The Dems have only themselves to blame for the proliferation of Republicanoid zombies

[Lydia Leftcoast]

When Reagan came into office in 1981, the House was controlled by Democrats and remained under Dem control all through Reagan's two terms and Poppy Bush's one term. The Dems even had control of the Senate during Reagan's last two years and all of Poppy Bush's term.

However, instead of maneuvering from a position of strength, they

1) Didn't put up a tough enough fight against Reagan's policies, such as firing the air traffic controllers, supporting the murderous oligarchs in Central America, lowering taxes on the rich, and building up the nuclear arsenal beyond all conceivable needs. In fact, some Dems (I'm looking at you, DLC) even supported most of Reagan's policies, which makes one wonder why they bothered to put a "D" after their names. (And yes, I know Al Gore was a founding member of the DLC. Did you know that he was a supporter of the Contra rebels against the Nicaraguan revolution as well as being a supporter of Reagan's military buildup?)

2) Didn't look out for the interests of their traditional constituents, working class people. Instead, they were silent against Reagan's union busting tactics, supported "free" trade, and did nothing when thousands of farmers lost farms that had been in their families for generations, due to a double whammy of high interest rates and low crop prices. Even if Reagan would have vetoed any measures they proposed, they still could have made the gesture and made sure that everyone knew where they stood. (This is how the Republicanites keep the loyalty of their party members--they make a lot of noise about policies that they know are unlikely to pass, just to make sure people know where they stand.) More recently, the Dem response to the Wisconsin recall election was tepid, to say the least.

3) Made the tent too large. Since the Reagan era, I have been able to tell you what the Republicans stand for. What do the Dems stand for except "un-Republicanism"? Is there anything short of misconduct that will get a Dem kicked out of the party? Dems who vote with the Republicanites most of the time are still welcomed into the party. Would the same happen with a Republican who voted with the Dems most of the time?

4) Ignored the rise of the right-wing media. I first overheard Rush Limbaugh on the radio in the late 1980s. Where was the Dem response?

5) Disrespected their most populist and leftist members. There are more members of the Progressive Caucus than there are Blue Dogs, and yet it's always the Progressives who have to give in, never the other way around. Do the Republicans do that to their most die-hard members? No! They honor them and send them off to spout nonsense on the talk shows.

6) Published wonkish position papers and spoke in platitudes while the Republicans have employed finely targeted advertising and propaganda techniques that influence the emotions.

7) Adopted a defeatist attitude. Ever since the founding of DU, I've heard lame excuses for the Dems not taking a stand, even for voting WITH the Republicans: "We don't have the White House or either house of Congress," which became "We don't have the White House," which became "The Blue Dogs are holding us back" which became "We don't have Congress anymore."
If past politicians had taken that approach, that they can't vote for anything unless they're sure it's going to pass, women wouldn't be eligible to vote yet.

8) Blamed the voters for abandoning them instead of looking in the mirror. If your significant other abandons you, maybe it's because they're stupid or faithless, but maybe it's because you have continually ignored or disrespected them.
If the Dems have ignored the economic needs of the white working class, why should they be surprised if the white working class votes for the people who pay lip service to their social conservatism? If the Dems have treated their left wing as crazy aunts and uncles who must be kept in the attic and brought out only to volunteer and vote every four years, and also continue many of Bush's policies, why should they be surprised when their left wing votes third party or stops volunteering and contributing? Yes, yes, the Republicans are terrible, but "We less awful than the other guys" is not a very persuasive argument.

9) Ran inept presidential candidates, whose lack of PR smarts made me wince: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore.

Your average voter is not very intellectual and reacts mostly from the gut and from his/her personal sense of well-being. Right now, people are frightened and angry (being outside the country for two weeks, I came back and found an unpleasant underlying tension in the society that isn't always overtly perceptible when you're in it all the time), and the Democrats are not only letting the Republicans dominate the conversation but are failing to use the PR methods that the Republicans have mastered over the years.

You're wondering why anyone at all is voting for Romney? He certainly is not a better candidate, but the voters are in a "What have you done for me lately" mood.
If Obama had taken the Blue Dogs to the woodshed the way he did to the Progressives and insisted on, at minimum, a Medicare buy-in to be effective immediately, then everyone would have known someone who benefited from it.
If Obama had not tried to impress the raw meat crowd by catching Osama Bin Laden but had completely withdrawn from Afghanistan (as is his right as Commander-in-Chief) and used the $250 million per day to put people to work, then everyone would have known someone who benefited from it.
The bank bailout was highly unpopular across the political spectrum. If the Dems (who had both houses of Congress at the time) had insisted on severe penalties for the banksters and had reinstated Glass-Steagall and had shouted this from the rooftops, everyone who wasn't a bankster would have felt that justice was done.
And really, was it necessary to sign all those "free" trade deals, to renew the Patriot Act, and to try to appeal to the red meat crowd by continuing the bogus and (probably illegal under international law) War on Terror?
You can be sure that if, God forbid, the Republicans recapture the White House and both houses of Congress, they will implement their agenda and will not make lame excuses about why they can't.

The Republicanoid zombies deserve to live under such a regime. It may be the only way they'll learn. The rest of us don't deserve this. If worse comes to worse, however, the Democrats will deserve part of the blame for thirty years of wussiness.

[BlueToTheBone]

1. Don't leave out $1BILLION of brainwashing.

n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. See #4

They did nothing to counter it.

Brainwashing works only if the wannabe brainwasher somehow touches a responsive chord in the target's psyche.

One of the Republicans' evil genius moves was to recast poverty as a strictly African-American problem. Under LBJ, poverty was portrayed as existing among all races and ethnic groups, but the Republicanites spoke as if only African-Americans were on welfare.

They cleverly played into racism and the feeling of poor, working class whites that they were being ignored while African-Americans were being coddled.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Counter It With What?

