik were a virtue. I can't be, if you suggest that the choice is "Republican and Anything Else."

    1. Realpolitik is the belief that there is no morality in statecraft, that Hobbes and Machievelli were Polyanna church group leaders, because "The United States does not have friends. It only has interests." It is the belief that morality is a category that is in total abeyance on the state level.

    Applying that to voters or parties is suicide at best or a reduction of democracy to the level of rock fight. It is an argument by extension that, since the state has no moral value, the party does not either; it only has gains and losses. Such a belief is, I would argue, repugnant to the Progressive movement of the 20th century and all forms of the left.

    2. If we accept corporations as the real voters, because we continually settle for "safe" Democrats who got that way by pleasing the lobbyists, then we are, again, neither being Democrats nor democrats. The choice is to have primaries or not, and it is to support candidates in primaries with populist progressive ideas. When politicians are in office, embarrassing them with morals and ethics is important, because it is democratic and Democratic to insist on the people having input.

    Finally, this president is a moderate?

    How is your 4th amendment doing?
    How is habeas corpus doing?
    How is the restoration of war powers to Congress going?
    How has it been with the decrease in Classified material?
    How has it been with treatment of FOIA requests?

    From a civil liberties point of view, this president has not been moderate. From the point of view of the security state, he has not been moderate. From the point of view of international militarism, he has only been moderate in use of the full military, but look at the growth of the Africa command, the numerous drone wars, the continued militarization of CIA.

    "At least the other team doesn't have a checker on the board" is meaningless if the effects are the same.

    Again, I apologize if this is harsh, but you've staked out some positions that I urge you strongly to reconsider.

    Everyone's innocent of some crime.

    by The Geogre on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:27:54 PM PDT

    •  Precisely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Geogre

      I was speaking with someone elsewhere about Dixy Lee Ray, and I think it's well to remember her -- worst Democratic governor for Washington State, and worst governor too. (in my memory, which is long) I forgot to put under ethical reasons not to vote for someone is if they deliberately, and over time, violate the Constitution they've sworn to uphold. Impeach, yes. Vote for, no.

      and LIKE THE US and Israel (hell, sorry, crumbs on keyboard, long ground in, no decent capital control)  I feel more responsibility for monitoring my own party members' transgressions than I do Republicans.


      A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot. The beggars change places, but the lash goes on. --WB Yeats

      by kestrel sparhawk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:36:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You would vote for someone that voted to cut (10+ / 0-)

    Social Security, or go to war in (fill in the blank), or continue the Patriot Act, or cut food stamps?  
    Good for you man.  That's what makes this country great isn't it.  Even those that think they're left of me will vote for more war. It's a wonderful thing.

    "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:31:14 PM PDT

  •  new and better democrats say (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, ZhenRen, priceman

    who gives a shit we are creating a permanent war state.

    drones are a cost effective way of generating enough new terrorists that calls to cut military spending will fail.

    by just want to comment on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:56:25 PM PDT

  •  There's the problem right there. (9+ / 0-)
    I avoid acting to undermine those campaigns.
    How is criticizing a candidate (policy, personnel picks)-- at a site read by Democrats, it's got to be about 90-99% -- undermining them?

    Why isn't it urging them to correct their course? Which, btw, would most often result in them being more likely to win elections, since those criticisms, at this site, are usually in line with how the general US public polls.

    For instance: Ned Lamont. It was in 2006, and Bush was still King, and there were NO Democratic leaders who were seriously addressing the Iraq debacle. Lamont did, talked about getting out, and rolled on to defeat the -- quite Centrist Democrat -- Joe Lieberscum.

    And the Democratic leadership saw this and started seeing -- gasp! what the Left (aka 'the mainstream of ordinary people not on DC-dope') --was seeing. Which was the bloody obvious!

    And they started opposing/criticizing the war. Finally.

    And they won elections as a result.

    So, your theory is, say, if we tell President Obama and the Democratic Leadership he's been really lax on pushing a MASSIVE JOBS STIMULUS, and exclusively, and daily. And this approach, if started, at any point between say August 2008 through earlier today, would be a very very good thing...

    ... If they be told that acceding to the Republican (and here 'sheer lunacy' is the only phrase) that 'fixing' social security [get jobs going -- duh!] 'balancing the budget and reducing the deficit' is damaging to Democratic electoral chances...

