Rachel had it Right, now DU is getting it wrong.
It is hard for me to accept what is happening AGAIN at DU.
I joined DU in 2007 in the lead up to the 2008 election. It was a heady time and I had some great conversations on here. I stayed pretty active until the 2010 election when things went Batshit crazy on here. The Progressive purists took control of the boards and in many ways, took control of the election. They demanded party purity or they wouldn't vote, or they would vote Green or vote Libertarian if needed. They shook their fists and lost the Congress. At the same time they ranted and raved about the Tea Party that was staring them back in the mirror.
In 2011, my son was one of the first dozen kids to Occupy Zuccoti square. I quickly followed in Portland. For months I was able to see some more amazing conversations and street education starting to happen between young people trying to figure out our economic and political system. I saw the DIY mentality grow and grow in the midst of discussions between backwoods do-it-yourselfer hippies, urban farmers, street crafters, libertarians, anarchists, University professors and even the occasional courageous conservative. It was in the conversations that the movement grew. It was a willingness to occupy a space and talk with anyone and everyone about the troubles facing the young people of America. During that time I didn't bother with discussion boards like DU, I was too busy talking in the streets and at other gatherings of live bodies.
So Obama won. So by a 2.7% margin we defeated the other guy. Through clever campaigning we managed to get 332 electoral votes to the other guy's 206. Why? Because the other guy was a complete douchebag surrounded by a sycophantic media and supported by a lot of money. Despite all of that we won. Celebrate, we earned it.
But now I see the same old tired intransigent purists starting to dominate the conversations again. Instead of taking an Occupy stance of listening, discussing, adjusting and learning, the hardcore issue oriented DUers are talking about "no compromise" "mandate" (which there wasn't BTW, no matter how much you deceive yourself), "jam it down their throats", etc. I look in the mirror here at DU and start to see DU Tea Party reflection all over again.
It is my belief that Rachel Maddow had it correct. Progress in our Democracy is dependent on the strength of BOTH Conservative and Liberal ideas. It is simple Hegelian dialectic: Thesis meets Antithesis and creates Synthesis. We must strongly present our best arguments, hear their best arguments, debate, compromise and then reach a new level. Progress. I am just as concerned about unchecked Liberal Future Dreams as I am about Conservative knuckle-dragging.
I refuse to give into the temptation to lump all of my fellow Americans who hold Conservative values with Ted Nugent, Mitt Romney and Pat Robertson. It is false.
I refuse to adopt the hateful tactics of RedState, Rush Limbaugh, Faux News and Newt Gingrich. Propaganda and name-calling are not Ideas. They are not the product they are the marketing.
I refuse to be an ideologue, frozen in my opinion, unable to risk thinking outside my box. I choose to grow through adversity, courage and love.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It's horrible of course. Have you called your rep or senator today to tell them what you think and want? We have to keep pushing. There is no rest in any struggle and our struggle is for all sentient beings.
You seem distraught that the law passed and that we begin to change the system, oh so slowly. I hope that you will find some relief on this and get the medical care you need when you need it! 
Now, if you have anything else to say, I'll be right here to expose you for the foreseeable future. And just so you know, I'm probably going to wear out my "I told you so" .gif over the next few years.
you a Freeper, I said that your statements containing the phrase "you people" sound very FR-like. You actually sound more like a PUMA leftover to me... 
are on the same side, but snark always provokes my evil twin who sometimes takes the keyboard away from me.
That Scootaloo post post yesterday got me back to DailyKos again. I haven't been there for so long I lost my 5th karma bar.
Peace.
The Democrats won't allow them to be proposed? Please explain.
I know why the Republicans fought so hard to kill Hillary's plan, but the Dems? President Obama won a bit over 50% of the popular vote and he didn't run on universal health care. Fully 47% of the nation opposes even something as banal as the ACA. Since 1992 the GOP has effectively poisoned the liberal message and liberals have allowed them to do so. How many members of congress actually call themselves liberal or progressive? We have much work to do to reverse the past 20 years.
