The Democratic Party is a Big Tent

[jazzimov]

There is no “purity test” to be a Democrat. When people start talking about a “True Democrat”, they need to read up on The No True Scotsman Fallacy.

The fact is that we NEED the DLC, the Centrists, and all the other types of Democrats. Although you personally may not agree with some of their stances, remember that if you are a free-thinker then NO ONE will agree with everything you stand for.

If someone disagrees with you, then you must at least try to change their mind. If someone is diametrically opposed to a particular stance, it’s must more difficult than some who is closer to your stance. Which means that it is much easier to convince someone who is a Centrist than someone who is extremely Right Wing. BUT do not begin your debate by denigrating them and calling them names. ESPECIALLY do not call someone names or try to lump them into a particular group simply because they disagree with you on a single point. DO NOT simply dismiss them because they disagree with you on a single point. They may actually agree with you on every other point and potentially could be a powerful ally.

It is also important that you LISTEN to their points. This is important for several reasons - the most important one I can think of is that everyone wants to feel that they are being LISTENED to. The second, IMHO, is that it gives you leverage in the debate, so that you can understand what is the most important point to them personally, and try to refute that point. There are many more advantages to this tactic that I will leave to others to point out.

Finally, argue with LOGIC and FACTS. Be prepared that FACTS can change, as more about a certain issue is revealed. This is where it can really get tricky. Don’t be prepared to accept FACTS at face value, although you may be forced to argue against the facts that are presented. If the facts presented don’t fit the logical narrative, then there may be more facts presented in the future OR the facts are being misrepresented. The latter is the most commonly used tactic by idealists on both sides. This is commonly known as “spin”. It is our job to make sure that ALL the facts are available.

Also, remember that the majority of Independent voters are Centrist. We need those Independent Centrists to win elections. Many people consider this as “voting for the lesser of 2 evils”. Again, I refer the reader back to my earlier statement that NO-ONE will match all of your ideals. Which means that no matter who you vote for, it will ALWAYS be the lesser of 2 evils in your mind., since they will never match all of your ideals unless you are a “lock-step” or single-issue voter.

If we try to impose purity tests as the Right wing has done, we will end up breaking into different factions with no power. Although the majority of US citizens support Liberal policies, we will be broken up into smaller factions which are powerless against the minority. Just as a for instance, let’s say that the Socialist Party gets 20%. The Green Party gets 20%. The Democratic Party gets 20%. That means that 60% of the population supports some kind of Liberal Agenda, although it doesn’t agree on the what the Liberal Agenda should be. Meanwhile, the unified Right Wing gets 40%, which means they win.

Perhaps we should change the Electoral Process - I would support that. BUT, we have to WIN in order to impose that change.

BOTTOM LINE - if we want effective change, we must win elections. Period. If we want to change peoples minds, then we must do so individually, with logic, and recognize that no everyone will agree with us. TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS we must first LISTEN to them, and then challenge their belief system armed with LOGIC and facts.

But we HAVE to win elections. Sorry if that contradicts your preferences, but welcome to reality!

[sabrina 1]

1. There are two parties, the Democratic Party is not required to make room for members of the other

Party, they have their own party. And what does 'winning' mean to you btw?

[jazzimov]

6. No, not "required"

but why wouldn't they embrace other parties and ideas?

As for your other question regarding "winning" - anything that means Progress. that means we are going forward instead of backward.

In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of folks suggesting we go backwards. Everyday we don't go as far forward as I would like, I have to remind myself that many people want us to go backwards.

Everyday we don't go backwards is a good day. 3 steps forward, 2 steps back = 1 step forward. I'll take that.

[sabrina 1]

69. Well, that's different. I'm all for working with other Parties and supporting any good ideas they

may have especially if I, as a Democrat, agree with them. That is not the same thing as taking them into our party because their own party has gone so utterly crazy. We have done that, and rather than learn from US, they have pulled OUR party to the Right. They need to stay in their own party and try pulling it back from the edge so that we can have more than one party and yes, work with them on issues where we find common ground.

But reading DU lately, there appears to be an objection to working with other parties on issue we need to get their support for. Eg, Grayson and other Democrats have worked with Repulicans like Ron Paul on issues where they have common ground. I agree with Paul on several issues regarding Foreign policy and commend those Democrats who have worked him on Wall St issues, issues.

But I don't want him in our party.