    And so on. One could list a very large number of policies and appointments which show that Democratic leadership has fully embraced Trickle Down, Deregulation, Privatization, and Free Trade -- in short, laissez-faire Capitalism...

    ...At the very moment that the entire electorate understands that very little is coming out of either party which can possibly help them.

    We'll be seeing the Trans-Pacific Partnership soon. You want to know what will help the Republican Party revive itself in time for 2014? The TPP does it.

    The very notion that criticizing leaders who have lost their path can weaken the Democratic Party's electoral chances is, to my mind, bizarre.

    In trying to grasp it I can only come up with there's some kind of axiom which goes 'all of politics is appearances, and people are shit-stupid, so make sure the propaganda (or 'narrative' if you prefer) doesn't get derailed.'

    How that's going to work for us? For you, me, our families, and our communities of whatever scale.

    Look: it's been a good 8 years now that people have been saying 'Jobs Jobs Jobs' are number one. By huge majorities. Even Republican voters say it in majorities. Independents and Dems by 2/3, 3/4 and higher.

    What have we gotten instead of Massive Jobs Stimulus? It's pathetic. Look at the 2011 Jobs Plan. Half of it is tax-incentives, the Infrastructure Bank was a great idea, but it depended on Corporate contributions, and no way can anyone possibly equate what's been offered by the Administration as a Serious Jobs Program.

    Instead, what's been hi-lighted is Republican issues about budget and deficit and austerity-type things. (Immediately preceding elections excepted. After elections? Phhht!)

    I'm sure we've all noticed support for Republicans is plummeting, but what of the fact that for Democrats it continues to erode? If we end up winning elections when, say, 6% of the eligible voters go Democratic, and 3% Republican, is that something to celebrate? Or a disaster for the nation?

    So explain to me, please, how not talking about reality is an electoral advantage.


    Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

    by Jim P on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:56:28 PM PDT

  •  Recommended for discussion... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferment, kefauver, Bonsai66

    I am lucky enough to have only voted for good Democrats to fill both the Congress and the Senate seats for my state - solidly progressive in the last two elections.

  •  Shorter diary (8+ / 0-)

    It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the GOP again.

    It puts the lotion on its skin

    by Nada Lemming on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:37:44 PM PDT

  •  Maybe you care a lot -- (15+ / 0-)

    about whether or not the Democrats win or not, but I don't think the Democrats do, and I don't really think the Democrats need your support.

    The Republicans, moreover, don't really care all that much whether they win elections, either.   What matters, to the whole of the political class, is membership in the Gravy Train -- you do what the real elites tell you to do, and if you lose the election, you get a cushy private sector job courtesy of those same elites.  

    The Democratic Party political class, then, is not going to save you from the Republican Party political class, and in fact both political classes look at you with disdain and condescension when they bother to notice your existence at all.

    Your loyalty, then, is misguided.  I'm sure that you will be festooned with admiration on a blog dedicated to "more and better Democrats," though, so your diary is a success by those standards.  But a Rec Listed diary and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    "Europe has had more general strikes in the last 3 years than at any time since the Great Depression. The Occupy Wall Street movement grew very quickly and commanded majority mass support." -- Richard D. Wolff

    by Cassiodorus on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:49:01 PM PDT

  •  Hold them accountable, inflict pain for ... (8+ / 0-)

    ... not meeting your very highest priorities, and they will strive to do so.

    Do not hold the accountable, do not inflict pain for not meeting your very highest priorities, and they will not strive to do so.

    That is realpolitik. The gays did it to the Obama administration, and the Obama administration was pushed to improve their action on issues of interest to the gays.

    Also, do not attempt to inflict pain for not trying to meet your very highest priorities, and you are likely not telling the truth about what your priorities actually are.

    Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

    by BruceMcF on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:28:08 PM PDT

  •  I feel sad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, priceman

    for you

    Victim of the system~Bob Marley

    by LaEscapee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:40:43 PM PDT

  •  Heres a real life scenario for you LOY (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaEscapee, SouthernLeveller

    The president is running for reelection and comes out and embraces marriage equality for LBGT community. Indiana candidate for Governor the next day publicly distances himself from the president and embraces the hatred toward the LGBT community. It was a rebuke of the president by parading openly against the president and a rebuke of an important segment of the dem voting block. Does a hoosier vote against the president and LGBT community by voting for a Dem Gov. or does a Hoosier not vote for this candidate in support of the President and Gay community.

