I suppose we must put up with them in present conditions, but in some ways they are worse than the open opposition.

snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

"Never underestimate the con game of getting headlines for saying the right thing, but then counting on bipartisan manipulations to ensure it's just a mirage."

...referring to: Brown, Sanders, Warren?

who are you referring to? Who is involved in the "con game of getting headlines for saying the right thing, but then counting on bipartisan manipulations to ensure it's just a mirage."

The OP is about what's going on in Congress. Why are you afraid to say who?

"No, observation of patterns. "

...."patterns," who were you referring to? Who is involved in the "con game of getting headlines for saying the right thing, but then counting on bipartisan manipulations to ensure it's just a mirage."

The OP is about what's going on in Congress. Why are you afraid to say who?

Including Senator Brown, who is quoted in the OP, these Senators are "saying the right thing"?

Elizabeth Warren: Tell Congress to raise the minimum wage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024430298

Senator Sanders: Welfare for Walmart?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024354098

who are opposed to any minimum wage increase? We can cry all we want but if their states don't support the $10.10 the Senators in question have to decide between doing what their voters want to get re-elected or stand on principal and lose. I'll take the win every time. We should be going after Republican senators whose states support the minimum wage increase.

I'm sick of this 'yeah, but they're worse'. It isn't about the damn 'win' any more. It's about getting Dems in there that will do something for us.

back up. Yeah, we need to get Democrats who will do all kinds of things we want, it's not desire that's holding the Democratic party back, it's ability. I think most people understand that once elected Senators have six years to get over any negative press for their actions and are more likely to align with their party than break from it.

primary those that go along just to get along - i.e. schlump along being yes men. I realize that they have to pick their battles, but I'm sick of the wimping out on important things. The minimum wage thing should not be a wimp out situation. If any Dem wants my vote, they have to earn it.

that is just a fact. If we ran all left wing progressives we'd have 99% Republicans Congress. How courageous. the whole wimp and courage thing on political positions is ridiculous. It's not the middle ages and there won't be any pitched battles. Just the flow of ideas over time and persuasion of the people to them.

So if we ran more progressive candidates, Dems would vote for republicans? That's pretty much what your 99% repub figure indicates. How courageous!

Sorry, I don't buy into the stfu and mark anybody with a D next to their name. The Dems have to earn my vote.

and that they live in red states and given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat, will pick the Democrat only if they are moderate? Talk about black and white thinking.

Notice how well moderates and centrists have been doing in Congress? Yeah, exactly. At least that ones agenda is well known.

Party Purity is the 1 thing the TeaHadists have right!

This reliance on politicians to change voters' minds is unrealistic. We don't even want such mesmerizing representatives. I'd rather they represented some voters I don't agree with than they have some ability to sway with their charisma. They can make cases for things and that may sway some people, but both sides are going at it. Making the voters of red states blue is going to happen because they elect some Senator or Representative who is going to then switch sides (they got elected) and change their minds? Change and progress happen, but not quickly and decisively, but over time. These states actually elected a Democrat to a seat and that's progress over what they'd otherwise do.

A good politician does not sway but motivates to action, not with charisma but with ideas and policies.
Change and progress can happen as quickly as we like and those who demand that injustice be slowly corrected are merely advocating for more injustice, prolonged and intentional injustice. They do so because they profit from the status quo, do not desire change and that's what makes them conservatives.
Definition of 'conservative':
1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

So to review, you advocate a cautious handling of change. Nothing quick or decisive, that would be bad.....

It's no use calling them wimps. You don't have to be courageous if you represent a bluer state. Look where these Senators are from.

"the problem here is what they think their constituents want

It's no use calling them wimps. You don't have to be courageous if you represent a bluer state. Look where these Senators are from."

...they did the same thing with health care. They need to lead. It's their position that causes their constituents to get the wrong idea.

Look at the hoops they're jumping through now that it's clear that people want access to health care. Pryor, unlike Landrieu, voted against the bill. He now finds himself at odds with his own state, which expanded Medicaid.

People can make all kinds of excuses for Democrats in red states, and give them a pass on some issues (Wendy Davis on guns), but when it comes to helping people to get ahead, improving the quality of their lives by increasing the minimum wage and providing access to health care, these Democrats need to find the courage to lead. Their constituents are not going to turn against them for that.

I mentioned Wendy Davis. Look at what happend when she took a stand.

they don't tell their constituents what to think. I didn't get any of my opinions from Tom Carper. I voted for him because he is closest to my opinion. Most Americans are like that, IMO, and it's a good thing. I defer to their judgment on many things, because I don't have time to figure it out, on things if I voted for them, thinking they were closest to my opinions generally. So I see those senators as seats that just go Republican - in a way it is harder for them to help us keep a Dem majority.

Why did Landrieu vote for the law?

There are other instances when people stand up for what's right, not the perception created by monied interests.

-Laelth

I strongly agree with you.

Thanks.

It ought to be $15.

Just stand up and take the lead. Do what is right for your constituents.

But they still expect our support.