The 'Big Tent' means to include those who had traditionally been excluded, Women and Minorities eg.

Somewhere along the line there are those who seem to think it means rightwingers, like the Third Way who support Republican policies. And that is why our Party doesn't get the things done that need to be done. We have allowed Right Wing policy supporters into our tent when we should have kept them out.

[NorthCarolina]

2. Wrong. We don't "need" the DLC. That's what the GOP is for.

Nobody can convince me that BOTH political parties need to cowtow to the same corporate masters. Let the DLC folks return to the GOP where they came from, and where they belong.

[hobbit709]

3. Damn right!

[jazzimov]

9. Amd that tells me that you are exaclty

the person I need to talk to.

First of all, we need the DLC if we want to effect change. Your post is a perfect example of everything I railed against in my OP.

Would you like to have a serious debate, or do you just want to "label" me and shut down all debate?

I'm listening!

[NorthCarolina]

12. I just want to see the Democratic Party return to advocating for the public.

Who the DLC truly advocates for is no secret, and IMO this does not fit with Democratic Party. They compete for the same $$ as the GOP, and hence are really a better fit for the GOP tent. Let them run on their principles from that party, and then let America decide if we really do need more unfair trade agreements, more endless wars, cuts to vital public programs, indiscriminate spying on American citizens, and everything of that ilk that represent the ideals of both the conservative DLC folks and the GOP folks.

[NorthCarolina]

16. The ideology and personal convictions of these folks will not change,

so in that I actually DO believe they need to go. What are they going to say? "Oh, I don't think like that anymore"...not likely. Let them peddle their wares from the party that also represents the interests of the privileged class, and let the Democratic Party return to one that advocates for benefit of the general public. Right now nobody advocates for the people, and that is why the income gap is so exceedingly large and growing by the minute.

[jazzimov]

61. So it seems that you WILL not change your mind

because you have already decided that others will not change their mind.

I have to say, not everyone is YOU!

And then I have to wonder, why are you even here?

[forestpath]

20. +1

[leftstreet]

49. +1 Reagan Democrats can return to the GOP soon

The GOP will start reinventing itself WITHOUT the religious right and 'tea party' type influence that drove the Bootstrappers-Who-Recycle away

and good riddance to them

[jazzimov]

66. The DLC is NOT the GOP.

You can try to equate the 2, but you won't be successful.

Just try and win the next election without them.

[Mojorabbit]

68. Their economic policies are pretty similar

and they have done huge damage to this country. I would be glad to see them go. They ruined the Democratic party I grew up with.

[kestrel91316]

4. Sorry. Anybody who comes in here with a misogynistic or homophobic or anti-repro-choice

viewpoint is going to get it from both barrels from me.

Same for anybody who is anti-Social Security or anti-healthcare for all.

The tent ain't THAT big.

[jazzimov]

17. I can understand most of that,

but I think you are assigning too many attributes to "our" party:

"misogynistic or homophobic or anti-repro-choice viewpoint"

I agree with you, and all Democrats agree with you on this point.

"Same for anybody who is anti-Social Security or anti-healthcare for all."

Again, I agree with you. Republicans are anti-Social Security, and Democrats have tried to address their "concerns" to show them how ridiculous they are. Remember, Republicans wanted to get rid of SS altogether so that Corporations would have all that money. I don't agree with making adjustments to SS when we could simply raise or eliminate the Cap, but as a person close to retirement I would accept the Chained-CPI vs getting rid of it entirely. Which is what Republicans want to do.

As for Healthcare, I wanted a single-payer system like Medicare for all. We couldn't even pass a Public Option. I want single-payer, but I'll take what I can get. The ACA isn't single-payer, but it's the best we could do. Once we see how well the ACA does, maybe then we can pass single-payer Medicare for All.

I'm glad that you have brought both - barrels. But you have to ask yourself how effective you were in making real change.

You may have reinforced your position, but did you change anyone else's mind? Or did you just reinforce their position that you're a little crazy, so that they can disregard your thoughts and positions? 'Oh, you mean that crazy guy with the shotgun - well, we can discredit any thoughts he has! If he's for it, then I'm agin it!"

[kestrel91316]

47. Do you not understand that "both barrels" is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.

Oy. No wonder this country is in trouble.