On several other threads DUers are objecting to the use of the word Entitlement...even they don't seem to understand that to be Entitled to something is a good thing. 
Politics in the US is cyclical....and we have entered into a new cycle that is more favorable to the liberal message....if, and this is a big if, we don't scare away moderates before they have a chance to learn how good liberal policies are for them. Since 1980 the Republicans moved slowly but surely to destroy all the great things liberals have done for the nation. They began with the private sector unions. They have convinced fully half the population that government is the problem. They lured people in with tax cuts, and to be honest most working people needed those tax cuts as inflation and wage stagnation left them scrambling to make ends meet. The GOP had become so confident in their messaging wars and strategies that they committed the cardinal sin of politics....overreach. The obstruction of the 2012 congress and the absurdities of the abortion/birth control wars went too far and women woke up...as did the young, Latinos and the Asian community...African Americans were energized by the threat of disfranchisement.
The election of 2010 should have taught you all about overreach. Obama had a resounding victory in 2008, Dem control of the House and Senate, even allowing for the obstruction that was planned while the inaugural balls were celebrating his new presidency, when the Tea Party exploded onto the national scene the miserable members of the GOP were reinvigorated and we were off and running. The only reason Romney had any chance in this election was because the Obama administration misread the mandate he was given. Because he ran on health care reform he thought it trumped jobs. Then he filled his administration with asswipes from the Clinton era (Summers, Rubin) who gave him terrible advice about the severity of the recession we were facing. Health care should have been put on a back burner...perhaps a small bill to end "pre-existing" condition exclusions, giving parents the ability to keep children on their own plans until age 26 and ending life-time caps. That would have been very popular with just about everyone and taken some wind out of the obstructionists sails. Instead we spent 2 years fighting for a bill, which as you have said, stinks and which cost us several senators and decimated the Dems in the House....How have you liked the past 2 years? Want more, many more?
Had he focused more on jobs, Boehner wouldn't have had his "Where are the jobs" meme because if the GOP had continued to block jobs bills, they would have caught hell in 2010 not the Dems. Democratic politicians rarely fall in line behind their leaders, both their greatest virtue and their greatest weakness. They chose the wrong time to do it in 2009-2010. The nation right now, and we can only function in the here and now, is center/left. It is not progressive or liberal. In order to get to where we want to go, we must be as strategic as the GOP has been. We have to get our messaging out there and keep it out there. We must take baby steps, remember most people resist change, and we must keep moving forward. The Progressive program will never move forward if we fail to give first Obama and then his Democratic successors room to maneuver and negotiate. If we pack up our teepees and go home, republicans win...it's that simple.
One more thing I feel the need to point out. Obama won just 39% of the white vote....all the talk about the changing demographics of the nation notwithstanding, it is still 65% white. If we do indeed pass immigration reform, and the next Democratic candidates for president is white, they will not carry the overwhelming percentages of the Black and Latino votes that Obama carried. We MUST think long range planning, we can't continue to think that we can get everything we want, just because we want it or believe it is best for the nation. Obama should have put forth immigration reform immediately after taking office, when he had majorities in both houses....had the bill failed, it would have been laid at the door of the GOP and remained there forever...I would not now be worrying that they may steal the Democratic thunder on this issue.
I agree, if we screw up by demanding too much too soon, we will have aided the GOP in creating a hell on earth in what once was the greatest country in the world in which to be born.
With the exception of coverage extensions that grew from its basic premise, Social Security was proposed, legislated, reviewed and upheld by SCOTUS during the period 1934-1937. Now, while the concept Medicare was debated for almost 20 yrs in Congress (with both sides being intransigent and the right calling it "Socialized medicine"
, it did not become law (there were no increments or pieces of Medicare until 1964) when LBJ held damn near a super majority of Congress. Medicare and Medicaid were born in 1964 and became law in 1965. SSI was added in 1972 under a Democratic majority of the house.
