If we allow our party to become divided, no one faction will prevail

For years and years, there have been efforts to divide our party into ideological factions with the constant intent of purging one or the other from influence or affiliation with the Democratic party. ALL factions do it. No one faction within the party has clean hands in their efforts to dominate the agenda and neutralize the impact of all who they disagree with -- mostly over strategy and direction, rather than any substantial disagreement over end goals.

Over time, it has become clear that no one ideological or issue-based faction within our party could prevail on their own to the degree that they would actually be able to propel their ideas and proposals into action or law. That inability to prevail on their own hasn't stopped folks from working to organize more voters to support their faction (nor should it). We need to keep working to convince voters to join our causes in enough numbers to elect like-minded legislators to office.

But there hasn't been any Democratic political movement which identifies itself as moderate, liberal or progressive which has managed to achieve enough support to break off from our party and form their own effective legislative body which would easily advance their singular ideology through Congress. No one faction in our party has a sufficient amount of numbers or support to prevail alone.

That, I believe, is the purpose of a Democratic party; to bring together enough like-minded legislators to actually achieve an effective majority. We don't really have (a veto-proof) one now, so, the challenge is to keep working in the direction of reconciliation; not to dismantle our coalition just because one faction's prescription for success hasn't yet overcome the republican obstruction. It's really not likely that any singular ideology will ever prevail alone, without some compromise with others who may not share the other side's strategies, but nonetheless, agree on the ultimate goal.

A good deal of that attempt to divide our party has trickled down to confrontations between citizens who post here. That effort to divide make even less sense than it does to demand that our legislators adhere to some ideological purity. There are myriads of differences of opinion among Democratic voters who come from many diverse regions in our nation.

It's one thing for a legislator to vote in a particular way, but most Americans send these folks to Washington to reconcile these differences, not just butt heads for their entire term. DU'ers who advocate compromise may not share the views of those they expect to reconcile their differences with, but many are willing to modify their expectations if the result actually moves issues to some resolution. That's not some mere appeasement, it's just common sense. No one faction within our party is going to be any more successful in bullying those they disagree with into capitulating to their point of view than are the voters who elect them.

If we don't find ways to come together, we will surely fall apart.

We have a party that refuses to stand up and demand removal of Cheney and * from office. DINOs do not make this party. The grassroots supporters make this party. And the Democratic leadership seems hellbent on marginalizing its base in favor of this race to the midde/right. For this party to be effective once again, the DLC needs to be disbanded.

the ability to actually advance legislation into action or law

I agree that the leadership bent over backwards to satisfy 'moderates' on FISA, allowing the republican bill to proceed to a vote. For that alone, I think they should lose their positions. Not even that action can be effected by one faction alone, though.

In short, if we don't get some serious responses to our needs, the Democratic Party is going to be a Head without a BODY.

I'm not feeling very accommodating to them.

Can we at least kick the Vichy Democrats out?

Moreover, there are plenty of progressive issues and concerns which even those who have expressed or demonstrated some support for the DLC have come together and helped advance.

I think it's at least notable that, the majority of the labeling is done by those who are in opposition to the other. It's not like there are actually legislators standing up and declaring they're advocating some pov just because the DLC supports it. We need to remain focused on issues and spend less time trying to paint each other into these ideological corners.

everything but the Democratic Party?

How forgetful of them.

. . . those very voters who have enabled our party to achieve a legislative majority by electing those legislators folks are railing against.

I can't unite with the War Party & Kleptocracy faction of the Democratic Party.

But, I suspect they're subjective to your own POV.

Best of luck in organizing a party which is decidedly more progressive. That's the real challenge. Our party members are sent here by voters who apparently agree with their positions. Until the opinions of those voters who send these legislators to Washington change, the makeup of our party won't change.

"Our party members are sent here by voters"

As I pointed out elsewhere, there were many examples in 2006 of our leadership deliberately attempting to prevent voters from having a choice of a progressive candidate. If we refuse to admit that we have a rotten corruption at the top of our party we are just going to get fucked over again and again and again. What we have is a perversion of representative democracy.

