What is with this "the Democratic party left me" meme?

I was reading an article in the paper this am wherein A Kentuckian had that to say about the party..and of course Zell Miller also had that to say even though ALL of the ideas present in the party were present when he took over Coverdell's seat.

Is it a new idea that the Dems support labor unions?

Dem have mostly supported a woman's right to choose since the 70's.

Dems have mostly supported sensible regulation of business since..well..Roosevelt.

Dems have MOSTLY supported national security issues all through the years and in fact, calls to slow the military industrial complex came via the Center for Defense Information..an organization headed by REPUBLICAN former military officers.

Dems have mostly supported civil rights since the 60's.

Where and when does this "the Dems left me" come into play?

Are people now so opposed to personal freedom that it only pertains to owning weapons?

but I've noticed this too. The Dem party ideals really haven't changed all that much in the last 30 years, and, in some instances, 60 and 70 years.

. . .to rationalize their own abandonment of progressive principles.

It's not a meme. It's a gross rationalization by folks without principles.
The Professor

I think they left the party...

Many folks only get their "news" from right-wing hate shows on TV and radio.

"how I can assimilate into the current Borgian power structure without appearing disloyal to my base" disease.

Short, sweet, and to the damned point.

...several of the issues you mentioned are no longer pursued diligently by much of the democratic leadership. Cases in point:

Dem (sic) have mostly supported a woman's right to choose since the 70's.

True, but Lieberman has recently called for a reexamination of the central issues in Roe v Wade.

Dems have mostly supported sensible regulation of business since..well..Roosevelt.

Yet many seem to be in bed with major corporate donors today. I still think that Diane Feinstein's vote in favor of the IWR, against the OVERWHELMING objections of her constituents, was the result of her hopes for war profit economic benefits. Furthermore, much of the democratic congressional leadership has gone along with Bush's economic "reforms" meant to rob the U.S. economy in favor of the already rich.

Dems have MOSTLY supported national security issues all through the years....

Yet a majority of the democratic leadership voted in favor of the IWR-- arguably one of the worst national security and foreign policy decisions since the Gulf of Tonkin.

Dems have mostly supported civil rights since the 60's.

Yet most of the democratic leadership sold out on the Patriot Act, and presumably on PA II. We'll never really know about the latter because they didn't have the courage to record their votes.


on edit: one last point-- read the Green Party's 10 key values. They are all traditional democratic issues, but today it seems that the GP is pursuing them with far more greater moral purpose than the Democratic Party itself.

Lieberman was not saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned or anythign like that. He was trying to point out that fast increases in medical science makes a fetus "viable" (ie able to live) at earlier and earlier times in the pregnancy cycle. Because Roe v. Wade names this "viability" as the litmus test as to whether an abortion can be performed or not, it stands to reason that abortion will be strictly limited in coming years because of medical advances. Make sense?

I'm not a Lieberman supporter, BTW, before you bother to tell me why he is a shithead. In this particular instance he happens to be right, IMO.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester. Until we have artificial wombs-- which is another ethical issue altogether-- first trimester foetuses will NEVER be viable. There is no medical justification for reexamining the viability issue in R v W now or in the near future, IMO.

you said it better than I could...

Zell is an idiot. The party didn't leave him. His kind hijacked it and left the rest of us. He's playing the old rethug game of blaming others for what he himself did.

You are on the money about the GP. They are what the democrats USED TO BE ABOUT.

Pushed through by a secret vote despite overwhelming public outcry against it (when it was leaked to the press months ago). Where were the Dems? I didn't see them on TV screaming that the Bush admin is trying to kill the Bill of Rights.

and Dems were locked out of the process...that was clarified in another thread.

Where is the outrage?

That bill did in fact contain a provision which was also in the Patriot II bill.

They succeeded in passing a small portion of Patriot II.

They will continue to pass the entire bill in this fashion (bit by bit, contained in other related bills) unless they're called on it.

So... who's calling them on it?

What seems to be clear is this bill included some of the outrageous provisions that Patriot 2 was supposed to have. It seems they are going to break the bill up and ram it through while no one is looking.


THIS IS A HUGE FUCKING DEAL.