Social programs are not introduced under Republican leaderships, nor do Republican majority's vote to add, change for the better, or improve Democratic Social programs.
Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
SSI was not part of the original bill. It was a Republican administration and congress that passed Medicare Part D...saying otherwise does not make it so.
I am thinking policy....that may be why we are speaking at cross purposes.
It's playing a silly game of semantics to underscore its point.
You're right, I am speaking about the Congressional legislative process and the contribution (or lack thereof) by Republican legislators which is why Democratic Congresses are the ones credited for social programs - hence the legislative history I posted, altho FDR and Johnson are credited for the underlying policy.
I still don't care for Medicare Part D though, and I come down on the side of single payer. But, that's just me.
they wouldn't care if they knew.
it is the best place I have ever lived. Landlords have a checklist of things that they have to follow in order to stay approved--so they keep things repaired and up-to-date. They are super responsive more so than anyplace else I have ever lived. The neighborhood is a bit sketchy--but I fit right in
I am truly happy to hear that your landlord is responsive....It's good to know not only that it can be done, but is being done somewhere.
The OP seems somewhat idealistic. The post would be fine if we didn't know how intransigent the repugs were in the President's first term. The day he was inaugurated in 2009 (documented in Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives." several big wig repugs, Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.), Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith, met and declared to oppose the President at every turn. And they did and the economy suffered as job biil after job bill was rejected by the repugs. We all have to remember them being invited several times to the White House with no resulting compromises. They even began saying they were too busy to come (Boenhner). And they've already signaled in this new term that they will remain obstructionists with both Boenhner and McConnell claiming to be asleep when the President reached out to them on election night. This is about Realpolitiks — practical, real, conditions that actual exist — not idealism and theory. The dems should used reconciliation to get their measures through because the repugs have already signaled they are more likely to double down on their right wing policies.
need a lot of debate and compromise amongst ourselves and our party. We have too many bluedogs that will work against our POTUS and will help the rethugs obstruct just as they did in his first term. So we need to get our program together. All this sniping will only be helpful if in 2014 we continue the total demise of teaparty thugs and their rethug cohorts. We need to grow up. Capt hook people like you are responsible for healthy debate, keep up the good work. All that cursing at you and such is to me an undesirable trait on this site sometimes. 
slap! well done.
... why are you posting here?
give it up. why are you posting here is the question to be answered. Have a good day. 
and for the record I don't need forgiveness from someone like you. Nor will I accept apologies from your ilk. 
To me, as a mechanic, repair person and a fixer much, he is "A#1" in my book. The dude makes stuff work and that is much more than i could say for a lot people and things as of late. I believe the rest of world thinks of him as brave, concise, patient, thoughtful, intelligent and a hard-worker. To me, it doesn't look like any kind of an ideology other than one of "just getting it done"
Obama put the olive branch out many time and continues, if people cannot understand how that works, just please keep watching.
On edit: now the spell checker didn't work correctly 
This goes way beyond cherry picking. You are just making shit up.
You are believing the myths of the right wing noise machine.
A strong family unit. (So good the gay community wants to get involved)
So Liberals love their famiies just a little bit less? Have you seen the divorce rates in the Red States?
A strong defense. (NO, not offense)
And leftwing Democrats are NOT for this? Because.... they want to reduce military spending to sane post cold war levels? How many times over that we can blow up the entire planet is "tough enough"? There is a difference between obscenely bloated military budget and a "strong defence"
Isolationism, ie. staying out of the business of other nations.
You must be joking on this one. Iraq invasion was only the latest. Reagan even thought Grenada and Nicaragua were threat enough simply because they both elected a socialist leader. There are US military bases all around the world. We have a School of the Americas right in the US to train torture and suppression methods to visiting military from banana republics. Are you saying the Conservatives would want to shut all that down?
Environmental stewardship.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Balancing a checkbook.
OMG, are you SERIOUS?
Wearing a condom.
Maybe you should ask Rush, the self-appointed Conservative mouthpiece, about that.