[quinnox]

7. there comes a point where in standing for everything and everyone, you end up standing for nothing

I don't think the Democrats need further dilution in order to appeal to the masses. In fact, I would say the opposite is needed, a concentration and focus on policies that are progressive in nature. Polls have shown that these ideas are popular, so that would be a way to further make gains. Universal healthcare, universal education, a living wage, these are ideas that are very popular with the people.

[jazzimov]

27. that is a very good point

And I would suggest that we push those points.

The majorities support Universal healthcare - yet it keeps getting voted down. Why?

Universal education, and yet there has been a major discussion over secondary education loans. Loans? should't that be free?

A Living Wage. Yes, I support this. For one thing, it would improve the economy. But Business Owners don't want to pay it. It is there biggest expenditure. Well, shouldn't be?


Although I suspect that you are correct that we do run the risk of "Standing for nothing", I do not think that this is the case currently.

What you are requesting are required for a better society, AGREED. But how do we get there? Simply DECREEING them doesn't work.

I like your ideas, but how do we get there?

[quinnox]

39. Getting there will probably be a long and slow process

if it ever happens at all. These things I suggested have to be pushed by the powers that be in the Democratic party, those that set the Democrats agenda and platform. If people like Grayson and Kucinich were listened to and in the drivers seat, instead of being relegated to the sidelines as wacky fringe types.

Perhaps if a charismatic candidate showed up on the scene, like a Howard Dean did for example, and started a revolution of sorts by pushing progressive issues and became a popular candidate and won the presidency, then the change could be a lot swifter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. I don't mind their "stances". It's what they do when elected.

[jazzimov]

29. And what do you expect when they are elected?

I suspect that the problem is more with your expectations, rather than with what is actually done.

Am I correct?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. I expect them to do what 3d Way politicians do. Collaborate with their pals across the aisle.

Which is the problem.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. I don't need the DLC at all seeing as how I am no longer a democrat. I am free to vote for

someone who will fight for single payer health care, fully funding education, and living wages. I may not get that but hell DLC wouldn't get that for me either. DLC won't even fight for those. Either way I probably won't get those things, but as at least if I vote for a liberal democrat I will get someone who will fight for those things. And if I don't even get that because my candidate loses then when my children come to me and ask me why public education crumbled to the ground, and why they are earning poverty wages, I can tell them I fought for them even if nobody else would.

[jazzimov]

30. Then why are you posting on DEMOCRATIC Underground?

You are free to throw away your vote on whatever useless candidate you want.

[liberal_at_heart]

31. you do realize there are independents on this message board right? Independents just waiting for a

candidate they can actually vote for. I was a democrat. I voted for democrats for 19 years. I am tired of Reagon's lasting trickle down economics. I want a candidate that will fight for single payer health care, free education for all, and living wages.

[jazzimov]

67. I want those things, too

but not everyone does.

Perhaps we just need to change the message. Perhaps we need to change the logic.

[SidDithers]

11. Many DUers would rather lose elections...

and have things go to shit, than have to put up with less-than-perfect Democratic candidates.

Sid

[zappaman]

15. Some people live miserable lives

and instead of improving themselves, they want everything to fail so everybody is equal.
That's why we keep hearing from some that "America is dying", "we live in a dictablanda/fascist state"., blah blah blah.

The thing is, if everything does go to shit, their lives will be even shittier, and those that aren't wallowing in self pity will be the ones who will bounce back the quickest.

[FSogol]

19. True dat! n/t

[Fumesucker]

33. Some people live in the real world

First Quarter Of 2013 Saw Largest Wage Drop Ever

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/06/07/2121581/first-quarter-of-2013-saw-largest-wage-drop-ever/

The first three months of 2013 saw wages fall 3.8 percent – the largest drop in hourly pay in the 65-year history of that statistic – despite an increase in worker productivity. With high unemployment freeing employers from fears that their employees will turn elsewhere, the U.S. recovery has been marked by a decoupling of rising productivity from stagnant wages.

The gloomy milestone partly reflects the predominance of low-wage service jobs in the slow, steady streak of job growth since the recession. Increasing the minimum wage, as progressives in Congress hope to do, could help counter downward wage pressures at the bottom of the earnings ladder.

The recovery has been far more pleasant at the other end of the income spectrum. CEO pay is up to record highs for the second year in a row, at $9.7 million per year on average in 2012. In fact, 121 percent of total income gains from 2009-2011 went to the top one percent of earners – meaning everyone else lost ground.

