Why are all these conservative democrats dropping out of politics?

[Political Heretic]

Look at all of the politicians not seeking reelection - at least on the Democratic side? The majority of them are conservatives.

Are their polls telling them a different story than the BS they push in the media - that, contrary to their claims, the majority of the country isn't "with them" and they are looking at embarrassing defeats?

Speculate.

[The Northerner]

1. Perhaps they were frightened by Brown's victory and because of the 2010 elections

[Political Heretic]

2. "Shit we can't complete with real conservatives"

lol

[monmouth]

44. Nah, Repugs will lose big time in '10, their rhetoric and obstructionism

is going to backfire. As far as Brown, he's a flash in the pan and will be gone when he has to run again.

[timeforpeace]

3. Lack of faith in the head of the party?

[Political Heretic]

11. If that's true, then that is GREAT news.

If conservative morons lack faith in the head of the party then things are looking up.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. You're just a gem,

Must get a lot of guffaws from your peers.

[T Wolf]

4. Maybe they just think that this is the best time to get out and move into their real career - being

DIRECTLY in the employ of their corporate owners.

Maybe they fear any "reform" that might hamper their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Not that reform will actually happen - they are just too cowardly to take a chance.

[defendandprotect]

21. Right . . . that, too -- Let's see who DLC Rahm brings forth to replace him . ..!!!

dum-de-dum-dum . . .

More Atilla the Huns?

[devilgrrl]

5. Hopefully because they're about to be exposed as corporate toadies?

eom

[Cary]

6. I don't know. . .

My faith in us as a viable political force is at a low point. The infighting and ankle biting is a huge disappointment to me. It turns out that in many ways we're no better and no more rational than "conservatives."

This saddens me to no end.

[Political Heretic]

13. I really don't know what that means. Care to elaborate?

[Cary]

16. It means that things are looking good for Republicans right now.

What else do you need to know?

[leftstreet]

29. No they're not. Brown ran as an independent

His campaign literature, signs, bus NOTHING referred to the Republican and/or GOP brand.

Things are looking shitty for both parties

[Cary]

31. Republicans are going to pick up seats.

Too many of you people don't seem unable to appreciate the significance of that.

Wait and see how great that is!

[leftstreet]

32. So what? The Democrats are practically handing the seats to them

The Dems need to grow a populist pair

[Cary]

34. Bullshit n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

59. Well argued. You certainly convinced me! (NT)

[Cary]

64. As if you weren't impervious to reason. . . n/t

[Tesha]

65. And what an excellent rejoinder! My, what a dazzling wit you have!

And you're probably just getting started!

[Cary]

75. Not wit.

Just the facts. Be honest now--you're really not fooling anyone. If God, Herself, came to you and told you to be reasonable and open minded, you wouldn't do it.

[Tesha]

79. But you haven't presented any facts, just invective and ad hominem.

By the way, speaking of facts, here are two sad facts for you:

1. There is no god or goddess.

2. Similarly, there are no DLC Democrats who, when it matters,
will actually stand up and vote *FOR* working people or anyone
else who doesn't represent the interests of their corporate owners.

Tesha

[Cary]

86. Wrong

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

I didn't suggest in my question that there was any such proof. The question was obviously a hypothetical question which you obviously evaded because you don't like your own answer enough to own up to it and be accountable.

Simply admit it. I am correct. You wouldn't change your mind even if God, Herself, told you that you were wrong so your suggestion that I have any chance at all in convincing you with something as puny as logic and reason is nothing but a phony ploy.

Where did DLC Democrats come into this? You're only evading yet again, and committing another logical fallacy. You're creating a straw man and probably suggesting a guilt by association.

I'm not a DLC Democrat. I'm an ordinary citizen hoping and praying that Republicans don't get another chance to work us over. It seems to me that you and the others who act like you are working for those Republicans.

[Goldstein1984]

7. Maybe they see the working class revolt that's developing

and are worried the mob might bypass the formality of burning them only in effigy?