They have unlimited access to the media because they own it. How do we get our message out?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. First of all, with the truth, by using, as LBJ did,

images of poor people of all races, and doing things that benefit the white working class.

Also, a smart Dem establishment would have hired Jim Hightower as chief spokesman. He briefly had a radio show on ABC, and he was wonderful at talking to right wingers and making them see the error of their ways. When ABC dropped him (supposedly because of "low ratings," although his ratings were the same as some personalities who were kept), the Dems should have made him (and Lakoff) chief publicists for the Democratic Party and cultivated entertaining, plain-speaking radio and TV personalities and put them out in front of the public.

[BlueToTheBone]

87. You're a one woman campaign of hating on the democrats.

Why don't YOU get out and counter the lies. WE are the government. WE and that means YOU have responsibility. What can poor widdle YOU do? Write letters, join the party, GOTV; but frankly until you are dropping into bed from exhaustion every night from YOUR work, stop with the hating on our party and people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Frankly, I don't feel that enthusiastic about supporting a party that has betrayed almost all of its

ideals. I did all that. You don't know my real name, so you don't know how many letters I wrote, starting at age 15. You don't know how many protests I've attended. You don't know about my very discouraging experiences with the party.

I'm trying to give the Dems a wake-up call, and if I actually hated them, I wouldn't bother.

And just keep telling yourself that I'm nothing but one cranky lady with a grudge against the Dem if that makes you feel better. But look at the other responses on this thread. Talk to people outside your party bubble.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. You're in real danger of going the way of British Labour. And for the same reason: betrayal of your supposed core constituencies and principles.

[rfranklin]

3. You nailed it Lydia...they have been inept...

and the solution according to Clinton and the corporate Dems was to kiss more corporate butt for those campaign contributions. "We'll give you even more than those Republican ass kissers! We'll toss your salad too!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The party has been embracing the right and spurning the left since 1992.

The "Big Tent" is now owned by the Third Way and Neo-lib wing of the party whose battle cry of "Not as bad" has become their be-all, catch-all, slogan.

[Autumn]

5. And his deal with the republicans renewing the tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is a good post, thank you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. Well said. Thanks for saying it so clearly and forcefully.

Now why aren't the Democratic Senators and Representatives publicly saying the same things?

What about the Governors with a big (D) after their names?

What are they waiting for?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Approval from their wealthy contributors?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. It certainly appears that way.

[SammyWinstonJack]

88. They certainly are not going to bite the hand that feeds them, just to make life easier for the

unwashed masses.

[Summer Hathaway]

11. Well, that settles it then

No point in posting on an (alleged) Democratic website from here on out. Just a bunch of don't-put-up-a-fight, don't look out for their constituents, never look in the mirror, inept candidate promoting misfits whose tent is too big and only speak in platitudes.

If only you were running the country, I'm sure everyone would be gainfully employed, totally satisfied, and ecstatically happy.

Governing a nation is so ridiculously easy, especially when so much free advice is available on internet message boards. And there's nothing like getting the vote out by telling Democrats what wussies they are.

Mission accomplished.

[Autumn]

13. If only real Democrats were running the country,

I'm sure everyone would be gainfully employed, totally satisfied, and ecstatically happy.

[Summer Hathaway]

15. If only people who take it upon themselves

to define who "real Democrats" are knew what they were talking about, there might be room for intelligent discussion.

Sadly, the discussion here is a matter of "I'm the real Democrat!" "No, you're not - I am!" "Says who?" "Says me."

Pointless prattle wrapped in 'true concern'.

Can't help but wonder why the self-appointed "this party is totally fucked" posters are so intent on posting their hand-wringing on what purports to be a Democratic-supporting website - especially this close to an election.

[Autumn]

16. Back atcha

[sabrina 1]

51. Real democrats are easy to recognize. They do not support Republican policies.

I see a lot of hand-wringing now from those who told usliberals to STFU when we wanted the Dems to do their jobs and start prosecuting War Criminals and Wall Street criminals.

We were told we had to be by-partisan and we told you all what we thought would happen with that. Those ideas, we were told, were retarded.

And NOW the party wants us to be outraged!

It's hard to be outraged when you predicted it all, isn't it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Yes, we were told that we were "too far left," whatever that is,

and constantly dissed, and now we're supposed to get out and make phone calls and give money and spend all of Election Day going door to door in the cold? Nope, been there, done that, and the candidate seemed less interested in winning than I was.

I've got an idea--tap some of the beloved moderates and swing voters to do the campaign work!

[Summer Hathaway]

66. "Real democrats are easy to recognize."

"They do not support Republican policies."

No, they don't - any more than they regurgitate RW talking points on Democratic websites.

[sabrina 1]

79. Exactly my point. Supporting Bush policies, eg is a good sign you are not talking to a

real Democrat.

[treestar]

97. They could if they were voted in.

In enough numbers. And that takes a nation with a majority of "real Democrats."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Most of the people who would be good at getting something done have been

marginalized, ridiculed, or forced out of the Democratic Party.

[Summer Hathaway]

67. Yeah, right, whatever.

Gettin' old. Real old.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. So are lame excuses for inaction

So is dumping on the people who used to be activists until they got tired of banging their heads against the wall.

[treestar]

98. It does not boil down to certain people

It is numbers that work in a Republic like the U.S. This thought that if only it were the right people, they could overcome the majority with their clever tricks, is lazy. It's failing to try to get enough voters to be "real Democrats."

[msongs]

12. plus the past 3 years of appeasing and placating repubs...ooops, being bipartisan nt

[struggle4progress]

14. The party is only as strong as its grassroots. I remember when I finally realized why Reagan won:

doh! My friends and I hadn't been doing squat politically!