[Egalitarian Thug]

25. And a very few DUers have no stake at all and simply stir up shit for their own amusement. n/t

[Dragonfli]

42. Everyone needs a hobby I guess. I think I shall become an avid fan of curling star elections

The Dominion All-Star Curling Skins Game

What do those sap suckers up north know? I am in the best position to choose their curling all-stars for them.


This stone needs an enema! Quick! give me a clown face and a broom!

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. ROTFLMAO! Well done!

I seriously love about 95% of our Canadian cousins, but they do have this tiny, and roundly ignored minority of assholes that work to support the Reich-wing down here.

Occasionally, something will come out of Canada that these angry little pimples manage to vault into prominence in our so-called press, and I call up my frozen friends, just to make sure that the contagion hasn't spread. So far, no worries at all, the Canucks are still just laughing and politely not pointing at them.

[SidDithers]

53. Some of you people are comedy gold...nt

Sid

[Summer Hathaway]

45. You are exactly right.

I've gained a much better understanding of the let it all go to shit adherents after watching TV shows like "Revolution".

These people actually think of themselves as a Miles Matheson type, believing that their superior intellect and infallible skills will finally be recognized, catapulting them into a position of unquestionable leadership that the present world doesn't afford them.

Every DUer who promotes the idea of letting the world burn sees themselves as the legendary phoenix who rises from the ashes unscathed, ready to prove their true worth in a world that will finally appreciate their destiny as an above-the-rest hero.

[Andy823]

51. Interesting

I never really thought about it that way, but you may be on to something here. Some of the posters here seem to fit with your theory. It's kind of like some religions that teach that the world must be destroyed and rebuilt, and when that happens then "they", whatever religion they are, will be the ones to rebuild and make things into "God's true purpose for this earth. The one catch is that that so called "true" version of God's world happens to fit with "only" their unique teachings, and in this new world everyone must buy into that unique teaching.

I guess it's no worth their time to try and actually work together with others to help make changes that move us forward without the world having to actually end!

[cascadiance]

13. A lot of independent voters are "moderate", but NOT corporatist (unlike the DLC "moderates")...

There are issues such as reversing Citizen's United, that the corporatist moderates that make up the KOCH BROTHERS FUNDED DLC component of the Democratic Party, that many independents and Republicans also want as a REAL "moderate" position that many on all sides of the political fence can get behind. It is those kind of issues that would get "moderate" support from most Americans that are avoided by "moderate" politicians in the DLC, etc. because they work against the interests of the corporatist leadership of that group that are more about serving the 1% elites as most of the Republicans do.

So much of the divisiveness is on social issues that the DLC and the 1% serving corporatists elevate discussion on through their own positions as well as the corporatist owned media that they control now in a way that they haven't in the past, to make it sound like this is the horse race and their so-called "moderates" that serve corporate interests are what we should have to win these ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRUCTED battles.

That doesn't mean I don't have concerns in these areas on social issues that need thoughtful discussion and REAL moderate perspectives. But many of us should not lose sight that we are being USED to pay only attention to these issues to allow the 1% to "buy the field" of the two party system. That is why the corporatists in charge of both parties don't want things like instant runoff voting, public campaign financing, getting rid of voting machines, etc. that would provide the populace more ability to rip out these so-called "moderate" controls of both of our parties that basically keep the corporate sector in charge and have our government corrupting itself more and more on its way to throwing out democracy for fascism later.

[bemildred]

18. No, the DLC needs us to win elections. We don't need them for anything. nt

[jazzimov]

34. The DLC needs us, true -

but we need the DLC.

Anything else means we LOSE. all your hopes and dreams are down the tubes. Forget them. Your idealism - LOST, forever. All your hard work, gone.

[bemildred]

35. For what? The country is just awash already in corrupt venal politicians. nt

[Deny and Shred]

60. Sure, lets kowtow to the DLC. We NEED them, right?

Otherwise, we LOSE, perish the thought? The best we can hope for is the DLC vision? Further compromise will trump former Democratic principles? Something like that?

You seem to be under the naive impression that the DLC actually would do something different if they held the reins.

Whether the GOP or the DLC has won, we've still gone down the tubes. The two have sold, and will continue to sell, the rest of us out. How you dovetail voting DLC and preserving idealism is beyond me. Truly.