[cali]

23. you mean the revolt that will put more republicans in office?

because I don't see a working class revolt that will put more progressives in office on the horizon.

[Goldstein1984]

37. I mean a working class revolt based on the realization

that neither party has the interests of the working class in mind.

If part of that revolt includes the tactic of putting the Democratic Party on notice that they ignore progressive voters at their peril, then so be it. No apologies offered; none available on demand.

The days when the Democratic Party can get progressive votes merely by sucking less than the Republican Party are disappearing. Fewer and fewer people are buying into the lesser-of-two-tumors voting strategy.

It's a given that the party faithful will disagree with me. So what? I expect that from a party that drifted to the Right two decades ago. The results of that Neocon drift are becoming more and more apparent.

It's a given that I won't ever vote directly for a Republican, except in the unforeseen circumstance that a Republican candidate is somehow more progressive and liberal than a pseudodemocrat, but my vote is no longer guaranteed to a candidate whose only attribute is being the lesser of two evils. I'm prepared to let the chips fall.

[cali]

52. it's not happening.;

independent voters pinball from party to party to party because of the political system. Unhappy with the way things are? vote for the opposite party; vote out the party in power.

This has nothing to do with the party faithful- I vote for individuals not a party and I'm fortunate enough to live in the only state that has an honest to goodness Progressive Party. In addition, I have voted for a republican. I voted for Jim Jeffords for years.

In any case, the words you're uttering have been uttered for years and years. Nothing really changes.

[Political Heretic]

56. If you can see the stirrings of change among the people right now

then you really are way out of touch.

We're not just seeing the standard ping-ponging, and the cultural climate right now is much more tumultuous than it has been in generations.

"Nothing really changes."

How old are you?

[cali]

57. politically, nothing has really changed

you're deceiving yourself if you think it has.

[Goldstein1984]

68. I've seen the Democratic Party

The party of the labor movement...
The party of MLK and the civil rights movement...
The party whose membership turned against the Vietnam War...

In my lifetime, become a militarist, free-trade corporate sell-out of a party that's barely distinguishable from the Republican Party.

Things are nowhere near as stable as those content with the status quo like to believe. The economy, the culture, and the nation are far more fragile than portrayed. The majority of Americans oppose the wars we're being forced to fight. And they're realizing that the Democratic Party isn't a solution, it's just another version of the same problem--decay of democracy.

And people in the public eye are increasingly saying so. I believe that when they see a public ready to sacrifice for change, that has suffered enough, and that has lost confidence in a political and economic system that benefits the few at the expense of the many, they'll will step outside of the system to organize and lead a revolt.

Look around the planet. We have more in common with peasants in developing nations that with our own leadership.

Time will tell.

[cali]

91. I had a classics professor

who once said that she thought the only thing holding society together was some anchorite praying in a cave somewhere. Society is always fragile and always has been fragile. At some times it's true that it's more fragile than other and of course, societies do crumble or implode or flame out. I remember those days too, and you are romanticizing them. And btw, MLK was not representative of the democratic party. And don't forget what that party tried to do to him.

The majority of Americans strongly supported getting into these hideous wars. For years the majority of Americans swallowed all the transparent lies that bushcheney fed them. The majority of Americans are easily persuaded through fear.


And thanks but I don't need your condescension. I'm well informed, reasonably intelligent and possessed of two MA degrees both in history. I simply see things differently from you.

[Political Heretic]

95. It's not condescension. It's simply disagreement.

At some times it's true that it's more fragile than other and of course, societies do crumble or implode or flame out. I remember those days too, and you are romanticizing them. And btw, MLK was not representative of the democratic party. And don't forget what that party tried to do to him.

How exactly am I romanticizing "those days?"

Saying MLK was not representative of the democratic party is like pointing out that the sky is blue. :)

How could I forget what that party tried to do to him. Or massive opposition in the country. And yet, he stood next to the President of the United States as the Civil Rights Act was signed into law. Something people such as yourself swore up and down would simply never happen and that it was impossible in a society as racist as ours (people such as yourself meaning fatalists, not racists.)