There are also issues of funding and promotion in the media and elsewhere.

But there are also progressive members and operatives who are working at the same time to promote and advance their candidates. That's the challenge, no matter where the election battles are fought or who is directing that fight. We ultimately have to get voters to support these Democrats with their votes. If that means that we have to be more aggressive in selecting and promoting candidates we agree with than we have to make that so. Just railing against those who have been successful in those efforts (whether they are 'moderate' or 'progressive', or operating from party positions or on the street) is less important than actually doing the ground work of organizing the necessary support to propel them into a position to get those votes.

and stop with all this unity crap. The Kleptocracy & War Party faction has no problem with denouncing us as leftwing kooks, but we seem to have bought into the unity bullshit in a completely non-reciprocal fashion.

I'm less enthusiastic about these in-party battles, as the divisions they encourage do very little to move legislators to any significant progress toward the goals we share. And, I'm just not going to be satisfied with waiting until 2009 to see if that Congress is any more amenable to ending the occupation. These legislators need to work together to end the occupation now and begin to bring our troops home.

Votes are stolen long before the poles are opened. The majority of the sheepeople base their votes on lies and propaganda; they hear very little truth or alternate points of view. This is no accident…

Too say that, “Our party members are sent here by voters who apparently agree with their positions” is true but, how different would the political landscape look if voters were informed with objective facts in lieu of naïve political dogmas designed too deceive the masses and preserve the status quo paradigm.

We want ideal candidates, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but some won't settle for less. Dems will say "Sure, the nominee is pro-Choice, but he's not pro-Choice ENOUGH" or "he's a good guy but he hasn't addressed the concerns of neo-pagan/transgendered/UFO abductee/furry fans, so I can't support him". Meanwhile, the rethugs vote for ANYTHING that promises to ban gay marriage. And thus we lose elections to imbiciles like Gee Dumbya. Of course, Diebold helps a little bit too....

always.

Never do these DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs ever agree to "compromise" and give up their capitalistic plans and promote something that is good for the common good.

Compromise to them means Progressives are to STFU.

. . . or moderate votes alone? Of course, not.

First timetables were firmly set, that's the "progressive" position, with some teeth behind it. Then the compromise happened, and it was defanged entirely, to be purely symbolic and frankly useless, and even THAT couldn't pass. So they compromised again, and removed the language entirely, and gave Bush everything he wanted.

That was already the compromise position, the initial bill put forward was deeply flawed from an anti-war progressive viewpoint. Then that flawed compromise itself was abandoned at the first opportunity, replaced by the War Party Agenda.

My big problem is that the Democrats and Republicans are not really different in foreign policy. Republicans are just more open about their intentions, Democrats more underhanded.

The Democratic supplemental funding bill was always intended by the leadership to advance. It contained more than enough items placed there by Democrats to provide necessary equipment and supplies to the troops to ensure their safety and well-being which they deserve ANYTIME they're deployed.

After the failure of the legislation with timetables attached to garner the necessary amount of support to overcome Bush's veto (and the failure of ANY other strategy or proposal to manage the necessary amount of support to advance them into action or law), our soldiers were left stranded by the political impasse. It made sense to some that the troops who were left stranded by those failures of our opposition to move Bush should not be deprived of those things the Democrats had been complaining for years that the republicans had neglected.

The LIMITED Democratic supplemental funding bill was advanced by some legislators (like Murtha, whose own troop support provisions were in the bill) to cover that period where everyone acknowledged that the debate and the republican obstruction would continue for some months without resolution. But the issue of voting for timetables for withdrawal remain active, with the vast majority of Democratic legislators having voted for them and prepared to do so again, and the majority of republicans standing in the way of that.

One veto-busting margin of votes from the republicans and the troops come home, 'funding' and all.