[AndyTiedye]

17. Carter Didn't Stand a Chance Against Reagan

because of the hostage crisis and the media's incessant harping on it, and Repig sabotage of his efforts to get them released.

Surely you remember:

[font color=red size=6]AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE DAY 444[/font]

[treestar]

18. Blaming the victims

Get out there and and get the vote out and quit lazily blaming the Democratic Party. It is mad cup of the people in it.

[clang1]

20. re: quit lazily blaming the Democratic Party

Wrong answer. The OP is not lazily blaming a damn thing.

[Zalatix]

26. +1,000,000!

[Fumesucker]

21. The people are the victims, not the politicians..

The politicians are doing just fine, the people not so much.

[clang1]

22. There are too many authoritarian

shits in the Democratic party and I detest attitudes like that. +1000 To your statement.

[treestar]

95. Then the people can elect different politicians

Or run themselves. We chose those people to represent us.

[Fumesucker]

108. You were talking about blaming the victims..

Parsing your post I gathered you meant that politicians were the victims that were getting blamed.

What does that have to do with electing different politicians?

[treestar]

120. There are no victims

We live in a republic where we freely choose our leaders. If we get lackadaisical about that, it's our problem, and one we have the freedom to solve. Americans do not appreciate being called victims.

[Fumesucker]

125. You were the one that used the term "victims".

I was just responding to your lead..

[clang1]

19. Thank you

very much for writing this.

[MrSlayer]

23. Is it cowardice or complicity?

The former would be bad enough but it sure seems like the latter to me.

All those excuses about why they can't do what they want is simply cover for the fact that they never wanted to do any of those things to begin with. Both parties are bought and paid for by the same people.

[clang1]

24. complicity n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

52. Something happened between the time Democrats were willing to take Nixon to task

for Watergate, etc, and when they were willing to give Reagan a break for his Iran-contra involvement and bankrolling of Central American death squads.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Yes, I noticed that in 1981, the Dems suddenly lost their taste for fighting back, with

a few brave exceptions.

At the time I wondered whether they were being bribed or blackmailed.

[Art_from_Ark]

70. Some of the most progressive members of Congress,

like Senator Frank Church of Idaho, went down in flames during the Reagan landslide. Then there were the "boll weevils", like Rep. Tommy Robinson (Turncoat- AR), who pretended to be Democrats but essentially supported the Reagan agenda. When the Democrats took back the Senate in the election of 1986, I was jumping for joy because I thought they would do some heavy-duty (and much needed) ass-kicking. And they did get a little kicking in, at the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. But I wonder if that just wasn't a little retaliation for the Abe Fortas debacle, since they let an even less qualified Supreme Court candidate sail through his hearings after that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. But the ones who did fight, like Henry Gonzalez of Texas, got no respect

from the Democratic leadership. They were all about Sam Nunn and his DLC, as if playing Reagan Lite was the way to victory.

[Art_from_Ark]

73. Nunn was touted by the *cough* liberal media

as being a *cough* sensible and pragmatic Senator for playing Reagan Lite. Yeah, that stuck in my craw, too.

[Egalitarian Thug]

110. Two names.

"Tip" O'Neill and Edward Kennedy.

Without these 'liberals' almost nothing of reagan's disaster could have been passed. They used their liberal cred and political power to make it happen despite all the warnings, some of which came from that now extinct creature, the liberal republicans.

[SammyWinstonJack]

89. Part of the problem and not the solution....Complicity.

All those excuses about why they can't do what they want is simply cover for the fact that they never wanted to do any of those things to begin with.


And the sooner we all wake up to that fact......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. Exactly right

Too many "moderate" Dems are actually playing "good cop bad cop" with the Republicans as the bad cops.

[ProSense]

25. Have you ever

"You're wondering why anyone at all is voting for Romney? He certainly is not a better candidate, but the voters are in a 'What have you done for me lately' mood. "

...notice that "mood" tends to always benefit Republicans? I mean, what have Republicans done since 2010 (still can't get over that they were voted back in)?

If Obama had taken the Blue Dogs to the woodshed the way he did to the Progressives and insisted on, at minimum, a Medicare buy-in to be effective immediately, then everyone would have known someone who benefited from it.
If Obama had not tried to impress the raw meat crowd by catching Osama Bin Laden but had completely withdrawn from Afghanistan (as is his right as Commander-in-Chief) and used the $250 million per day to put people to work, then everyone would have known someone who benefited from it.
The bank bailout was highly unpopular across the political spectrum. If the Dems (who had both houses of Congress at the time) had insisted on severe penalties for the banksters and had reinstated Glass-Steagall and had shouted this from the rooftops, everyone who wasn't a bankster would have felt that justice was done.
And really, was it necessary to sign all those "free" trade deals, to renew the Patriot Act, and to try to appeal to the red meat crowd by continuing the bogus and (probably illegal under international law) War on Terror?
You can be sure that if, God forbid, the Republicans recapture the White House and both houses of Congress, they will implement their agenda and will not make lame excuses about why they can't.

That's your list. Here's a list: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002836647

Now, what have Republicans done for anyone lately?

[clang1]

28. Lists like these

need to be plastered across America.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Yeah, the list

:yawn:

And the worst PR team in history.

[clang1]

31. I don't know...

I am surprised at your yawn. Disappointed a bit. I understand it maybe, but people need to be reminded again of what good government can do for them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Not having been on DU very long, you may not know

that The List is the "moderates'" response to every criticism of Obama.

[clang1]

35. re: Not having been on DU very long, you may not know

I have been on DU since 2003 or so, maybe 2004. Sure. Thanks.

[ProSense]

36. Nonsense

"The List is the 'moderates' response to every criticism of Obama."

...I'm not a "moderate," and a real list of accomplishments is a much better campaign tool against the Republicans than one that never happened.