    •  A riddle wrapped in an enigma (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie

      do you accept what you are told. do you question what you are being told or do you sit back and learn the truth on your own?

      Victim of the system~Bob Marley

      by LaEscapee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:00:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tough call (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas

      It's not like Mitch Daniels (R-IN) was ever going to do anything for the LGBT community.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:22:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rep Mike Pence now Gov Pence (0+ / 0-)

        religious states rights candidate ( tea bagger) while Daniels was Business republican ( Eli Lilly Pharm CEO) Daniels served 8 years and could not run again. The election was Dem Gregg vs Pence.
         

    •  I would hold my nose and vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chicago minx

      for Daniels. Meanwhile I would be as active as possible in getting real progressive Dems elected in the state legislature.

      A Governor is one person, his/her party matters as does the majority in the state houses, especially if it's when redistricting takes place.

      If your state is red or even redish-purplish then you aren't going to get many progressives elected in any office. You take as much as you can get. To reject a chance is foolish.

      And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay. Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away. John Prine

      by high uintas on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:32:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You would have had to vote for rep Mike Pence (0+ / 0-)

        Teabagger at least 8 years in US House of Rep. No way I could vote Pence but was deciding between not voting that particular race or voting third party it was  tough deciding what to do because of how the IN Dems turned against the progressives by their help in setting up the conserva dems and bluedogs to counter the House Dems in 2009.
          Was a very close election and we now have Gov teabagger.  Not sure if anyone knows if Gregg lost because of his non support of the president and LGBT community or if it had any effect on the outcome of the election, being IN it possibly may have gained him more votes, sad to say.

  •  I live in IL. My 2 senators are Durbin and Kirk. (5+ / 0-)

    My congresscritter is Danny Davis of the Congressional Black Caucus. My governor is Pat Quinn who, although in some ways is a party hack, will not end up in the federal pen like  IL governors from Otto Kerner, to Dan Walker, to George Ryan to Blago. Blago was a progressive. He wanted single payer in IL.  George Ryan was the only Republican I ever voted for because he ran against a RW dem, Glen Poshard. Poshard was a nutjob.

    My mayor is Rahm Emmanuel, who was not my first choice. I do not like how he has treated Chicago public school teachers. At. all. I get a big kick out of him, though, like I got a kick out of Richie Daley.  

    I did not vote for Kirk but for Giannoulias, who was a flawed candidate. There are worse Republican Senators than Kirk, but I'd prefer a Dem. I don't always agree with Durbin, but I'd prefer him over any candidate the Repubs could come up with.

    Given my 'druthers, I'd be a Social Democrat. But you got to deal with the hand you're dealt and work to get better dealers, better hands.

    More and better Democrats. That's what DKos is about.

    It's important to have many voices and also to unite when times call for it. I've been on this site since the 2008 primaries. It was not pretty, but I learned a lot. I also learned that people quote shit out of context and as a reader I must check the links in diaries. A lot of times I come away with a different take on things than the diarist intended. I gave up trying to do nuance in comments.

    Even here, people have their minds made up sometimes.

    I want single payer. I want higher taxes on the wealthy .I'd even like a guaranteed income for all Americans. I don't really give a shit if people are "makers or takers." I think all people have a right to live as human beings. I don't have a better right to a decent life than anyone else. How do we define "work"?

    I have a good job. (College professor.) I know lots of people who work harder than I do who make less money. I know not a few who do shit and make lots more than I do.

    ACA is not a "failure." ACA is not a complete fix. SS was denied to most black people initially.

    I think ACA is a beginning.

    I respect the fight. I need to hear the fight, even when I think people can be a little paranoid and negative.

    But--and--like this diarist, politics is ugly. I know this. I'm in higher ed.

  •  You said: (4+ / 0-)
    But that doesn't make me forget that while not all Democrats are good, all Republicans are bad for America.
    This is an important political truth for progressive Democrats.
  •  It's pretty bad when the best you got ... (0+ / 0-)

    is the "Hold your Nose" choice on the ballot - I feel you.