Politeness. (Well, it used to be a Conservative idea)
I think you answered your own assumption.
Small government whenever possible.
The last conservative W Bush expanded government more than any other President. "Whenever possible" means whenever the Democrats are in office. Once in, the Republicans even start whole departments (Homeland Security) in order to reward their supporters.
Keeping it local, ie. State's rights first.
Except when it suits them ie. Gore vs. Bush, or altering the Constitution to define marriage.
I understand you were pointing out traditional conservative ideals, but Obama does not have a time machine. What point is there in pretending that Obama will be negotiating with THESE Eisenhower conservatives when we all know that the ones in the House are nothing of the kind. Those Republicans in Washington still call themselves Conservatives, so that's the only ones that are available to negotiate with.
Obama IS a conservative. That's what you seem to fail to understand. If you want to have a conservative/liberal dialogue, with conservatives such as you describe, then the only ones truly available are within the Democratic Party. Blue Dogs, Hillary, Obama, Reid, etc... vs. Kucinich, Baldwin, Warren, and Klobuchar etc..
The modern Conservative Republican is like a pitt bull. And if you throw him a toy he will shred it in 2 minutes and leave it in a thousand pieces and then whine about you not throwing him an even better toy.
Sadly though I think you are right (or correct). He take your advice and will continue to bend over even more. This election was about slowing down the shift to the right instead of leaping into the Bagger Blowout. ie.. only damaging SS and medicare instead of annihilating it altogether. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.
I knew i shouldn't have given away the Perfect Response Award! before i read the whole thread! (Though you gotta admit, it's a long thread)
Perhaps you can have the Bestest Reply Award? (As an added bonus, the acronym for your award is BRA... snicker snicker)
That was a verbal down dressing of top quality.
What -would- constitute a mandate for President Obama?
Just askin'
That directly says that we should listen to each other, compromise, and have the courage to agree to disagree, you accuse me of being a Contrarianist.
Wow.
I was one of the people yelling I would vote green. I changed my mind when I began to see that the President had laid the groundwork for transformation in this term. It was my last hope for change; that setting up a "do or die"
I also changed my mind after my last "discussion" with my tea party/newly religious GOP sister. After spending 2+ years of listening, seeking common ground, working really, really hard to actually have rational discussions or avoid politics altogether, seeking solutions to our various personal challenges (her chemo and her husband's job loss, my possible job loss) with her occasionally going on crazy Fox-induced rants and verbal assaults, she went too far and actually threatened me because I dared to suggest that climate change and peak oil was behind some resource grabs.
You cannot have rational discussions with insane people. In my direct experience, tea partiers in particular are extremely irrational and borderline insane. It is a border they occasionally fall over. For example, one at work went psycho on me because I wouldn't switch my horse from a very effective and cheap (but all natural and therefore fraudulent in her mind) bug repellent to a chemical hand lotion as bug repellent that caused him a severe allergic reaction. I mean, she started screaming at me at work because she didn't approve of my all-natural bug repellent! That is simply insane.
Those of us suggesting that President Obama take a hard line against them is precisely because they refuse to negotiate or compromise. He gave them 98% of what they wanted in the budget and they *refused* to give up just 2%.
President Obama is now dealing from a position of strength. I am glad he is taking a hard line, eg raise taxes on the wealthy or else, because that is cracking apart the conservative "coalition" of PNAC, libertarians, tea partiers, evangelicals and near-extinct moderate conservatives.
The bulk of ACA came straight from a super-conservative think tank, American Heritage Foundation.
He has gone more than far enough to accommodate those people. They are playing hardball.
It is all very well and good to spend time listening and discussing issues with people when they are rational. It is impossible when they are nuts. And you can have as rational a conversation with somebody who is severely mentally ill as you can with the tea partiers I know.
Just what exactly is the strength of conservative ideas? Inquiring progressive minds would really like to know.
"Progress in our Democracy is dependent on the strength of BOTH Conservative and Liberal ideas."