I mean, if the frame is it should have happened, that's a loser.

If the frame is it should happen, it's easier to win people over.

Knocking health care reform because it didn't go far enough and wanting it repealed is a winning frame for Republicans.

Saying it doesn't go far enough and should be strengthened is a winning frame for Democrats.

It's simple logic, campaigning from a position of strength.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. So, you admit that health care reform it didn't go far enough?

And it didn't go far enough because Obama BEGAN by watering it down. That is piss-poor negotiating.

You always start negotiating by stating more than you really want. You don't say, "We'd like to have some health care reform, if it's all right with you corporate stooges in the Blue Dog caucus."

You START by saying, "We're going to institute single-payer health care." You take all your worshipful campaign volunteers and send them out to campaign for single payer health care with the same zeal that got you elected. You create a plan that eliminates private insurance and explain it in five bullet points. (I can explain the Canadian, British, Japanese, and German health care systems in five bullet points. Can you do that with the Obama plan? If so, why didn't anyone do that? Why was the content of the initial proposal kept secret so that the Republicans could make up lies about it?) You get all the Progressive Caucus types to go on TV and tout it. You bring in Canadian doctors and Canadian citizens and Canadian politicians (and maybe some from other countries as well) to tell their stories of the medical care they received. You say, "Just think. You'll never have to argue with an insurance company again." You tell the Blue Dogs, "Vote against this, and you can forget about any campaign help from the party."

Then, if you have to bargain away single-payer and end up with a public option or Medicare buy-in (which is your line in the sand), you say, "Remember who prevented you from enjoying the same benefits as people in the rest of the world. But hey, at least I got Medicare coverage for everyone over 60, and it will be lowered to 55 next year and 50 after that."

Something like that would be simple and would immediately affect a large swath of people. Everyone would know someone who was now eligible for Medicare.

People will naturally be suspicious of something that is not explained to them, especially if the major provisions don't come into effect till 2014 and then require them to spend money that they may not have.

As I said, lousy PR. Lousy strategizing.

[ProSense]

48. If it had

"So, you admit that health care reform it didn't go far enough?"

...included a public option, it still wouldn't have gone far enough.

At that point, and like I said before, if the frame is that more should have happened, that's a loser.

If the frame is more should happen, it's easier to win people over.

Knocking health care reform because it didn't go far enough and wanting it repealed is a winning frame for Republicans.

Saying it doesn't go far enough and should be strengthened is a winning frame for Democrats.

[leftstreet]

60. So are Obama / Democrats back to supporting the Public Option?

Excellent!

[leftstreet]

60. So are Obama / Democrats back to supporting the Public Option?

Excellent!

[KatChatter]

81. Of course the ACA needs to be strengthened but the DLC and the POTUS aka Current party leader

is not all that interested in backing single payer, they would rather get bags of corporate cash then do what is right.

The party is now at a crossroad, corporations or people, choose and choose wisely.

Those who chose corporations is of no use to me or America and needs to be removed from office and replaced with a person who represents the people!

If you are against unions become a pub
If you are against public schools, become a pub
If you are for enslavement of women become a pub
If you are against single payer become a pub
If you are against a STRONG Social Safety Net, become a pub.
If you back Pub policies and have a D after your name, become a pub.

If the party does not pick a side soon, they will LOSE the liberals and progressives and be stuck with nothing but faux dems.

[MrSlayer]

74. This is how it would have gone down if our leaders were genuine.

But they aren't. What you outlined is exactly the way to work it. But you have to actually want to do single payer. That has to be your goal and it never was their goal. They got what they wanted.

[Major Hogwash]

77. Teh Moderates.

What else ya got??

[ProSense]

34. Wouldn't

"And the worst PR team in history."

...the PR team have more success if the list wasn't written off?

I mean, there is what you wished had happened and what actually happened, and the question still remains: What have Republicans done for anyone lately?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Nothing, but the Dems have not blown their own horn

and they have not made a case for why they're better than the Republicans. Hell, they barely challenge the Republicans.

The PR team has not trumpeted the list, which by the way, is a lot of little things that are either exaggerated or don't affect many people.

You know, if you'd give up your knee-jerk defense of everything the Dems do and get out here among ordinary people and hear their stories, you'd lose patience with the thirty years of lame excuses for letting the Republicans tear down everything that made this country great. You'd lose patience with Dems who not only don't fight the Republicans but actively continue their policies--hello? renewing the Patriot Act? Was that such a great accomplishment, renewing the worst assault on civil liberties in our lifetime?

I'm angry. I'm angry like abused children are angry at the parent who doesn't participate in the abuse but stands by and lets it happen. The Dems may be well-meaning, but they're out of touch and most of those in power have NO IDEA what their slavish obedience to their campaign contributors has cost the average American.

Your talking points aren't helping.

[ProSense]

42. Wait

Nothing, but the Dems have not blown their own horn

and they have not made a case for why they're better than the Republicans. Hell, they barely challenge the Republicans.

The PR team has not trumpeted the list, which by the way, is a lot of little things that are either exaggerated or don't affect many people.

...you're criticizing them because they haven't "trumpeted the list" you're trivializing?

I'm angry. I'm angry like abused children are angry at the parent who doesn't participate in the abuse but stands by and lets it happen. The Dems may be well-meaning, but they're out of touch and most of those in power have NO IDEA what their slavish obedience to their campaign contributors has cost the average American.

Your talking points aren't helping.

That's obvious, but it doesn't explain why the list shouldn't be promoted to show Democratic achievements in contrast to do-nothing Republicans obstructionism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Most of The List is trivial or exaggerated, and the few biggies that are on it

have not been given any publicity.