The bottom line remains very simple. You'd better hope I'm right, even if you fear I'm wrong. Because its the only hope there is. We are suffering right now, and every year our choice is between how rapidly we want our suffering to increase: quickly under republicans or more slowly under modern corporate sponsored democrats.

If I've given you any impression that somehow I believe tomorrow we are going to see a spontaneous eruption of popular resistance and action then I haven't expressed myself very well. I don't deny that people in our society are very effectively pacified, incredibly well indoctrinated with a sense of false-consciousness that serves the interests of the status quo, and are largely complacent and disinterested in the injustice or increasing suffering going on around them and in their own lives.

That is why real structural change happens, historically, in periods when there is a combination of both social conditions intolerable enough to shake people out of complacency on a mass scale and the efforts of committed activists and organizers. Some of it can be in the control of people willing to take action. But there's no denying that some of it is out of our control. Social conditions have to push people to act. Usually that means, unfortunately, things often have to get worse for more people before they can get better. No one is celebrating that fact merely by acknowledging it.

There's never a guarantee that radical social movements will happen or that they will be successful. But there is always the possibility. And the possibility is worth both hoping and fighting for. Because its the only hope we have of changing the structures of injustice that lead to this perpetually increasing suffering in our society.



Now as a complete side note....

I'm always excited to talk to a fellow student of history. If I thought you weren't well-informed or reasonably intelligent I wouldn't bother writing you back. Congratulations on your degrees - what are they, specifically? MAs of what? Perhaps are areas of emphasis are similar?

My Master's degree is in Social Work, which included extensive study of American history, namely the history of social work (which is a history of radical action), the history of Poverty, poverty knowledge, and social policy in the United States - especially from through then 19th and 20th century. And of course it included the study of organizing and of social movements through American history during all of its different periods. Understanding all of that however, also meant tracing attitudes toward the poor all the way back to english poor laws and early western attitudes during the enclosure movement.

As an extension of my master's work, I partnered with some professors and moonlighted in Sociology, with its obvious connection to social work. There I spent an substantial amount of time studying social theories of the 20th century, and came to solidify my own post-modern feminist critical theory my primary lens of interpretation.

My bachelor's degree is in philosophy, where my emphasis was in epistemology and continental philosophy. Michel Foucault became one of my favorite thinkers and writers during this time. That's my academic background... I would love to have you share yours. We might find lots of common points of interest!

Given my harsh economic realities and my own poverty and moderate-duration homelessness, unemployment and the terrible job climate - I don't always find many people to talk to about history or philosophy. If you are such a person, I'd enjoy that.

[Political Heretic]

69. Like I asked (and its not meant as a jab, especially since I don't know the answer) how old are you?

[Goldstein1984]

76. I'm 54 years old

I marched in protests against the Vietnam War with my cousins when I was 12;
I marched with striking farm workers when I was in high school;
I served in the Marine Corps, during which time I became very familiar with U.S. adventures in Central America;
I helped organize state employee under a local of the AFL-CIO;
And I've done a lot of the more mundane but necessary phone-banking, canvasing, and sign-posting that others have done.

I have a son deploying to Iraq tomorrow, not as part of withdrawal by the August deadline, but as part of the long-term occupation (Yes, there is going to be a very long-term occupation). And I know, from personal experience, that the greatest threat to his safety is not the "enemy," but incompetence, fumbling foreign policy and mission creep, all on the part of his own government.

It's my opinion that today's Democratic Party has about as much in common with the Party of MLK and today's Republican Party has in common with the Party of Lincoln. It's out of touch with the working class, which is why they don't know the working class is abandoning them.

If I'm wrong about growing civil unrest, then I fear for the future of the democracy, because both parties have become agents of the status quo.

[cali]

81. It's none of your business

let's just say I have a kid who's all grown up.

[BR_Parkway]

94. Actually, if the working class already understood that the Republicults

weren't on their side, but thought that the Democrats were - the backlash from them is going to be worse if it came down to openly saying that the Dems are as sold out as the Repubs.