Thom Keane soft-pedaled unwarranted Iraq-invasion criticism of the W Administration through the term GroupThink. You suggest doing the same. Let's give all votes to the DLC, and chastise the lefty rogue voters as dreamers, and part of the problem. Let Kucinich scream" Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" then laugh at him, logic and principles be damned.

Its one thing to not have the votes to change things, it is another to validate the spurious policies of the Right. The validation will take much longer to undo, and cost votes. Dean's 50-state strategy was chastised by the DLC at the time. They've certainly enjoy its fruits lately.

It IS a Big Tent, stop trying to herd progressives into your smaller one. The Republican narrow tent espouses seductive, focused, funded, circular logic that attracts those looking for easy answers. When challenged, they can't compete with progressive ideas. That is our battlefield. For progressives to fall on their swords and sacrifice at the altar of DLC compromise is to remain in this GOP Twilight Zone. I for one refuse.

[forestpath]

21. Big tent, my ass. I will never vote for anti-choice candidate. Period.

And nobody who is against gay rights or wants to cut Social Security will ever get my vote, either.

I don't care what they call themselves. I wouldn't consider them Democrats.

And you won't guilt me out about it and lectures have no effect on me so don't bother.

[MotherPetrie]

22. OK, then, Democratic Party. Bye!

[jazzimov]

36. Then you never supported the Democratic Party.

Don't let the gate hit your ass out the door.

And be ready to be content with the fact that you never made a difference.

Alas, there will always be someone who doesn't understand how to create real changes. Someone who always helps the Enemy because they don't understand the struggle.

I don;t want to count you as an enemy, I would much rather count you as an ally.

But if you have made up your mind that you are going to be an enemy to the very causes that you claim that you ally yourself to.......

Then I can't stop you. But think carefully about what you are allowing. You may think that you are voting for one thing, but in fact you are allowing a vote against everything you may stand for.

I hope you wont' get offended when many of us turn against you for allowing such atrocities to happen.

[MotherPetrie]

38. Actually, the person you should address your comments to is the OP, who is eager

to accept candidates who claim to be Democrats yet govern like Republicans.

I am not. If I'm going to be screwed over, I'd rather it NOT be by someone I voted for, campaigned for, and donated money to.

[jazzimov]

64. LOL! I am the OP!

But maybe you should read the OP again.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. here we go yet again. If we don't vote for your candidate then we are aiding the enemy.

You're going on ignore.

[Jim Lane]

23. You're correct, other things being equal -- but other things aren't equal

Yes, if we can get some conservaDems to vote for a progressive candidate, that's good, because that makes it more likely that the progressive will defeat the Republican.

The problem is that what we have to do to get the "Independent Centrists" on board also has the effect of alienating some of the people whom we need but whose needs you're downplaying. Those people will perceive, correctly, that the Democrat, even if elected, won't be a strong voice for the things they care about, so they're less motivated to show up and vote.

I agree with you that the mediocre Democrat is still likely to be an improvement over the troglodyte Republican. Many people won't see it that way, though. If you pull the tent 20 feet to the right to accommodate the voters you're focusing on, you may well find that some people standing over on the left have now been left outside.

I completely agree with you about the futility of third-party politics. These disputes should be fought out in Democratic primaries.

[jazzimov]

43. Thank you, although I have to disagee

with one of your metaphors.

You described pulling a tent to one side which prescribes the tent to be a single side, and if the tent is "dragged to the left" it will leave an equal number of Centrists to the right of the tent as to the Left of the tent.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating why there is no hope within the system.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you sincerely believe what you've written, and again, are pointing out why this idea of identification/team sport politics is pointless. You write of logical fallacies and in the very next sentence write that, despite all evidence and logic, declare as fact that principles are irrelevant to the party.

I would love nothing better than to see actual debate in any area of American politics, but that just isn't going to happen.

Our parties justify their existence and control over the process by establishing core principles and gathering people to them. If winning is the only principle that matters then, and this has been exhaustively written of for many decades, the ultimate victory will go to any group that delivers the most to the largest block regardless of the consequences for the rest. That is what the republicans did to get us to this sorry state.

To use a popular reference, check out House of Cards (the British version. I haven't seen the American remake). This strategy works every time and always results in the same thing, deeply divisive chaos with obscene rewards to the insiders that don't care at all about governing or the governed.