People were already hurting in 2008. They needed someone who would come in and take charge, and yes, with both houses of Congress in Dem hands, act a bit like a dictator and get things done immediately. That's what FDR did. He risked being un-Constitutional and even had the Supreme Court rule against him a couple of times, but he did what was needed and in 100 days. That's what Obama TALKED like--a populist firebrand who would turn things around (although I wasn't fooled).

People didn't vote for Obama because they wanted to continue the Patriot Act and the tax cuts for the rich, give a captive customer base to the insurance companies, keep the wars going, and let the banksters off scot-free.

We needed an FDR, and we got a Tony Blair, someone who talked a good game but was too willing to continue past policies and unwilling to challenge the Establishment.

I think Obama would have been an excellent president for a time when the country wasn't in crisis. But he lacks the gutsiness required for times like ours. Unfortunately, he's all we have at the moment.

[ProSense]

50. Then

Most of The List is trivial or exaggerated, and the few biggies that are on it

have not been given any publicity.

...maybe you should help promote the "few biggies."

The other problem is assuming that the list is static.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002836647

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Why are the Republicans gaining strength even though they haven't done anything?

Because by continuing the Republicans' policies and by letting them set the terms of the debate the Dems have validated them.

You can sit in your Beltway office or wherever you are churning out lists all you want, but voters are not rational. If they're unhappy, they punish the party that is in power.

The Labour Party in Britain could tell you about that.

[ProSense]

38. Seriously

Why are the Republicans gaining strength even though they haven't done anything?

Because by continuing the Republicans' policies and by letting them set the terms of the debate the Dems have validated them.

You can sit in your Beltway office or wherever you are churning out lists all you want, but voters are not rational. If they're unhappy, they punish the party that is in power.

...you apparently don't like the list, but which of these these policies are Republicans cutting in line to support: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002836647

You say "voters are not rational," but you're making the case for why they shouldn't be.

The administration has a damn good record to run on, and should. They can't run on an imaginary record, what should have been.

Republicans haven't done a damn thing. No one should be afraid to say so.

[clang1]

41. +1 re: You say "voters are not rational," but you're making the case for why they shouldn't be. n/t

[clang1]

39. I hear what you are saying but list or not?

I see no solution or strategy in your comment.

I think I hear what you are saying about the type of change you want but list or not?

--'the PR team have more success if the list wasn't written off?'


--'Nothing, but the Dems have not blown their own horn and they have not made a case for why they're better than the Republicans. Hell, they barely challenge the Republicans. '

[bbgrunt]

27. good post. The dems seem to have given up the

fight long ago. Just like the video of the bus monitor, the dems sit and cry while the pukes bully. And the answer is NOT to take up a collection so the dems can have a nice vacation......it's more like firing them for incompetence and finding somebody that will do the job.

[clang1]

30. re: it's more like firing them for incompetence and finding somebody that will do the job.

That about hits the nail on the head. How do you define incompetence though? They are very competent at what they do. Just not at doing the peoples work.

[dionysus]

40. yay, more anti-dem campaigning during an election season.

the treebaggers will love it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. I want the Dems to win

but so far, they seem to be determined to bumble their way to either a loss or a narrow win. I am beginning to believe that these thirty years of impotence are, for many, not real impotence but deliberate, passive-aggressive stealth Republicanism.

[sabrina 1]

57. Yay, more worrying about what Republicans might think over doing what is right. And that's

how Issa got the idea that he could push Democrats around.

I don't give a shit about what T.Baggers or their ilk think, they don't think, they don't matter, they were empowered by the weakness of a party who refused to apply the rule of law because OMG, they might think we are being too partisan!!!

Show me some fighting Dems and I will be enthusiastic again about any election. But don't expect the people to do more than vote for a party that told US our ideas were retarded. And now it turns out, had they listened to, had they not taken 'impeachment' off the table, had they held Karl Rove in contempt, had they NOT gone along with Issa on ACORN, we would not BE where we are now, would we?

Save your snide remarks for those who deserve them. We were right! There should have been no 'moving forward' from crimes. Right now they would be so busy defending themselves from criminal charges they would not have the time to be playing these games, would they? I'll take advice from people who were right, not from the scaredy cats who fear Republicans so much they are willing to allow criminals to go free, thank you very much.

[WillyT]

44. HUGE K & R !!!

[clang1]

46. re: yay, more anti-dem campaigning during an election season.

In response to Dionysus comment:

This perspective is part of the problem. Not the solution. A perspective such as this creates division and excludes people that otherwise might help Democratic causes. It is knee jerk nonsense that sabotages our own interests.

[slipslidingaway]

55. knr nt

[Overseas]

56. We've got to push our Democrats back to our core values and fight for them. Be the Dems' scary

teaparty, forcing them to do Medicare for All. Forcing them to stop the wars and invest in education and environmental protection again.

I've got to pour into the streets in December against drone warfare like I did to stop the Invasion of Iraq. The Bush gang wouldn't listen but President Obama might, if we poured into the streets by the thousands demanding our taxes go to students and not the giant corporations.

So let's push our president back into the White House and Democrats into both houses of Congress and then push them hard in December to not only let the Bush tax cuts expire but also raise the taxes at the top and use our taxes to pay for Medicare not Warfare.

I wrote lots of emails against "bipartisan" concepts but I didn't surge into the street to be the intimidating force that Democrats would now have to listen to, like the GOP and its demanding tea parties. (Well actually I did join some noisy pro-single-payer demonstrations, but we didn't have thousands, we only had hundreds with us, and no corporate media to magnify our numbers.)

I just mean that yes, here we are again wishing our legislators hadn't been so hungry for money in the Beltway bubble, pretending we wanted bipartisanship when we really wanted solid spine and healthcare for a desperate nation.

So let's push for our Democratic President Obama to be re-elected and then push hard in December to get rid of the crazy right wing policies our waffling party allowed into our government.