It would have been obvious who was being obstructionist here, the Republicans, and either Bush or Congressional Repukes would have been pressured to act, to either sign the bill(Bush), or override his veto(Con. Repukes). Instead the Democrats caved, and pretty much pissed everybody off, that makes sense. :eyes:

to their politics. I think that was the correct position to take after the effort to end the occupation failed. The limited funding assumed that the troops would be there for some time. That wasn't an abstract prediction at the time of the vote.

They ARE, essentially, sending Bush the same timetables, over and over -- they're just being attached to different legislation.

that they were a joke. The compromise bill was taken by the DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs who scurried off with the GOP in behind closed door meetings. No Progressives allowed. Finally after emerging, the timetable bill came out unrecognizeable with bombing Iran back on the table and a withdrawal date which was no withdrawal date but just a suggestion which could be ignored at the discretion of Bush.

DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs then presented their joke of a withdrawal bill that they and the GOP agreed upon and told Progressives to STFU.

That is the Standard method the DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs use on each and every bill going through Congress. DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs and the GOP secretly meet and disallow any Progressive input whatsoever. To DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs, Progressives should just STFU.

in the process, directing Bush to do NOTHING; effecting nothing except for the expectation that Bush would notice or care enough about some budget shortfall to cause him to come up off of his occupation.

It's completely distorted to talk about the bills, though, as if there wasn't any support or input from progressives for the final legislation. And, you can't just ignore the fact that legislation can't advance without actual votes, in committee or on the floor. I believe the McGovern amendment was the closest representation of the progressive position which managed to get enough votes in committee to advance it to the floor. It failed to get enough support to advance it.

That's why there has been an ongoing effort to produce compromise legislation. These bills have to have enough votes to make them law. Democrats have already demonstrated their opposition in ways which have absolutely no chance of being adopted or enacted by the administration. Unless we're prepared to wait out this Congress and hope to elect enough legislators who will vote in enough numbers to pass 'progressive' bills, we need to work to reconcile the different strategies into legislation which will advance to Bush's desk and prevail over his inevitable veto.

We've lost no more ground in that compromise effort than any strictly progressive strategy would. The opposition remains the same. The obstacles remain the same.

support them. Or at least do not support them without first getting the approval of the GOP.

The DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs work with the GOP and never with the Progressives. Sure you say that the Democrats and Republicans should work together. But that is not how this session works.

DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs work in secret with the GOP and deliberately exclude any and all Progressives from all discussions. Then united as a majority voting block, DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs and the GOP present Congress with their secretly negotiated deals.

. . . in a Congress where, among Democrats, moderates do not have enough of a majority to prevail on their own.

So DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs and the GOP have enough votes for a majority to get a Bush approved bill through Congress.

Your argument is as false as your use of the name Moderate. Moderate means midway in between right and left. DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs agree completely with the GOP on defense and fiscal matters and everything else but a couple morality issues. Hiding behind the Moderate label is as squirrelly as the constantly changing name game the corporatists hiding in the Democratic party plays.

the same respect I give to those who identify themselves as progressives.

It's mainly the opposition which bandies about these labels as a way to ridicule the other side and marginalize their influence. It's a worthless, and self-defeating exercise.

You parrot DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs when your side lies and call yourselves moderates even though there is nothing but right wing corporatism about DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs agenda.

You call Progressives Progressives because that is exactly what our agenda is, progressive.

Nice that you are calling DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs "them" when you set up thread after thread and post hundreds of posts all saying "hey you dumb Progressives you need to stop fighting us and join with our DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs side otherwise your Democratic party is worthless".

The only reason people ridicule the numerous names DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs keep picking is that the agenda DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs keep pushing is a corporatist right wing/GOP agenda which deserves no respect.

how unbelievably mundane and boring to see that old chestnut of an argument.