[liberal_at_heart]

26. yeah it's pretty evident that the people in government right now both republican and democrat care

nothing about governing. They are there to collect whatever lobbying money they can while they are there and secure whatever cushy lobbying or consultant job they will have once they are out of office.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Exactly. There is no other occupation I can think of where the rewards are so large, the risks

so small, and the effort nearly nonexistent, as American politics.

[bvar22]

28. The Democratic Party IS a Big Tent, but

[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM
for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR."
[font size=1]----bvar22, circa 1992[/font][/center]

[Summer Hathaway]

37. You're right, jazzimov

The Democratic Party IS a Big Tent. It's members range from fairly conservative-minded centrists to far-left liberals. In truth, it goes beyond that, in that many Dems are closer to center on some issues, while being very far left on other issues. Not only do our political positions vary from one to the other, but often vary within ourselves depending on whether we're opining on the economy, civil liberties, education, LGBT rights, etc.

DU, however, is NOT a Big Tent - nor is it representative of the Party as a whole.

The 'purist' faction here only accept those who lock-step with them on every single issue; there is no room for differing opinions. Their thinking is black-and-white, i.e. if you are not a Snowden supporter, you are an NSA defender who embraces American citizens being "spied on". If you are not a Greenwald fan, you hate all journalists and the idea of a free press. If you support Obama on any issue you are a mindless worshipper incapable of independent thought. And so it goes.

Terms like DLCer and Third Wayer have no meaning here anymore. They have become labels to be affixed to anyone who doesn't agree with the 'purists', and are bandied about with little regard to their true meaning, or appropriate application.

The 'purists' believe themselves to be an elite group whose principles are loftier, whose political goals are above reproach, whose grasp of what is going on in the country - and in the world - is far beyond that of everyone else. No doubt you've seen the leftier-then-thou arguments played out here time and again - and have seen how divergence from what have been deemed to be 'acceptable opinions' is immediately quashed.

The 'purists' often comment about not voting as a means to "send a message" to the Democrats that they are unhappy. They seem to honestly believe that someone, somewhere takes note of the fact that they haven't voted, and will immediately contact them to find out why. They have no concept of the fact that non-votes accomplish nothing - and no Democratic salesman will call.

The 'purists' will tell you that they must "vote their conscience" - in other words, they are more than happy to see a Republican voted into a position over a Democrat, should said Democrat not be in total agreement with their every demand. It matters not that the Republican is in total disagreement with their desires - their "conscience" apparently allows for that possibility, and they see absolutely no negative consequences as a result. On the contrary, they again believe that a Republican takeover of power will serve to "wake the Democrats up" - and eventually one of their True Progressive (TM) Democrats will be swept into power somewhere down the line, and will right all of the wrongs done by the previous GOPers in office.

The 'purists' detest the idea of "winning" elections. They see "winning" as some kind of beauty contest, where the winner gets a parade and a Best-in-Show trophy. They are completely ignorant of the fact that the "winner" goes on to take the office he/she has been elected to, from where they can effect positive change. They will insist that "winning isn't everything" in a political contest - where winning is indeed everything when it comes to pushing progressive ideas forward from an elected position, rather than from the powerless "also ran" seat on the sidelines.

Thankfully, the 'purist' contingent on DU are, in the great scheme of things, merely a handful of people who have convinced themselves (and each other) that they are representative of real-life Democrats. And as surveys/polls have proven over and over, they are not. Obama's approval ratings among Democrats have been consistently high - an inconvenient truth that the 'purists' persist in ignoring, and spend their panties-in-a-wad hours decrying as irrelevant, skewed, or obvious lies.

I realize that your OP was meant as a plea for unity and understanding among those on this board. But the truth is that the 'purists' don't want unity - it goes against their self-perception that they are "special", and not to be lumped-in with the peasants who are not as 'pure' as they are - those peasants who vote for Democrats over Republicans, those peasants who actively participate in getting out the vote for Party members, those peasants who refuse to lock-step behind the self-proclaimed know-it-alls who, ironically enough, display their lack of knowledge on a daily basis.

There may have been a time when DU was fairly representative of the Democratic Party, Those days are gone.

[CakeGrrl]

44. This is, unfortunately, a very accurate assessment.

And the reality check IS to go outside of the forum and contrast what people are talking about to what dominates the boards here. The contrast gets more and more stark.

If you only read this forum, you would think the biggest issue in the world is purported revelations about NSA spying on average Americans. (And I'll say once again: If today's MSM had ANY window of opportunity to trumpet that this administration was a crumbling mess of ANYTHING, they'd break it wide open and that's all you'd hear. Where's the MSM on this?)