We just fought off a deadly assault on our country by conservatives. We dodged a bullet. And here you are, already telling us we should play nice, and need to embrace conservatism?
As far as I can tell, conservative ideas have done absolutely nothing but cause harm to people and the environment.
That's basically the same answer I get when I ask republicans these questions, except they use a lot more words and take a lot more time to say absolutely nothing.
Your candid, succinct, accurate answer is sincerely appreciated.
to you......for mentioning hegel.
there were no 'purists' who didn't vote in 2010. Unlike the mushy middle, 'purists' (what a fucking insulting term btw) know exactly what's at stake if they don't vote. Did you not realize President Obama had to campaign to the left of what he had previously said to get re-elected? If that doesn't tell you where the country stands, nothing will. I guess all Americans who voted for Obama are 'purists'. 
a lot of truth here. I applaud your courage for the flak you will get.
Here is what the OP says:
"It is my belief that Rachel Maddow had it correct. Progress in our Democracy is dependent on the strength of BOTH Conservative and Liberal ideas."
"Listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for Democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole, because in this country, we have a two-party system in government. And the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. They both propose possible solutions to our real problems. And we debate between those possible solutions.
"And by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. That competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff.
"And if the Republican Party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived as a nation of the constructive debate about competing feasible ideas about real problems.
snip---
"If the Republican Party and the conservative movement and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation. And in that spirit, congratulations, everybody. Big night."
She's not saying here that we should listen to conservative ideas, or that conservatives have, or have ever had, good ideas. She is saying that the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country.
Rachel never said that "Progress of Democracy is dependent on the strength...of Conservative ideas".
Yes, Rachel had it right. However, the OP misinterpreted/mischaracterized what Rachel had right.
The entire premise of the argument is based on a misinterpretation
She's only saying that Conservatives must bring some realistic, constructive ideas to the table in order to create productive debate about real problems.
Up to this point, conservatives have not done so, and this is why the OP cannot tell us what these wonderful conservative ideas that the Progress of our democracy is dependent upon are.
Because there are none, as of this writing.
Hopefully, someday in the future, conservatives will bring something of real value to the table. Until now, the only ideas they have presented are rooted in complete woo. They are based in deluded fantasies borne of a marriage between ignorance and ego.
Until they do, their ideas and actions will remain as stupid, unrealistic, and regressive, as they have always been, and they will continue to lack all substance, and not be worth our consideration toward making real progress democratically.
If at some point, conservatives bring something of productive significance to the conversation for debate, they will be worth acknowledging in a constructive sense, other than simply playing nice, and giving them simple PC human "respect" as progressives naturally might do toward any living creature, in this case confused human beings with terribly warped, and dangerous, value systems.
When they start making sense, we will have something to debate, and progress from there.
This means that they must put forth challenging, constructive ideas that result in progress.
In other words, those would be, in essential nature, clever, workable, innovative, constructive...
Progressive Ideas.
Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:36 PM - Edit history (4)
The bid for compromise. The urging to stop being such a purist. What a ridiculous, reeking load of nonsense. Democrats are lectured for being one-sided and "purist," as though WE are the ones insisting on getting our way, all the time, with no compromise....when the truth is that this country has been dragged *so far* to the right over the past 30 years that:
*our middle class has been virtually obliterated through policy
*forty percent of our wealth has been looted
*virtually ALL new wealth of the past 30 years has gone to the top one percent
*93 percent of the "recovery" has gone to the top one percent
*over a million American schoolchildren are now homeless
*America now ranks higher than any other developed nation in child poverty with the exception of Romania, which a DUer mentioned was only recently added to the list, perhaps to spare America the embarrassment of being last...
*CEO pay is now 350 times the average worker's pay, up from fifty times between 1960 and 1985
*CEO pay has skyrocketed 300% since 1990. Corporate profits have doubled. Average "production worker" pay has increased 4%. The minimum wage has dropped. (All numbers adjusted for inflation).