You are completely out of line in identifying me as some 'moderate'. But, I don't think that matters at all to you. It appears that you believe if you just label those you disagree with as akin to republicans you can discredit their argument. That is ultimately short-sighted and self-defeating. I work as hard to effect the changes you profess to be concerned with, in my own sphere of influence, as anyone. If we stood side by side in the legislature, you would come to appreciate my doggedness and commitment in defense and support of issues and concerns the overwhelming majority of Democrats share.

It's an even slimier tactic to replace my words with your biased own. You lose all credibility when you resort to just making shit up.

And, by the way, you know very well that on this board posters identifying themselves as progressives are engaged in an all out battle against the Democratic party, labeling all those they disagree with as akin to republicans. If there is a similar thread or campaign on this board you can point me to coming from 'moderates', Blue Dogs, or any other faction than progressives I'd be more than happy to respond. But, my part in this argument has been motivated by posters like you who are dishonestly labeling Democrats and working to exploit divisions within our party, I think, to our detriment.

And, Robbien, I won't be cowed from my committed defense and support of our party by ANYONE, much less posters who don't give as much of a shit about what I actually think as they do in perpetuating their own biased attacks on Democrats.

The weasels of the DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs are slimier than GOPers because they don't stand up and say who they are and what they believe as GOPers do. DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs just quick as a bunny keep hiding behind new names inside a political party whose Progressive agenda they despise and undermine.

You spend almost every second at DU promoting DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs and denigrating Progressives. If you are not a DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dog, then you should be asking them for payment for all your massive promotion of their goals and ideas.

I've never promoted ANY 'Blue Dog' or moderate in opposition to progressives. You are usually quick to declare that though.

Is it that hard to see that the raising of this issue is, *mostly, in response to the broad brush attacks on Democrats on this board coming from progressives; not from moderates? If I disagree with those attacks you would label me a moderate? How disingenuous can you get? What a crock!

I will never call DLC/Blue/New/BushDogs anything but what they are, right wing corporate elitists.

The Democratic party is made up of Progressives and the DLC/Blue/New/BushDogs. You have repeatedly posted expressed scorn and disdain for Progressives. You have never ever claimed to be a Progressive.

There is no other option to take other than consider you a DLC/Blue/New/BushDogs.

But nice to see we can both agree that labeling someone a DLC/Blue/New/BushDog is a smear.

Disagreeing with actions of folks who profess to be 'progressive' isn't scorn, it's an opinion about their actions. Show me ONE post where I've expressed 'scorn' for progressives outside of some action someone who associates themselves with the group has taken. You want to act as if all of your ideas and prescriptions for success are infallible just because you've chosen to label yourself progressive, and posture as if everyone else in the party who may disagree with you is akin to republicans. No one with any reasonable thought process should accept such a simplistic smear.

And, I'm not putting my name in support of ANY little club within the Democratic party. I support our party as base of organization as well as a vehicle to reconcile our different strategies for addressing our collective concerns and advance them into action by benefit of the numbers we generate by unifying under our Democratic banner.

I don't see much use or function in splitting into these little cliques. It's childish name-calling and tagging which does next to NOTHING to express the actual positions of legislators and works to marginalize our effectiveness by splitting our party apart.

you can never even bring yourself to capitalize the name Progressive. Case in point, just scan your posts in this thread. Blue Dogs get a nice big capital. Republicans get a nice big capital. Democratic Leadership gets a nice big capital. Each and every time you post Progressive a capital is no where to be seen. One can almost see you trying to make the p even smaller than standard.

You say you belong to no one in the Democratic party. I maybe can believe that. There are many reasons people come to DU to deride Progressives.