At least the Repubs never really pretend to be on the side of the little guy - the closest they come is "this will benefit small business" which many interpret as meaning the little guy

The scorned woman or cuckolded spouse and all that...

More importantly, will the remaining Dems take the actual lesson that they have to act like Dems? Or will they be convinced that they need to move even further to the Right?

[Political Heretic]

55. There are far worse things than that outcome.

Change takes courage. Defying this failed system than institutionalizes injustice will likely mean some darker days before the dawn.

The eara when you could scare people into not resisting the establishment status quo by scaring them with the threat of republicans winning are long, long over my friend.

Bring it on, I say. If that's what it takes to wake people up, then so be it. Better people start actually voting their conscience and standing up for their convictions than constantly support the lesser or two evils and believing that gets us anywhere good.

[cali]

83. Of course there are worse things than that. who said there wasn't?

people like you are always willing to see others suffer. all that darker before the dawn pile of dog shit. I'm not trying to scare anyone into anything. I'm simply expressing my opinion, honey, just like you. don't like it? tough shit, dear.

What happens will happen. All I can do is act locally. And that's where my heart is- in my own small corner of the woods.

You're so delusional about both human nature and the realities of politics that it's almost laughable. People aren't waking up. As a society we're walking asleep as Garcia Lorca said. We're less engaged, less informed, more sated with empty "culture" than we've ever been.

You have such a misinformed view of what I believe. Vote for dems, don't vote for them. Vote for McKinney or Nader, it matters not to me because you represent such a teeny eeny number of people that you and people like you are irrelevant.

[Political Heretic]

88. Feeling a little touchy tonight, aren't we?

people like you are always willing to see others suffer. all that darker before the dawn pile of dog shit. I'm not trying to scare anyone into anything. I'm simply expressing my opinion, honey, just like you. don't like it? tough shit, dear.

I'm simply expressing my opinion too, cali. That's still ok, right?

As far as willing to see others suffer - the thing is, people are suffering as it is, and that suffering is only increasing every day. Whether Democrats are in power or Repubicans are in power only changes the speed at which the suffering increases. Republicans means suffering increases rapidly. Democrats means suffering increases less rapidly.

But as long as neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to talk about the structural injustice embedded at the heart of our modern political and economic system - suffering increases.

The other difference is that, I don't stand on the outside and look down at those who suffer. I am among the suffering. My family is among the suffering. My friends, my neighbors and my community are among the suffering.

We are already suffering, and we are willing to fight for the only thing that has any chance (however small and unlikely you think it is) of alleviating that suffering: popular mass movement for structural change. Change that transforms the Democratic Party from the bottom to the top, change that puts the unfinished work of Dr. King front and center - the call for economic justice in America.

Could have next to no chance of success. But you know why such cynical pessimism does not dissuade me? Because it is quite literally the only hope of seriously addressing suffering by injustice that we have. The only one, since we already suffer under our current Democrats, and simply suffer more more rapidly under Republicans.

Trust me, I'm not misinformed about what you believe in the slightest. It's only that its hardly interesting to me because its such an old and tired point of view repeated over and over throughout history right up until radical change occurs - as it always eventually does.

What's amusing is that you somehow think cynics of this generation are the first people to ever claim change was no longer impossible because things were different and the system was unassailable and people were too blind and distracted to come together. The weapons of the powerful change, the technology evolves, but in every epoch the story is the same - the people over come and the skeptics who claimed this time it really was impossible are left shocked (or dead.)

[cali]

90. you have no problem with increased suffering at all

as long as your preferred outcome is achieved. and that makes human beings nothing but pawns to you and those of your ilk.

With democrats, there's a chance to ease suffering. With republicans there is only an increase in it.


You know nothing about my personal circumstances. I'm poor. I scrape by and it's bloody hard and it wears me down. And I live in a poor community which is actually getting better in this horrible community due to people supporting one another with such things as slow lending circles. But yeah, I know what it's like.