*After adjusting for inflation, average hourly earnings haven't increased in 50 years.
*income inequality has gotten so extreme here that the US now ranks 93rd in the world in "income equality." China's ahead of us. So is India. So is Iran.
*Social mobility is near an all-time low.
*The top 1% of Americans own 42% of the financial wealth in this country. The top 5% own nearly 70%.
*Hundreds of millions of Americans are deep in debt.
*Taxes on the highest earners are near the lowest they've EVER been and lower than for many who earn less.
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
*much, much more at link below,and that's just one of MANY we could post here...
______________________________
The OP is an utterly predictable bid for passivity....the familiar, ridiculous exhortation to keep doing what we have been doing, hoping for incremental change, despite reality and the proof of our own experience that doing so only moves us relentlessly to the right. It is the same right-wing spiel we hear every day, urging us to stay quiet and accept the next corporate assault in the name of "compromise."
We have received no compromise. We have been looted, again and again and again, with no end in sight. And still the message comes, like a drumbeat: You have not compromised enough. You are being a purist.
It doesn't fly anymore. In fact, it has reached the point of ludicrousness.
When Democrats achieve landslide victories in an election, are creaming the opposition's policies in the polls, and are being proven correct about policy over and over again in major world events and economic statistics...When the people are standing up and screaming for representation, and showing it at the ballot box...
and the first, predictable response by the same predictable few, the message taken from all of these events and posted here repeatedly with great solemnity and concern, is that this proves the necessity of more right-wing compromise..
Sometimes the corporate Wonderland of propaganda in which we are so perpetually and subtly immersed rises up and becomes explicit, and Democrats can learn a lot from that.
_____________________________________________________________
*Much here taken directly from this article at Business Insider, perhaps the best summary I have seen of the looting of America: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
There is much, much more there. I strongly recommend that every DUer click through the whole thing again for a reminder of how how much "compromise" WE have received from the ones who are looting us blind:
BRAVO!
[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
fascist bile everywhere, not just on Fox News and Limbaugh, etc.
We get custom made "Designer Spew" propaganda from the Third Way, tailored to meet the exact climate and conditions of the particular venue.
Another post of yours that deserves a prize, woo.
Several years ago (while the Big Dog was still POTUS) I joined a very Conservative (read Conservative, not Tea Party) mailing list. Once they became convinced that I was not a concern troll (or just a general troll) we have a number of fascinating debates over liberal vs conservative ideals. The interesting thing was that I could agree with some of their points, they could agree with some of mine, and some we could agree to disagree on.
Good Idea: The least government necessary. We can disagree how much government that is, but when you think about it, 'that government which governs least governs best' is a reasonable statement (so long as you include the 'necessary' part). For example, the idea that a government can tell me that I can't smoke in a outdoor park, or that I, as a businessman, can't make a decision as to whether I allow smoking in my bar, strikes me as bat-sh*t insane and a classic example or government overreach. And, for the record, I do not smoke. I am an adult and I have enough brains to choose whether I want to patronize a smoking establishment or would prefer a non-smoking one.
Good Idea: Cut down on government regulation. Not all government regulation is bad and there are places where we certainly need more regulation, but some of the regulations are just plain insane. A friend of mine worked in construction. One day OSHA came by and cited the contractor because they didn't have the proper back-up beepers on their heavy equipment. The contractor installed the 'correct' back-up beepers (as specified by OSHA). A few weeks later OSHA came back (different inspector) and the contractor was cited for his beepers being too loud and causing 'noise pollution'.
Don't assume that all conservatives are low-information FOX news watchers, or that they are all in it to get rich and screw everyone else. Don't read just the liberal blogs like DU and Kos. Go read some of the thoughtful conservative blogs (and I don't mean Free Republic or Red State). They are out there and you can find them if you look. There has to be a William F. Buckley out there, I just haven't found him I've just recently started reading The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/) and they are not all crazy. There are some thoughtful and reasonable people over there.