    Do what you have to do, but don't be surprised when "The New Boss" ... is the same as The Old Boss.

    So when we do get there, with enough "Bad Democrats" in power, so much for the social safety net.

    Grand Bargains - here we come.

    (and forget about Senate "Nuclear Options")

    Now on to those Midwest Union members who voted "moderate" (cough-cough) GOP ...

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

    by RUNDOWN on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:40:07 PM PDT

  •  Thank You for a Dose of Reality. (8+ / 0-)

    I live in Kentucky and I have already read certain people here trash Alison Grimes as a "conservadem," yadda, yadda . . .

    She will most likely be the Democratic candidate facing Mitch or the Tea Bagger guy in the general election, and you know what? She will be 10 times better than either one of those fools.

    Sorry to break it to some here, but Alan Grayson would never come close to sniffing statewide victory here in Kentucky.

    I don't have the benefit of living in a liberal enclave like some here do, so I vote for the Democrats that are available to me and Alison is a good one by Kentucky standards.

    I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

    by kefauver on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:52:24 PM PDT

    •  I've seen no evidence (4+ / 0-)

      that Grimes is a ConservaDem.  She's pro-choice, though Catholic. She's for LGBT rights.  She supports ACA with improvements--improvements that really are progressive. She's wishy washy on coal, but is not a climate denier. I think she mainly just wants to make sure that a "war on coal" isn't a war on miners and their families--wants green tech jobs targeted to coal districts. She's pro-education.  

      I haven't seen her take a bold stand for economic justice in the face of inequality, but she has criticized McConnell for his blocking numerous jobs bills.

      I wish she'd be bolder (you can do that without being Grayson).  But, if elected, while I doubt she'd be KY's Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, I think it's safe to say she'd be to the left of Manchin, McCaskill, Pryor or Landrieu. Maybe even left of Hagan, Tester, or Klobuchar, though I doubt it.  Is that a liberal paradise? No. Is it a DAMN site better than McConnell? You bet. She pushes the senate leftward not only by her own views/votes, but by removing the King of Gridlock.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:11:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  rats on a treadmill with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, priceman, CenPhx

    no way off... if we adhere to the sentiments expressed in this diary.

    time for some evolutionary thinking instead of trying to constantly reinforce one's membership in a group of epically bad decision/policy makers.

    really? bad democrats are better than republicans.  truly ridiculous. and dangerous.

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:05:15 PM PDT

  •  Falsely And maliciously ascribing motives to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, priceman

    others is not constructive or productive (orleft of anybody), but then, neither is demanding a shallow, brain-dead echo chamber.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that vicious and false garbage about
    undermining campaigns and sabotage is simply massive ignorance and not mere extreme sleaziness. So, let me inform you of something you appear to be unaware of.

    People, even politicians, can change. Politicians can and do change their positions on things in response to criticism of their pre-change positions and actions. This, of course, cannot and will not if their every action and vocalization is met with thunderous applause and sustained cheering. Why would they change, and in favor of what, if, as their steadfast followers insist, they are perfect, next only to god in perspicacity and righteousness.

    So, what you are saying is that you want no change, not in these politicians or in any others of their ilk, that you love the status quo and actively want and desire every single thing that these clowns stand for, do and support and believe, or else you would join the rest of us in suggesting that they change their sorry-ass GOP-light ways, and not try to create an echo chamber cheering on their agendas.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:08:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't quite agree with either diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, Lawrence, GoGoGoEverton

    but at least this one is not a tautology.

    From a radical lefty who knows that there's no such thing as "utopia" without inviting other people to it.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:11:54 PM PDT

  •  The great thing about American-style (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, priceman, CenPhx

    democracy is that we have no choice but to vote for rich, powerful people, or their vetted enablers, who ignore all of the urgent issues of our times, but we can still claim victory having won elections.

    Winning elections in itself is considered an accomplishment, even if the most pressing issues are flushed down the finest toilets of the wealthy class.

    And when its over, we smile with satisfaction, and say we did the best we could.

    Stupid, illogical, shortsighted, but exhilarating!

    I love this country!

    America: Failing the future generations, one day at a time!