And no, wrong again, dear. I don't think change isn't possible. I not only think it's possible but inevitable. I don't think the change you see as coming is on the way.

Oh, and you're ignorant of history and historiography. The people do not inevitably come around. The history of the world is hardly the simple little idiot's fairy tale you believe in.

[Political Heretic]

96. You can keep lying about my point of view if it makes you feel better.

Building up your strawmen to knock them down all you like.

I, like you, have a problem with suffering. I could turn your name-calling nonsense around on you, and suggest that by blindly supporting the Democratic party no matter what, you have no problem with increased suffering as long as your preferred outcome is achieved - keeping democrats in power.

But I don't really believe that, cali. I'm not stupid enough to try and question your personal feelings or motives. I understand that you believe that trying to take a more forceful stand for economic justice is fruitless and will harm the only group that is doing anything to try to at least make things a little better: Democrats.

I get that.

I just don't agree. Supporting the status quo if this system, with its corporate dominated two parties and its inside-the-beltway politics is simply supporting a system that perpetually increases the suffering of the many for the benefit of a few. When republicans are in power, that suffering increases rapidly. When Democrats are in power that suffering increases slowly.

You believe that the only responsible, wise choice we have is to keep supporting the same old institution and slow our increasing suffering. Anything else is naive and foolish.

That's fine. But I would rather try to stop this tide of increasing suffering and reverse it. Maybe that goal is one that is not attainable. But to me, its worth trying.

The only ignorant thing being said about history is that history is absent examples of radical change. That's not really "ignorant" though, because its simply not possible to ignore such obvious examples of historical reality. It's more like... deceitful, I guess.

I don't think at any point I've claimed history is simple. In fact, nothing I've said has described anything as simple or certain. Which is why your projection-based, exaggerated, angry opposition is so bizarre.

You're getting very good at building out of a characterization of me and then knocking it down. Too bad it has little to no connection with reality. I don't think there are simple solutions, I don't think popular movements are guaranteed, and I've never said that they just spontaneously explode onto the scene out of nowhere. But when social conditions are tumultuous enough that a greater number of people feel they have no more left to lose, then popular mobilization is a common result.

You keep talking about what a student of history you are, without giving any specifics about your historical expertise - but I guess that isn't really important. People don't have to be special experts to know things like, the history of to Labor movement, in which virtually every gain made was hard fought by the people, sometimes paid for in blood. Or Women's suffrage, or the Civil Rights Movement, or the Abolition movement which was pretty much the reason that freeing the slaves came out of the civil war, something that was not Lincoln's desire in the beginning.

Not to mention our own American Revolution, or the Solidarity movement in Poland during my lifetime. The fall of the Berlin Wall. The Cuban revolution.

Of course history is filled with examples of the violent defeat of popular movements too. Nothing in guaranteed. Tienanmen square, Ludlow Massacre, failed Bolivian revolt, and what's been happening in Iran in the last year which could go either way....

It's a struggle. When we don't struggle at all against intrinsic systems of suffering and injustice, that's really the only time hope is really lost.

Whether the change is "coming" or not is unknown... that it is the change we need is crystal clear. And that's worth fighting for.

PS --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7720223&mesg_id=7726877

[eleny]

8. Voters figure they might as well vote for a real Republican

:shrug:

[WillyT]

9. +100

Yep...

:kick:

[LiberalFighter]

10. Or what is the point of voting if you still get a Republican?

[eleny]

14. They could gain control of the Senate

[AlinPA]

46. That will happen.

[Tesha]

62. And what will that change? Seriously!

They already control the Senate with their 41-59 majority.

Tesha

[eleny]

67. They control the agenda of the Senate

That does count for some things. The Senate has been able to pass some things since last January. It hasn't been a total bust. But it will be complete deadlock if they take control.

[Tesha]

80. It seems to me, that through the threat of the modern Phonybuster, they...

...control the agenda right now. Sure, they can't say what gets
started on the agenda, but they certainly completely control
what gets stopped, and what's getting stopped is essentially
everything that matters to us.