Most of us Americans would love our taxes to go for healthcare and education and environmental protection and I hope we will fight for those things together, even after November. They will outspend us eight to one like they did in Wisconsin, so we need to turn up our numbers in the streets.

[MrSlayer]

58. This is what OWS could have done, should have done.

But they squandered the opportunity. Instead of being worried about "being co-opted by the Democratic Party" they/we should have co-opted the fucking party ourselves like the baggers and Paulites did to the pukes. Push the blue dogs out, push the establishment corporodems out and put in 99% candidates.

But no, politics are for the corrupt, voting is for idiots and we're gonna start a new way bro!

It all reminds me of the "Die hippie die!" episode of South Park.

[clang1]

68. re: we should have co-opted the fucking party ourselves like the baggers and Paulites did to the puk

Yes. This is what it is going to take.

[Overseas]

92. They do a great job. Could be "Both And" instead of "Either Or"

They made it clear how many people are frustrated with both parties and took direct action.

Rather than criticizing their approach, we could build on it.

[stevedeshazer]

59. Thanks for the great post, my friend.

That is how I view it, too. And you said it much more eloquently than I could.

[quinnox]

64. yup, the Dem party have been wussies for a long time now, K&R

I thought that would change when Howard Dean came onto the scene, but it was only a temporary respite.

Just imagine if the Democrats actually adopted aggressive progressive and liberal rhetoric and policies, and made these concepts enter the national conversation, instead of always having the debate driven by how conservative or right wing things should be.

For instance, instead of the debate being "should every American have a right or expectation to health care?" the debate could be "how much health care and resources should every American be expected to receive as part of the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

The Democratic party badly needs a makeover, from top to bottom, and remade as a true progressive/liberal party. It certainly couldn't hurt, and would be a welcome change from the status quo, where each party is attempting to out flank one another on the right wing/conservative front.

[clang1]

69. re: Dem party have been wussies for a long time now

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 03:38 AM - Edit history (8)

You might wish to call them that, but they are not Wussies. Yes, Top down (but perhaps not the best/or even doable approach). I do not believe the current power structure would allow for a third party. It would be attacked from both sides by the current two predominant parties and never make it out of the cradle. To make it off the ground and survive, it will take a split of the existing party IMO. History in America has already sort of been this way with the Democratic party and various coalitions within it but I would like to see something that will last longer than 50-60 years. I just don't believe that our two party system serves us very well. For now all we can do is come together as best we can I would guess. I think as progressives we have a tough job with the Democratic party in that there is too much water we have to carry thats not ours and that belongs to people that really don't share our interests and that do not promote our views. At the same time we still have to do all that we can to support the good in the party we have right now. A tough job sometimes as there are many Democrats that I find repulsive.

Btw I have met people from the other side, that were it not for carrying that dirty water, they would listen to us.

[raouldukelives]

65. K&R The smell of that big money is too much.

Beliefs and values are cool and all but in the face of power, elections and money they waver and fall. Time and time again. At a time when we should be pushing further and further from the Wall St scorched earth strategy we seem even more beholden to it.
When we should be most anti-war we seem almost complacent about it.
We have just lived through one of the worst Presidential eras of American history. A time when criminals, speculators, charlatans, sadists and war pigs ravaged our hearts and minds and futures like never before. I want to remove every shred of its memory from our law books and shine a bright light on all the insects who profited from the lies and the horrific loss of lives.
I know the progressive liberals I meet personally and read here still care passionately about the issues that made them Democrats to begin with. I want to see the things that bring us together and that have made us the party we were in the past celebrated. Not relegated to the little kids table.
I believe in Obama. He is our President. He must be re-elected. But once that is done we need to figure out what just what we stand for and what we will stand for.

[clang1]

72. re: 'But once that is done we need to figure out what just what we stand for

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 03:58 AM - Edit history (3)

and what we will stand for.' +1

I wouldn't mind to see a progressive "The New Deal" Party myself .

[Vidar]

75. Great post, Lydia.

[Raine]

76. You TOTALLY nailed it, you're EXACTLY on point!

THANK you for this post, so glad to see someone else gets it!

[Major Hogwash]

78. Oh so true true true.

I can't wait to see when she gets it either.

Bwah-ha-ha!!!

"Real Democrats"
"Real Liberals"

Real funny.

[Le Taz Hot]

80. I won't even read the responses.

They're predictable. Your screed is right on. Recced.

[malaise]

82. Interesting post

but it's ahistorical. Missing is the collapse of the Soviet Union and assault on the left across the globe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. Well, I was mostly focusing on why there are so many right-wing zombies

voting against their own self-interest, but yes, that was a factor.

[DLevine]

83. K&R. n/t

[quaker bill]

84. The "Dems" are not a disembodied other entity

The "Dems" in a sense do not exist. It is not some form of alien entity. The people who make up the party are the people who show up at the meetings. I am guessing you don't.

There is plenty to criticise almost everywhere.

Bottom line is people do not believe republicans because the "dems" did not fight hard enough. People believe republicans because they are selling crap the people really want to believe. Many of us do want to believe that self-centeredness is a virtue and the meaning of being a "true American" because it makes what they were going to do anyway seem like a god-given mission.

There is no rocket science here. Appeals to greed simply work and nearly always work anywhere they are tried.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Showing up at meetings?

Ask dflprincess about "showing up at meetings" and finding the party establishment disregard the wishes of the majority of the attendees. Hell, you could ask me what happened in Oregon when I proposed a resolution condemning Reagan's wars in Central America. The Scoop Jackson fans who ran the county party suddenly "forgot" to tell me about meetings and events, and when I pressed them on it they said they had suspended activities because it was an off-year, which was a lie. I didn't get actively involved again till 2000. Even in my neighborhood caucus in Minneapolis, the insiders ran the show and seemed peeved at all the people who showed up in 2004. That was the year I volunteered for the Kucinich campaign, was a good sport and canvassed neighborhoods for Kerry and spent all of a cold Election Day door knocking, only to have Kerry concede before the polls had closed in Ohio and not fight the obvious irregularities. Then in 2007, the nomination was somehow a two-person race before a single caucus vote had been cast. So yeah, I'm cynical.