It's easier that way. (as we've seen demonstrated)

From Kucinich's website:

"Kucinich will introduce legislation to repeal a section of the FY '04 Intelligence Authorization Act that expands powers granted to the federal government in the USA PATRIOT Act, allowing the government greater power to acquire financial records without judicial oversight from car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agencies, and many other businesses. Traditional financial institutions like banks and credit unions are already subject to such demands, but this dramatic expansion of government authority will mean that records created by average citizens who purchase cars, plan vacations, or buy gifts will be subject to government seizure and analysis without the important requirements of probable cause or judicial review. This provision initially appeared in a leaked draft of the so-called "PATRIOT II", a proposal the American public and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate rejected.

"If we allow this Administration to continue this trend of expanding governmental powers at the expense of our civil rights our very democracy is at stake. Today, I join with over 229 communities in 35 states that represent over 29 million citizens, that have passed resolutions opposed to the law, in standing up to this abuse of power. It is now clear the administration's strategy is to pass PATRIOT II in separate pieces with little public debate, in secret, and surreptitiously attached to other legislation. This is far from an appropriate or democratic way to handle issues that affect the fundamental liberties and freedoms of Americans."

Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party to become a Republican years ago.

in other words, if you want bigotry etc. don't look to the Democrats. (don't let the door hit you!)

. . . Say it because the party has welcomed blacks and homosexuals into its ranks, and said that they're a vital part of America.

I will not limit myself to being ruled by a southern white male just so bigots will vote for us.

along with "Bush Haters" and "It's Clinton's Fault".

I cannot believe that our mighty and free nation has been enslaved by this bunch of Bozos and Hitler wannabees.

I thought this post was going to be about people who claim the "spineless dems" etc. were the ones leaving the party behind or vice versa.

Just goes to show you how the rhetoric of the two sides meets circularly at some point.

While I have had complaints with the manner in which the leadership is NOT leading the party but following polls rather than doing what leaders do which is to CREATE sentiment...I see this complaint from several directions..some of it is valid but again it really only serves to divide IF AND ONLY IF one says it with a foot out the door.

It can be a complaint from a traditional Dem who feels disconnected from the party since it has moved over towards the right and became New, Center, Moderate, leaving many of the laboror's interests behind.

It can be be directed at anyone who still feels represented by the Dem party, in order to plant the idea that the Dems isn't his party after all. Then such a voter may turn towards an insignificant independant party, to the Republicans, or not vote at all. Thus increasing the chances of another Repub as next president.

Liberal Democrats who feel abandoned are moving to reform the party and supporting Democrats in the nomination.

Conservative right-wing Democrats like Zell Miller are writing books about the party like "A National Party No Longer" and endorsing the most right-wing Republican to run for president in 100 years.

Big differences, in my view.

i'd say the difference is implicit in what i said.

I always shake my head when I hear that one. The party has been inching slowly towards the right forever it seems. This idea that we are supposed to have two conservative parties is idiotic.

after 7 years of Bill Clinton in the White House. By 2002, Ms Tuck decided "the Democratic party had left her..." My question, then and now, is when? What changed between 1999 and 2002 except the occupant of the White House.

Its a totally bullshit excuse for abandoning the party that gave you a chance.

It's because near socialists like Howard Dean are now the leaders of the party.

I see your spouting Fox News Talking Points

:eyes:

with a generalization...welcome to DU anyway :D Viva la difference

like we currently have

-

Oh, before you "go"- Welconme to DU!

I WISH!!!!

Explain your logic, if you would.

I spit sprite out of my nose over that one.

Tell this socialist how Howard Dean is a socialist, please.

Sadly, it seems to be working.

Like all spear-carrier politicians, they are success-oriented. It doesn't matter what their own ideals are, they see Republicans winning, they move right. They want to be distanced from the "losers", which, in the current political field and especially in the media, are the Democrats.

He used it very effectively in the 1980 campaign.