It's almost unbelievable the lengths you are going to splinter me off from the party. What a prime demonstration of stupidity in action. All of my adult life I have fought HARD for issues our party has represented:

Civil Rights
Privacy Rights
Free Speech
Protest Rights
Anti-Incarceration
Anti-Drug War/Pro-legalization
Anti-War
Against the Military Industry
Against the Nuclear Industry
Against the Push for New Nukes
Advocated for the Environment - against logging, against development, against polluters
Advocated for the Homeless
Advocated on behalf of Veterans
Fought for Campaign Financing
Fought for Money for Education (and against NCLB)
Fought for Abortion Rights
Fought for Gun Control
Opposed the Public Display of the Rebel Flag
Opposed Discrimination in any Form
Opposed Every republican Initiative I Could Manage
Petitioned Against EVERY nominee republicans have Advanced for ANYTHING
NEVER Voted for or Supported ANY republican candidate in any Way, Shape, or Form

The issues I've fought for my entire adult life have always been identified by pundits as LIBERAL. I missed the meeting where the issues I've spent a lifetime fighting for were somehow transferred under a different banner. I can't find a dime's worth of difference between 'progressive' ideas or 'liberal' ones though. Only an idiot would try and peel me off from the support and defenses I've offered over the years. Your's is an excellent example of the inanity of such dividing.

And, I'll deride ANYONE who I feel intends to degrade our party or tear it down -- liberal, progressive, moderate, or whatever.


More important, I have over 20,000 posts here, the vast majority on Iraq, the bulk of the rest in firm support of DEMOCRATIC principles and values. It's incredibly idiotic to spend your time tearing at me. How utterly foolish.


edit for new thought - second thought, letting it go

generates hundreds of posts, many by the OP, spreading derision of Progressives for not submitting to DLC/Blue/New/BushDogs for the "sake of the party".

And you want me to be impressed that you wrote 20,000 posts?

Not.

You are right, any further response by me is not worth it.

Also letting it go.

I've argued repeatedly for ALL sides to compromise and unify. How else am I to respond to posters identifying themselves and their cause as progressive if I disagree with them other than to criticize?

You're argument is baseless, unsupported by ANY post of mine produced, and just a prime example of a divisive smear.

taking your advice and letting it go

by the way, need some soap to wash that filthy mouth?

The 'DLC/Blue/New/Bush Dogs' use weasel words like calling themselves moderates, timetables, benchmarks, compromise, etc. to fool Democrats into thinking they actually care about them and their issues. Too bad for them so many real liberals/progressives have seen them for what they are over these last nine months. Fool me once....

Anyone who is telling me not to vote Dem, to not vote or to vote Indie is immediately put on my "do not trust" list. We have had years of dirty tricks and when people tell me to abondon my party to "make them change" my first thought is "why do you really want to see the Dems fail"

think about how we have been represented during this congress and it's bleek
corporations and moneyed interests have taken over government to such an extent that the 2 party system is nothing more than a charade
as ted kenedy said %95 of republicans and %75 of democrats are corrupt
I would like to be involved with the remaining %25. The time to fall under some big tent w/ that other %75 is long gone

by allowing the rape of our constitutional rights or support the Bush foreign policy agenda. By their actions they divide us.

I do think that, too often, our (correct) opposition to the actions of these individuals becomes an attack on the entire party. I challenge anyone to identify any significant majority of members in our party who are actually like you describe.

(and, you know I'm not buying the argument that their failure to proceed with a partisan-generated impeachment is complicity)

to hamstring the party and not move us away from this nightmare. In other words, they effectively erase our majority in the House.

the Iraq legislation and FISA. On Iraq, I still maintain that our party leadership has done everything they are able to effectively confront the administration and have been obstructed in those efforts by the republican enablers (despite the passage of the limited funding bill).

On FISA, the leadership in both houses was completely negligent in allowing the republican bills to proceed to votes.