We need a strong two (or more) party system. We need reasonable debate in Congress, and reasonable compromises. The Republican Party made making Obama a one-term President to the exclusion of all else and the country didn't like it and said so in the election. We need reasonable people reasoning together to renew a country that has become way too polarized.
It was a good one, time to bring it back.
I'm not a left wing nut progressive, but after a shout out with my father in law yesterday, he was the straw that broke my back. When he asked me if I was happy with the election (He knows we vote Democrat), I of course replied, Yes.
He said he wasn't because "look at who voted for Obama, all those takers". He was referring to the black, hispanic and asian blocks. And then he told me that "Obama was stupid and never did anything good, all he did was hang around with that Jeremiah Wright guy for 25 years."
I reminded him that his daughter and I voted for Obama along with the majority of women and young adults, as well as their grandchildren and that Obama was a state senator (his reply was "for only two years" , a constitutional law professor (his reply was "so what" and that he accomplished much in his first term after inheriting a financial fiasco from Bush (his reply was "there you go again blaming it all on Bush"
My father in law is 84, his catholic upbringing, a lack of education, his backwards view of who he thinks America is, has made him an intolerant, bitter old man, relies on FOX NEWS because they support his opinion while his wife listens to Rush Limbaugh because he supports her opinion.
Both of them will not discuss politics with us. They have never shown any interest in asking us why we vote the way we do. They don't want to hear our views. Because we are college educated that feel defensive with us.
My in-laws are why Romney and Ryan and the pollsters thought the GOP would win going into Tuesday's election. To them it was inconceivable to accept the fact that Obama, a black man, could win this past election, and for a second term.
The problem is this. 50.3% of all children under age 1 in the USA are minorities. They are still holding to a belief in the old, all white, America, which is past. They will soon pass away, and the GOP will lose two more of their angry white voters.
My inlaws have been living exclusively on their monthly Social Security checks and Medicare for the past 19 years. They have had major, multiple diseases requiring significant medical expenses.
The only statement I made that shut them up and made them think was when I told them, in a fit of anger, that Social Security and Medicare are Democrat programs and if they didn't have them today they would be living in a spare bedroom of one of their kids, if their kids had a spare bedroom and wanted them, or under a bridge. And they voted for two men would would do away with both programs for their children and grandchildren. After they recovered, he said.....how do you know that Romney and Ryan would do that?" I had to tell them that that is what is in the Paul Ryan budget that every GOP member voted for. They still couldn't accept ti.
So I disagree with your premise. I think these people like my in-laws and other right wing family members and friends, are incapable of accepting anything other then what their vision of America is and will only double down on their beliefs. And the only way to counter this to with a hard nosed approach, without compromise, doubling down on our progressive principles, vote in every election and make sure our representatives including the President are held to OUR principles.
This is a class war. A war between the illiterate, under informed, willingly ignorant, dupes of the GOP machine and the people like us that visit, post and comment on DU.
anywhere else in the country (except maybe the deep, Deep South) thanks to Big Oil's corrupting influence, and all those Texans and Oklahomans that come with it. But even so, there's a good 40% of us who keep on keeping on. FWIW, Obama got 41% in Alaska this time to R$'s 55%, which isn't too bad.
If you have Alaska relatives and they're on the conservative side, I'm sure you can commiserate.
Also, in principle I don't have a problem with your post, but putting it into practice is another matter. I guess I should also say that I was (am) one of those 4/20, free love, moving to a commune in the woods types back in the day and I'm too old to change now. 
Ha! I haven't heard even a good argument from them in a couple decades.
I ain't holding my breath.
A tiresome bunch, aren't they?
Listening, what a concept!
Julie
You'll fall for anything.
"Centrism" is the default position for people too lazy to study the issues,
and too cowardly to take a STAND for something they believe in.
It is based on the FALSE premise that whatever is in the middle must be good!