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:57:29 PM PDT

  •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx

    But I'm not okay with Democrats that get elected and then don't pursue Democratic goals. I'm perfectly happy to see them meet with a primary challenge, and I have no interest in putting money or time into their campaigns.

    My goal is to get liberal policy in place. Politicians are a means to that end. If they don't like it, they can get their backing elsewhere.

  •  You are free to NOT PEE in somebody else's diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, DeadHead, CenPhx

    You can do everything you said in your own diary.  Knock yourself out.  In fact, vote for Rand Paul when he hangs a D after his name and then pat yourself on the back.    

    Power is not in itself a good or bad thing.   What makes it good or bad is what is done with it.   When you can't tell the difference between power wielded by a D and a R, it is obviously bad.  

    Nobody died and left you in charge.   You are entitled to your opinion.  You are not entitled to tell others to STFU in their diary.  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

    by dkmich on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:33:56 AM PST

    •  I like Warren, but wasn't she... (0+ / 0-)

      a Republican in the 90's?

      It's interesting to say this, but although I agree with Original Diarist concept. I believe that the Shakers in this diary (and you are indeed a shaker) should be given the free reigns to shake things up--but with one caveat: don't come back lambasting about the lack of support, communication, and whatever other variable or factor did not go your way when you've done what you wanted. Take the full merit of your actions and full blame for them as well.

      •  I absolutely agree with being accountable for (0+ / 0-)

        one's actions, which is why Obama, Clintons,  and the other corporate owned politicians need to own it.    

        I once voted for Reagan.  Doesn't make me a conservative.  Actions speak louder than party affiliation and the color of someone's team jersey.    I vote for the policy - not the party.  Couldn't of enjoyed taking Lieberman out more, until the Democratic Party led by Bill Clinton turned against the duly elected Democrat to support their pal who wasn't a Democrat.   Don't see any of the partisan police bitching at him for not supporting Lamont.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

        by dkmich on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:51:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If your goal is a lesser evil... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx

    If your goal is a lesser evil that is getting worse in each election cycle, then you have a winning plan.

    Progressive, Independent, Unitarian, Vermonter.

    by Opinionated Ed on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:56:01 AM PST

skybluewater, Chris Andersen, TXdem, fcvaguy, Phoenix Woman, hester, AaronInSanDiego, Gooserock, madmsf, Emerson, Eman, eeff, bumblebums, Radical Faith, chaboard, Wee Mama, blaneyboy, KMc, Suvro, paulitics, Miss Blue, Chitown Charlie, jvc, wader, sviscusi, Texknight, delphine, wdrath, Steven Payne, Catte Nappe, joejoe, kalmoth, outragedinSF, Sembtex, Curt Matlock, murrayewv, lavaughn, historys mysteries, kefauver, stagemom, Gary Norton, bleeding blue, Little Lulu, Eric K, jtg, kathny, BachFan, raptavio, Wary, slothlax, NCJan, Dinclusin, MBNYC, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, ArkDem14, Nulwee, camlbacker, puakev, Matt Z, dizzydean, Ralphdog, chicago minx, mconvente, VelvetElvis, ferment, amyzex, 6412093, mikeconwell, tofumagoo, envwq, dmhlt 66, Diogenes2008, Wordsinthewind, clent, mjkellett, AntonBursch, WakeUpNeo, CamillesDad1, Bonsai66, virginwoolf, Leslie in KY, Ibis Exilis, Tortmaster, Livvy5, Leftcandid, JaceInVA, David PA, serendipityisabitch, gramofsam1, Egalitare, science nerd, Wisdumb, Matthew D Jones, ozsea1, La Gitane, UtahLibrul, Word Alchemy, sofa turf, Andrew F Cockburn, FisherOfRolando, rlk, smirking, Deathtongue, blue aardvark, ratcityreprobate, OldDragon, MightyMoe, Chrislove, ahumbleopinion, This old man, Halandri, jan4insight, howarddream, avsp, arizonablue, Denver11, Stills, stevetheking, jusjtim35, onceasgt, Setsuna Mudo, Urban Owl, Aunt Pat, ORswede, howabout, ModerateJosh, Expat Okie, jplanner, duhban, mstaggerlee, blugrlnrdst, karma5230, Chas 981, eagleray, yippee ki yay, astage4444, SouthernLeveller, Swedish liberal

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site