[quaker bill]

112. I had a different experience

But then I was part of the Dean organization. We all worked for Kerry. But we all agreed that if and when Kerry lost, the entire meetup would go to the next Dem ec meeting. We put our people in place all over the country and Dean became DNC chair.

The primary in 2007 was always at best two person race, it just gave the appearance of being different for a little bit. I personally did not even give it the credit of a two person race in reality. I took bets that Obama would win the primaries and the general by 5 to 7 percent before the first caucus vote was cast. I won all the bets.

Too many people worked way to hard for far too long to avoid another Clinton run for it to turn out any other way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. And why was it a two-person race when there were six candidates? I'll tell you why

Obama and Clinton were the ones who attracted the most corporate cash. The primaries and caucuses were just a formality. Why bother having them if the corporate donors had already chosen their "winners" and the corporate media pretended that there were no other candidates and that the main issue was "Would you rather have the first black president or the first woman president?"

Yes, I'm cynical. I never liked either one of them, except in comparison to the Republicans. I knew that Hillary Clinton was a corporatist and that Obama was a big question mark who had the gestures and speaking style of a leftist populist and therefore fooled a lot of people.

[quaker bill]

134. I was not fooled

The only reason it was a two person race was that Hillary refused to step aside.

Obama was the one who could win, and he always was. Dean was the one who would have won in 2004. Corporate contributions had almost nothing to do with it. Obama was everything Bush* was not. Dean was the candidate who would have gone toe to toe with Rove.

The corporate media did not have to pretend anything. There were no other real candidates, but there were other people running.

It is not a matter of whether I like them or not. Corporate contributions and the MSM did not give Obama the image needed to win. He came with that.

[sendero]

86. Exactly..

.... Obama, and the Democratic party in general, has made its bed.

Folks wonder why ANYONE would elect a Republican?

It's because it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between a Rep and a Dem any more on economic issues, the ones that are at the top of 90% of the electorate's agenda.

[CrispyQ]

94. I don't believe in the seven deadly sins. I believe in one: greed.

Liberal policies, where wealth is built & shared by everyone, grew the biggest economy on the planet, but the greed of a few at the top, both repub & dem, will bring it all down. (Well that & the fact that a system based on continual growth is unsustainable, but that's another thread.)

The injection well stories that have come out the past few days are alarming & we have a government that cannot/will not do anything about any of the extremely serious issues we face, economic or ecological, except do more of the fucking same.

I question if a system that is a corrupt & compromised as ours can be changed within the system. You are not alone with your disgust, outrage & sorrow. I am right there with you.

[clang1]

100. Heh not all these stories are just days old nor are the topics either

re: Liberal policies, where wealth is built & shared by everyone, grew the biggest economy on the planet,


Yep.

[treestar]

96. The country is a republic

There is not some magic formula that if only performed properly will get a minority what they want.

We live with Republicans. They get their say. We try to be fair and they aren't. They are bullies. But they get enough votes to be a factor.

If the Democrats did things differently, you'd still blame them. We still wouldn't get all we want. We won't until we are a majority. Blaming our representatives won't make our fellow Americans agree with us.

[clang1]

99. Were it such a simple black and white world lol n/t.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. Having our representatives *stand for something* besides mild criticism of the Republicans

is the way to get our fellow Americans to agree with us.

If the Dems constantly compromise with the Republicans and even indicate a willingness to be "bipartisan" on issues such as Social Security, they are telling the public that Republican ideas are just fine.

I've noted over the years that American voters like guts and boldness and an attitude of "I don't care what anyone thinks of me." Some of the same people in rural Minnesota who liked Paul Wellstone now like Michelle Bachmann. Polar opposites politically, but their one common trait is a willingness to take firm stands on the issues and declare their stands without embarrassment or apology.

The unaffiliated voters hate wishy-washiness. They want to see candidates who believe in themselves and a definite set of principles. The Republicans' principles are screwed up, but they aren't shy about declaring them. In a confusing and frightening world, that is attractive to voters.

Listen to people talking about politics on the bus sometimes.

[treestar]

117. The American voters also complain if a politician would do what he wants

and doesn't care what anyone thinks of him. Because they are supposed to be representing us, not pushing us around.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Examples?

Did George W. Bush run on going to war with Iraq?

Besides, I'm talking about taking firm stands while running for office and acting in accordance with those stands while in office as opposed to being susceptible to bribes or pleas of "bipartisanship."

[treestar]

123. Though not DU, the country as a whole was fine with Iraq at the time

The majority then was rah rah rah. They fell for Bush's shenanigans due to 911. Is that the fault of the Democratic party? No. It is the people who were eager to go to war against anyone Bush wanted to in the name of Terra.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

124. Except for the tens of thousands of people who marched in every major city in the country

I was in an anti-war march officially counted at 30,000 people.

And it IS the fault of the Dems that they voted for the Iraq War Resolution--"because it was going to pass anyway," the typical DLC excuse of that era. The one Dem who was up for re-election who voted against it was Paul Wellstone--and his poll numbers went UP after this became known.

One of my fellow Minnesota DUers attended a Wellstone fundraiser immediately after the vote and talked to Sheila Wellstone, who said that the Establishment types had warned Paul that the voters would reject him if he voted against the IWR. He was even afraid it was true, because everyone inside the Beltway was saying that the American people supported the Iraq War, but he voted against it anyway, because it was the right thing to do.

Imagine, he voted his conscience even if it meant that the voters might reject him.