If you only read this forum, you wouldn't think this President has done much of ANYTHING other than appease/enable the GOP and tell Progressives to go to hell.

In reality, not the case.

[Summer Hathaway]

48. Exactly, CakeGrrl.

To hear the DU 'purists" tell the tale, the entire nation has been talking about the NSA, Greenwald, and Snowden non-stop for the past few months - just like on DU.

For the past few years, Democrats everywhere have been expressing their utter 'disappointment' in Obama - just like on DU.

Since his inauguration and re-election, Democrats have been deriding Obama's every decision - just like on DU.

Democrats everywhere agree that Obama has accomplished absolutely nothing - just like on DU.

Today, people in every community across the land are engaged in non-stop conversation about Greenwald's spouse being detained at Heathrow Airport - just like on DU.

"In reality, not the case."

Unfortunately, reality is no longer relevant - at least not on DU.

[Number23]

58. You had some of these folks actually saying that Obama was going to lose last year

It's no wonder that they bray like wounded mules whenever a poll, ANY poll, highlights this president's rock solid, across the board support from his base.

[SidDithers]

54. This should be an OP...

Sid

[Summer Hathaway]

56. In another DU world

it would have been.

But in the DU world that currently exists, such an OP would more than likely be removed as "whining about DU", or deleted by a jury that - depending on the luck of the draw - could be comprised of any combination of RW trolls, Libertarians, and/or 'purists' who brook no disagreement with their opinions.

[Number23]

57. I think I love you.

But the truth is that the 'purists' don't want unity - it goes against their self-perception that they are "special", and not to be lumped-in with the peasants who are not as 'pure' as they are - those peasants who vote for Democrats over Republicans, those peasants who actively participate in getting out the vote for Party members, those peasants who refuse to lock-step behind the self-proclaimed know-it-alls who, ironically enough, display their lack of knowledge on a daily basis.

[mick063]

46. This OP makes me think of the Grand Bargain

I don't "need" anyone that believes historically low income taxes on the wealthy are compatible with the proposed diminishing of Social Security benefits.

I'll use my own analogy.

The Democratic party is a flatworm on the cusp of reproducing.

[jazzimov]

65. Then don't bitch when you lose

or when few people agree with you.

[mick063]

70. I shall bitch as I please

n/t

[Jamaal510]

55. Couldn't have said it better myself,

and might I just add that many of these people seem very unaware of the checks-and-balances system. To this day, I still hear self-proclaimed liberals blame Obama for GITMO still being open, despite Congress thwarting his attempts to close it. Obama gets the blame for us not having single-payer. For the Patriot Act still being in effect. For jobs not being created fast enough. For Republicans blocking gun laws.

Meanwhile, the GOP Congress has done nothing but attempt to repeal health care roughly 40 times now, despite preaching "jobs jobs jobs" in the campaign of 2010. But they seem to be off the hook among the "lesser of 2 evils" crowd. Democrats have been the meat-shield for much of their outrage.

I honestly don't know what to say, except people need to get better-informed.

[LWolf]

59. The reality is that

I don't support centrists. Period.

[Rex]

62. Me either, they lay down too easy for big money.

Give up too many rights and privileges for a wink and a nod.

[AZ Progressive]

63. The only purity test is this: Demo-crat

As opposed to Auto-crat or Techno-crat.

From Wikipedia, the etymology of Democracy:

"The word "democracy" (Greek: δημοκρατία ) combines the elements dêmos (δῆμος, which means "people&quot and krátos (κράτος, which means "force" or "power&quot ."

Thus, people power, or people rule. Thus, Democrats are the party of the people, as opposed to the Elite or Establishment, which includes the Rich. Democrats have been historically allied with unions, which are organizations of the people to counter the bargaining power of the big corporations. Democrats favor egalitarianism, which is in line with people power. Democrats are historically the caring ones because they are the party of the people. The job of Democrats is to look out for and benefit the people's interests. The Republicans on the other hand have long been on the side of big business, and within the past few decades, organized Religion, and they HATE egalitarianism and power to the people.

If you are on the side of big business and put big business over the people's interests, you are NOT a Real Democrat. If you are on the side of the establishment and put the establishment's interests over the people's interests, you are Not a Real Democrat.