That Kentuckian and other southerners are leaving the Democratic Party, IMO, due to the obvious leftward shift in the Democratic Party. This shift is perceived to be profoundly lacking I'm Christian morals.
Many of these hard-working folks are tired of hearing their faith ridiculed by college professors, Hollywood and the major media.
Homosexuality has driven many people from the South, Midwest and Plain states toward the GOP.
Many women are rethinking abortion as a rather drastic form of birth control. Many of these average blue-collar folks are not against fairness, what is upsetting is the perceived notion that hate crime bills, quotas and political correctness apply to everyone else but them.
Many of these people are dismayed by the loss of manufacturing jobs after President Clinton signed N.A.F.T.A. They realize these jobs are not coming back. Many are questioning why the education bureaucracy wants more of their money for poorer results. You may find this hard to believe, but many of these common people, and especially their children believe in the stock market. Their children see no future in Social Security. The parents constantly tell their children to do good in school so that you do not have to work in a factory.
These people are fiercely patriotic and are ashamed of the way many liberals are behaving in their "Party of the Work'in Man." The majority of the Soldiers killed and maimed are the children of these salt-of-the-earth parents and they harbor a fierce resentment of terrorists.
This is the stock that I was born in, raised in, and believe in. These Americans have not left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party they know and believe in has left them. If the Democratic Party wishes to be aboveground it must regather these solid Americans.

What you espouse is not what we are gathered here to support. We won't be changing our party or our minds to support these ideas. Should we do so, it won't be the party many of us know, and we'll leave.

I take it by the tone of your post that you agree with them.

I am perplexed by the disconnect of people who claim social secruity won't be there (which of course it won't now that George Bush hit his trifecta) even though their own relatives are collecting it.

I am perplexed by people who think abortion is UNCHRISTIAN but will then allow school lunches for children who are BORN to be cancelled.

I am perplexed by those who will build a prison but then ignore policies for testing and standards that actually LEAD schools to give up on students not achieving.

I am perplexed by people who believe the bill of rights is important if we are talking about guns but not when we are talking about equality for all people nor about the separation of church and state.

I am perplexed by people who CLAIM to be Christian and then use that to justify hatred of anybody....

I guess Christ probably has the same complaint about those people that they have about Dems.

This Jewish girl fully expects him, upon his return, to proclaim..I didn't leave Christianity, Christianity left me.

the Republicans have moved farther to the right. Democratic policies on civil rights were established in the '60s, and many of its economic policies date from the Roosevelt New Deal.

It's funny, because I talk to Americans from all over-I'm in sales and have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles over the past 3 years. Most Americans don't give two shits if someone is homosexual. Look at the poll numbers for civil unions. Also look at the support for abortion rights. It's still strong. Even among 'blue-collar' folks that you disdain.

Your points are right out of the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly Bible. You may want to try them on folks that actually believe them. You won't find too many at DU-or in the majority of the population that voted for Gore in 2000.

Uppty blacks & other former minorities (don't look now, but white males will soon be added to that list) & women and gays, oh my!

Can't have that!

Plus all those heathen "religions" not Southern Baptist gaining membership.

Simple pure bigotry and it's feminine and gay equivalents.

Good riddance to these "people", IMO.

When I read the article the impression I got was that Kentucky began trending Republican. Strong incumbents were defeated and rather than loose their jobs they switched parties. For the ones that got voted out it's an easy excuse and allows for the possibility of reentry. The Democrat in that story was encouraged to simply switch parties too and get reelected as a Republican.

A classic example of this would be our dear friend Zell. In 2002 Max Cleeland and the Democratic Governor were both voted out. Zell see's his demise coming and decides to announce retirement and then cozy up to the Republicans who are taking over his state. Zell can now either run for office as a Republican down the road or tap into a much larger Republican special interests pot.

I don't think our platform changing has anything to do with it. Plus we don't strong arm these people like the Repukes.

this little ditty.

BTW, I have immensely enjoyed reading you...belated welcome to DU :hi:

The way we turn this around is with coatails. We need to win in 04 and then take back the Senate in 06 and make gains in the house. I think it might be a good idea for us to displace some of the Republican moderates in the Senate. As much as I like them sometimes, we need the seats. Another good thing to do is get more liberal media outlets. I think a new liberal print outfit would be much more successful and affordable than radio. TV would be good but expensive.

If not we're lookin at minority party for quite awhile. Learning how to be a real opposition party would be good too.

It's all part of the con. Paint the Democrats as an increasingly liberal party, even though the exact opposite is the truth, and the neocons buy your book and you get a cushy job on Faux News or MSRNC.

...in 1964. And we've never gotten them back I guess.

Not exactly sure why we'd want them.