Tesha

[eleny]

92. Point taken, Tesha!

The Senate needs to take action against the filibuster or the next three years could be a slog to nowhere.

[Tesha]

93. Thanks.

I really do understand the problems that come with losing the
majority positions in each of the houses, but I really am deeply
disappointed that we've so ill-used our current majority positions,
especially when you consider how much the Republicans achieved
with much-narrower positions* or even minority positions.

Tesha


* Of course, given all the Blue Dogs, it could be argued that
the Republicans have never really held a minority position,
at least in the Senate.

[Political Heretic]

15. Probably. :(

[defendandprotect]

17. Sounds right to me -- especially after the Obama landslide . . . as I heard it . .

evidently Obama's win -- a liberal/progressive vote -- would have been enough

for another 24 Dem House seats -- !!

The computers are still working -- !!

[bvar22]

18. When given the choice....

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

Who could have predicted that letting Joe Lieberman write the Health Care "Reform" Bill would have pissed off so many Democrats? :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

19. Can't join 'em, can't beat 'em

I think the basic conclusion is that in the current environment, you can't be a moderate democrat. They won't vote for you. Either you have to have a district that will elect a progressive, or you have to be a conservative. There is no in between.

[cali]

20. most will be replaced by even more conservative repubs

[The Magistrate]

22. Because They Will Lose, Sir

These people who do not stand with the Party and its voters are always the ones who get it in the neck when the Congress fails to pass the agendas Democratic voters voted for.

[leftynyc]

25. I never thought of it like that

Do the Dems who do stand with the party tend to weather these off-year elections better? Interesting.

Hope you're feeling better Magistrate - your voice will be very much needed in the next 8 months or so.

[KittyWampus]

28. How's the ole ticker?

[wisteria]

24. Bayh and Dorgan were both well ahead in the polls, had a load of money in the bank

and both were expected to win their seats with no problem. It may well be possible that things have gotten so bad in Washington, that they feel they can no longer be effective Senators.

[MidwestRick]

26. Probably tired of being attacked...

by the far left of our party.

[corpseratemedia]

47. which is, in reality ("the far left"), the true moderate center...

and they are the far right (of the far right)

[Tesha]

63. How tragic for them! (NT)

[TheBigotBasher]

74. I do not like the attacks on Obama by some on here

but they are NOT in the Senate. I am a very strong supporter of the President and I hope he does well. I will say though that it has not been "the left" of the Party that blocked and slowed every single piece of legislation for the last year.

The most divisive members of the Senate have been people like Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln and Baucus.

Divided Parties do not win elections. That has been proven time and time again. It is they who have done more than every single Obama critic here on DU combined to damage the Democratic Party.

Had they had even the tiniest bit of regard for the Platform that they campaigned and won on, they would not be facing defeat now.

Bayh was the worst, you could see his jealousy and hate pour through his eyes when he was questioning the President at the televised Senate meeting the other day.

[Tesha]

82. This really is exactly like 1994.

The reason the Clinton health plan completely and utterly
failed was that Congressional Democrats had their noses
out of joint because an outsider, a bumpkin from Arkansas,
had ascended to the Presidency instead of them. So they
torpedoed his agenda and, in doing so, managed to get
themselves thrown out of power from both houses of Congress
in 1994.

Well done, ehh?

And we're running the exact same play over again this year
as the Blue Dog coalition ensures that Health Care for all
is defeated once again.

Tesha

[butterfly77]

27. Because they are RepubliCONS...

and they can't fufill the RepubliCON agenda because we are watching too closely now..

[galileoreloaded]

30. I vote for them having knowledge of massive economic collapse, and they are getting out of the

spotlight.

Ask yourself, where IS Neil Kashkari, Paulsons wonderboy??

Hiding in the woods, that's where.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402016.html?g=0&sid=ST2009120402037

[eleny]

36. Picture #19 shows a big house next to that tiny cabin

Looks like a nice setup. He's suffers pretty well. :hi:

[Mojorabbit]

49. Actually I am more than worried

this is the reason.