(as you stated in you pathetic whine above)
Finding Middle Ground with extremists WILL result in movement in their direction
as has been demonstrated by the continual slide to the political Right since "Centrism" and "Triangulation" became the guiding political philosophy of the conservative Democratic Party Leadership.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."-- FDR, 1944
It doesn't matter what is in the middle, OR what Republicans think.
If you are NOT fighting for the above FOR these Traditional Democratic Values every single day,
YOU are part of The PROBLEM.
...but for the sake of civility, let's assume that your Demand for Purity to YOUR non-values
is the proper path, and "compromise" is the way forward,
I will make this promise.
[font size=3]I will seek middle ground with ALL Republicans who demonstrated the capacity for "Compromise" by voting FOR the Affordable Care Act.
Please list those Republicans who demonstrated this ability to compromise.
[font size=3]"In politics the middle way is none at all."
-President John Adams[/font]
[font color=firebrick size=4][center]"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."--Jim Hightower
[center]
[/center][/font]
I wish I could give you a thousand recommendations. Well done. 
By the by... the OP would do well do demonstrate the fair side of his character if he'd respond with the name(s) you request. Somehow, I don't anticipate he will. Thanks for this post.
That was the sound of Pine on Skull.
Nicely presented.
I've seen your argument made and debated many times here since 2001, but it leads to nowhere.
Please stop trying to drag sites like DU into a fictitious "centrist" mainstream. That attitude contributed to this country suffering 8 years of GW Bush and most people treating the word 'Liberal' as an epithet and forgetting what 'Progressive' even meant. It got us one-sided "bipartisanship" with a party that wanted us off the voter rolls and into the prison system. It stood by while whole countries had their economies drawn into bankster derivatives schemes. It got us an environment where only one side was allowed to marshal ideas in order to inspire people, with greed + militarism + alms the only organizational principles to which anyone could aspire without drawing hostility and derision.
Never again. No more DLC Third Way consensus-- By definition it draws public opinion closer to the Republican position by placing the political heft of the Democratic party between where the Republicans and the public are situated. It is a short-term tactic to preserve the Democratic party after the fall of communism but is absolutely no way to hold politicians' feet to the fire unless it is the enabling of far-Right fire.
I'd like to point out that a "Progressive purist" would be a communist. Yet few-to-none here are trying to abolish money or the family unit or private enterprise in the way Neocons are trying to abolish everything public and democratic and scientific, so take that intolerant false-equivalency between Progressives and the far-Right and kindly stick it where the sun don't shine. Maybe Progressive viewpoints dominate discussion sites because, with communism out of the way, it is the set of ideas that can be argued most convincingly using facts (whereas in-person exchanges tend to lack data); thankfully unsightly appeals against "Future Dreams" will not dampen that trend.
When 95% of the media have become nonprofit and it is only small businesses and co-ops that have any staying power, then you will have a point about Progressives going too far. Till then, planet Earth is still here waiting, so come on down...
Lastly, I would take the opinions of Ron Paul / Peter Thiel followers that you encounter with a larger-than-usual dose of skepticism if I were you. They have preached to me at Occupy, too, and usually strike me as the purest of the pure... seeing the era of deregulation failing in deep recession because there was (you guessed it) too much regulation. They may have a (singular) point about the Fed, but that may not be enough of an overlap with reality on which to build bridges just yet. Paul Ryan was THEIR plutocrat. It is THEY who need to move LEFT this time.
....because its so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!!
YUP! Whatever is In-the-Middle
is Good Enough for ME!
Did anyone else catch the inherent hypocrisy in the OP's rant?
...condemning "Purists" while demanding Purity?
[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
Purity, the Third Way, the epitome of the word 'Purists'.
By, and For, the People, is a "purist".
They label us as as "purists" because we absolutely refuse to accept wealthy private interests as legitimate non-democratic controllers of our government.
They tell us we are intolerant and close minded because we will not accept them or their destructive, quasi GOP, market driven anti-democracy philosophy.
The Third Way "Vision For America":