On Iraq, I maintain that the majority of our party has acted responsibly. On FISA. it was clearly a MINORITY of moderates joining with republicans who were allowed to prevail by the leadership allowing votes on the republican bills; 18 in the Senate, an handful in the House. It was the leadership who was at fault, not the majority of Democrats who rejected the administration argument. That Democratic majority still stands as correct, however hamstrung they may have been by that leadership capitulation. It was less of the type of a compromise that I'm advocating than it was a complete gift to Bush by Reid and Pelosi. I'm not arguing for capitulations.

and all the lies that stand and have become "facts" in the minds of Americans along with the constitutional, statutory, and international crimes committed with no justice or true accountability, this congress has failed the American people. Since they have taken office, the executive branch has gained more, not less extraconstitutional dictatorial power and the war has escalated. With all that said, I don't blame everyone. I just know where we are and it is unacceptable and the excuses unacceptable.

of those that have blunted our victory. I just want some of them to explain their positions where it makes sense to party members and fellow House members and Senate members. It's SO frustrating. I can't believe their constituents voted them in for the positions some of them hold. We aren't asking for them to go way far out on a limb. Just don't excalate this thing (war) or give this rogue administration more power while weakening the legislative branch.

benchmark, which was in the bill passed on May 24th. Right now I think 3 Congressmen are even bringing up the issue, Kucinich is one of them, all the rest are silent. So, would that constitute a majority of the party or not?

that was the most important part of their efforts and that majority came together to rebuke Bush; progressives, moderates and whatever.

I've heard them debate the other issues you raised, but there hasn't yet been any consensus on amendments or legislation to address those concerns. It would be just as well served if there was more unity against the administration on those issues.

I can't "unite" with globalists, free traders, and DLCers who are openly hostile to my state and its workers.

Stop allowing the monied corporatist minority control of the direction of the party when they only represent a minority. It's not a secret why so many people don't bother to vote - they don't feel like their vote matters. How can it be that the party of the people is that disconnected from the will of the people?

That implies that we have been united.

For more, see my sig line.

wouldn't that be great?

On the upside, you do get a tax cut and a trophy wife when you sign up.

I'm arguing for support for our Democrats to work together to find ways to advance legislation which intends to confront and end the administration's crimes and abuses.

That prospect you speak of is a fantasy - or a joke. Elections are where we put our ideals forward in an unapologetic fashion with the expectation that our candidates represent those propositions and positions if we vote for them. Once they get to Congress, the expectation by most Americans is that these legislators work together to address their concerns on most issues. There's not much support out there for the bickering, division, and obstruction that is the norm in Washington; although, in the case of confronting the autocratic Bush administration, obstruction of their fascist agenda likely has overwhelming support.

Elections are increasingly not about ideals but about rooting for the home team.

I have no problem breaking with "the mother party" if that party continually refuses to forward MY ideals. There are many Republicans who feel the same about their party. Maybe if we decide to split then they would follow suit?

As far as I am concerned, the discussion does not end after the primaries. Your proposal to close the ranks after the bidding is done is just as ridiculous as my cynical response to it. It is not about winning the elections, it's about voting your conscience. It's about seeking that representation that you speak of. The idea that the worst democrat is still better than the best republican is a farce. The republican left and the democratic right can't already be distinguished anymore so the merger is, it appears, already in effect.

I think that there would be a great benefit in a compromise which begins to bring troops home; obviously less benefit in some token reduction which is cover for staying the course, although we'd all appreciate any soldier out of harms way.

It's just not supported by any fact that the majority of our representatives are indistinguishable from the republicans, although I'll admit that's the image that's regularly promoted in the media and by those who have a vested interest in blurring the differences.

:shrug:

In most policy matters- the Dems have simply become enablers of the far right- and in that respect they're LOSERS even when they're nominally winners.

All this bullshit about "purity" is basically saying that it's fine to be a Republicans so long as the letter behind one's name ends in a "D."

If it take the party "falling apart" to get the "leadership" to embrace traditional Democratic values again than so be it. The quasi-Republicans be damned.

. . . there is just the division and the potential isolation from any chance at all to effect our concerns in the majority.

It's amazing how a person can one day face a camera and make a case against funding a holocaust, and the next day put it up for a vote.

We had so much going for us after the election and she took it all away.

Some people are truly dark inside.

and the battle long since joined.

Diversity of opinion and disagreement over policy makes the party stronger