[SoCalDem]

33. They want to make real money..and not catch heat for their non-decisions

Being in the senate can;t be a lot of fun.. you are , at best, just one of one-hundred, and you know that every other word out of your mouth is a lie.. Maybe it eventually catches up..

[gleaner]

41. That is one possible explanation ....

another might be that they have profited very well from special interests and with the prevailing climate of anger and scrutiny against those who do they have decided it might be a good time to lie low.

[Jennicut]

43. It is prime time for making money in an industry or lobbyist job.

Because they were the majority for a few years here, these politicians can make the most bucks if they get out now rather then waiting to see if they might be in the minority. A lot of Rethugs left for the same reason when they lost the majority.

[KonaKane]

45. No complaints from me.

As far as I'm concerned they have nearly destroyed the Democratic Party. Good riddance to them. Let their seats be filled with true Democrats, Liberals and Progressives.

[B Calm]

48. I live in Indiana and I made up my mind I wasn't voting for Bayh or Ellsworth

in the next election! Bayh knows he can't win anymore running as a conservative!

[stray cat]

50. Purity but out of power - maybe the wish of progressives will be granted!

[onenote]

51. i suppose it depends on what you consider a "conservative"

Are the retiring members from the progressive wing of the party? Generally not. Are they "conservative" compared to liberal wing? Absolutely, at least on some issues.

Are they conservative compared to average republican member? Nope. If you look at their specific records, you will find that most of the retiring Democrats have records on issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. that, while falling short of what I would want, are better than the record of almost every repub on those same issues.

[Ardent15]

53. They see that the party base is pissed off

And that we want actual Democrats, not Republicans in Democratic clothing.

[JoeyT]

54. They've sold us out heavily enough and often enough

to earn a permanent well paid place at the side of their masters.
They're just as obstructive as the GOP, so good riddance.

[Starry Messenger]

58. Their dirty work is done.

Time for a job where the real money is--consulting, lobbyist, etc.

[Therellas]

60. they are scared of the angry mob thats coming for them and what they have/haven't done.

imo.

[lsewpershad]

61. You said it

[Swamp Rat]

66. They are quitting in time to take advantage of previous job offers to be lobbyists

without having to wear a politician mask.

Time to get out of Dodge before they are tarred and feathered.

[depakid]

70. I can also think of a few who are also about to get the boot without resigning

-----

[newspeak]

72. the timing of his announcement

stinks--he basically has sunk any real democratic candidate--it looks like to me, that he's doing a favor for the repugs. I just wonder if there was some kind of pay off, if it was worth it.

I saw him on tv complaining about liberal blogs and washington was just so partisan. Shite--he basically had eight years of major shut out by the repugs--repugs not playing nice, and now he's complaining about partisanship. Something definitely smells rotten.

[TexasObserver]

71. Some are likely selling out, while some see a loss likely.

A guy like Bayh has to win his primary, and he could face competition from the left there.

Then he has a race where a mid to conservative state will not look kindly on an incumbent Democrat who has been known for being furniture in the senate.

[grantcart]

73. They didn't get any DU valentines during the 1st quarter fund drive.

[Tesha]

84. How do you know? What are there screenames? I can think of several they might be! (NT)

[krispos42]

77. And if they were going to retire, why didn't they go out in a blaze of progressive glory???

Why did they side with the filibustering obstructionist Republicans for a year???


Fuckers! :grr:

[Tesha]

85. That would have damaged their "retirement plans". You've got to stay loyal to your owners.

Once you're a "made man", you don't welch on your deals, ya' know
what I'm tellin' ya?

Tesha

[upi402]

78. good riddance to bad rubbish

May we have a real Democratic Party.
What have we won if the D's are really R's who've tricked us out of our letter?

[Dappleganger]

87. You're right...

definitely good riddance. Let's get some REAL dems to run in their place this time, too!

[mmonk]

89. They've caught a clue.