There's not enough of that in Washington, and it was especially true among Democrats during the Bush administration.

[Telly Savalas]

127. So if that's the silver bullet why are we still talking in abstractions

and not discussing specific candidates who do this?

There are 435 House races and 30 something Senate races being decided in a few months. Outside of Elizabeth Warren, there's almost dead silence at DU about these.

Complaining about some vaguely defined "Them" is useless. If good Democrats outnumber "Them" in meetings but get ignored anyway, the good Democrats should hold their own meetings and run their own candidates in primaries.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

130. I've hardly been at DU in the past couple of months, for various reasons, and I came back to find

several posts wondering why middle class voters vote against their own interests and believe right-wing propaganda against all evidence.

This OP was my attempt to answer that question.

[Dokkie]

101. I see it a little differently

The democratic voters are just as much to blame as the politicians. They nominated lame candidates and they voted for them. The politicians are only following the cues from their representatives, they misbehave and the voters still vote for them, they then do it again and the same happens and this continues to the point where we are today.

Sorry but we collectively have to start looking inwards because the problem is definitely with us. They have presented very good politicians over the years Kucinich for example but we reject them every time they presented. Just look at what happened in Ohio, Kaptur who voted for the original fast and furious program defeated Kucinich who did not by a huge landslide.

Also as long as the goal is to defeat the republicans, this trend will continue

[clang1]

103. You blame the victims

but yes, part of the problem is peoples inability to recognize whats going on. I do not blame the people for this. Propaganda and disnformation are very powerful tools and just the tip of the iceberg of what people are up against. Why do you think people would consistently vote against their own interests like we see every election. It is not logical that people do that, yet they do. It is a very peculiar thing about America.

[Dokkie]

107. Yes, the voters are not blameless

in fact I say they are share the majority of the blame. On the other hand, the politicians are only reacting to their votes. The bank bailout was disliked by a vast majority of the people but guess what, 99% of the politicians who voted for this abomination were re elected, the same can be said for the wars, the war on drugs, subsidizes to big oil etc etc

If a victim had the opportunity to lock up his attacker but instead decides to vote and shelter said attacker, then the victim is to be blame for the injuries on him. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice .......

[treestar]

118. The voters are victims?

Please.

[just1voice]

102. NYTimes writer calls it "defacto mouthpieces for conservative agitprop"

That's very accurate, many (D)s do nothing but recite hateful and agitating conservative propaganda as if it's even worth discussing. It's not, and when people do it they are acting like "republicanoid zombies" themselves.

[clang1]

105. You are correct

Anyone like The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov? Very good. More people need to read it. People might understand the seeming insanity of all this better and where we are headed. Heh I mean do people really believe the pendulum will swing back again and all of this will go away, or be somehow erased? No. Not how this works.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. "The Dems have abandoned the working class" is "conservative propaganda"?

In what universe?

No, conservative propaganda is being a birther, blaming Obama for gas prices, appealing to racial prejudice, etc.

Left propaganda is blaming the Dems for turning into Republican Lite before our very eyes.

[librechik]

104. yup--for the most part, Democrats in Congress for the last few decades have no moral compass

and that's no way to fight the pure evil of republican obstructionism. They just give in rather than take a stand. It's outrageous. And appalling.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. I've seen countless Establishment-oriented DUers excuse appalling Congressional votes

by saying, "It was going to pass anyway."

[Carolina]

106. K&R Lydia

I couldn't agree with you more.

Nowadays, the few Democratic fighters are marginalized by the corporate-owned appeasers, including the current POTUS. I knew we (along with hope & change) were doomed when he surrounded himself with Clinton retreds.

While I think the real beginning of the end began on November 22, 1963, you are so right: the demise of real Democrats and rise of the Wimpocrats started under Reagan.

Am bookmarking your excellent post

[FiveGoodMen]

111. !!!

[GeorgeGist]

113. Why single out the Dems?

AMERICANS

have only themselves to blame for the proliferation of Republicanoid zombies

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. Your average American is not very intellectually curious

They absorb whatever input they get without questioning. They ignore politics except for waking up every four years and voting on how much they "like" the candidates.

That's your average voter, sad to say.

It IS the Dems' fault that they ignored twenty plus years of continual Republican hate speech and not only never mounted a real counter-offensive but actually adopted a lot of Republican policies.

[Telly Savalas]

128. If it's the establishment Democrats who let the GOP get away with this

then why isn't it the progressive movement's fault for letting the establishment Democrats be so complacent?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. A short time observing the workings of your local or state party

will answer that question.

[NNN0LHI]

126. A bunch of imbeciles who voted for Republicans like Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush The Idiot are to blame

That is what happened. I know this because I watched it happen in real time.

That is who I blame. And yes, some of them now call themselves Democrats. Or Independents. But they are still Reaganites.

Don

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. Yes, but that happened because the Republicanites were out in front with the propaganda

and the Dems were complacent, thinking that naturally they had the upper hand because of Watergate.

[NNN0LHI]

132. Yes, there are plenty of excuses for voting for the three scum suckers I listed above

Just no good excuses.

And getting fooled by the propaganda is about the worst excuse I have heard. That is like pleading stupidity.

Don

[Lydia Leftcoast]

133. Hey, I've learned that lots of people really are stupid

and will believe whomever talks at them the loudest and the longest. Any political campaign that doesn't contain some element of appealing to the stupid sector of the population is probably missing something. There are enough stupid people in the world that no political campaign can afford to write them off.

[Bonobo]

135. The 50-50 split is a sure sign of some kind of collusion.

Logically, there is no reason why the party that supposedly represents the people's interest and the party that supposedly represents the interests of the rich should always magically arrive at a 50-50 balanced vote.

Think about it everyone. It doesn't make sense. Unless...