Political caving-in and other stuff since 2000 that has angered me the most. .

No, I am not simply being negative. I am looking ahead by looking back. They say that is how you keep history from repeating itself. I have made no secret of the fact that I think Democrats need to bravely stand up and say who they are. Was it Truman who said that “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I read a blog post today that really impressed me with its passion. This Jack and Jill blogger made 4 good points about what Democrats need to change.

Defining electability and discussing who's left out.

Good post. Here is just a portion. Point #1 is my favorite.



The gist of her post was about someone left out of the picture. I agree with every word, but I don't post that stuff anymore. I even edited my journal and took out references. It was not worth the ridicule from conservative Dems on forums. Yeh, I caved.

That caution, that conservative thought, that way of keeping the next election in mind instead of speaking out for honesty and truth got us into the tragedy that is Iraq.

They were afraid to speak out, failed to research the situation, and gave Bush his invasion. We were huge on activism about the war, but it made no difference.



Getting it wrong on the FISA bill may keep our party from holding Bush's administration accountable. Harry Reid had a choice in the Senate. He could have presented a bill that had NO immunity for the telecoms. Instead he deliberately chose to present the one WITH immunity.



The House bill was no better. Steny Hoyer admittedly went for a bill with immunity to keep the Blue Dogs from jumping ship.



The political event that is really hurting people today is the devastating bankruptcy bill passed in 2005 which was totally and completely supported by Democrats.



Recently it was disclosed that Nancy Pelosi said there would not be help for distressed homeowners in the so-called bail out bills.



Each time we were asked to be understanding, that it was hard to get anything done. Those excuses should not be used this time around.

I could mention more...like the way the centrist Democrats, Rahm included, attacked George Lakoff and hurt his progressive Rockridge Institute. I could mention the 12 anti-choice Democrats the DCCC ran this year. But that is enough for now.

The talk of "post partisanship" has bothered me a lot. That means virtually a one party country. That is dangerous talk. I think it is our job to be activists when our party doesn't do its job.

Obama needs to hear our voices even when he is in the WH bubble.

Well to me, "progressive" is a code word for communist! It is the "progressives" who want communists! You see, anyone can determine that what someone else is saying is full of code words, so I can do that too.

Otherwise why would women and gays be asked to go to the back of the bus and not make waves?

:shrug:

Two slightly different wings of the same party that continue to converge into a particularly inept set of bosses who occasionally stick their tongues out at each other while vying to be capo-de-tutti capo.

We need to keep pointing it out. May not make a difference, but we will have tried.

madfloridian resorts to the DU equivalent of attempting to roll up and smoke the contents of an ashtray.

And the conservative Dems are in charge again. It's all good.

people I've met here.

You would make a fine, fine republican, chanting the party line, no matter whether it left you out in the cold or not.

I'll try to be better in the future.

Here: "That idiot cashier at Jewel shorted me twenty cents. I am tired of this CORPORATE DLC OLIGARCHY SCREWING ME OUT OF MY HARD-EARNED PAYCHECK. And of course Obama won't address this problem. He doesn't care about the REAL-WORLD PROBLEMS OF WORKING AMERICANS, because he's just a TOOL OF WALL STREET."

There. Am I progressive now?

that the opening theme on Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the first few notes of the second movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony, and that you can't let fruit vendors in China cut your fruit for you, because they don't wash their knives in boiling water.

I think that's plenty!

Wah! People don't agree with me! They must be whiny losers trying to drum up trouble! Wah!

Wah! Obama's appointed someone who doesn't agree with me on one of my pet issues, to a post that has nothing to do with that issue! Slap in the face! That's not change I can believe in! Wah!

Why, using DU's favorite "fuck bipartisanship, steamroll the bastards" strategy, they went from a nationwide victory at all levels ensuring complete control of all branches of government for the foreseeable future to losing the House and Senate in two years, and losing the White House and practical ability to filibuster only two years after that!

I don't know how you can argue with results like that.

All the courts are stacked against us, including the Supreme Court. Those are some pretty significant results.

And they would have been able to do that regardless of their hardball tactics. If they had managed to be sane, they might even have gotten to make some appointments in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. And regardless of the WH, most observers were predicting that the Republicans would have control of both houses of Congress through 2010 at least.

As for the nation being "certainly more conservative?" In 2004 it elected George W. Bush and solid Republican majorities. The biggest issues were war and taxes, both issues in their favor. The nation sneered at the elitist, French-looking John Kerry. In 2008 it elected Barack Obama and solid Democratic majorities. The biggest issues were the economy and healthcare, both issues in our favor. The nation turned out in huge numbers to see the Ivy-educated black lawyer.

But on the issues, things have gone great for the GOP since they peaked in '04! Look at how much more conservative the nation is now. Why, on every issue, from gay marriage to universal health care, to the war in...wait a minute. No, wait. All the issue polls are better for us now than they were four years ago.

Can't argue with results.

The achieved all of their goals. They were extremely successful.

...and stashing their money while a "Democratic" administration holds the status Quo and continues the illusion of a two party system, just like under Bill Clinton.

"Centrism"...for those who are proud to be Half-Republican!

The country did turn against the war, and against corporate dominance and arrogance. You seem to be arguing that we should STILL act like we're the junior partner in a center-right coalition. What part of "we don't need to surrender anymore" don't you get?

Sure, the people who want to feel like they're changing the world by complaining about the Democrats' use of, you know, "strategy" will keep complaining, but I think the politicians themselves know what they're doing.

Like on a message board you can complain about these "electable" Democrats, log off, and go about your business. When you're running for office, you've got to think about whether you want to represent the people and win or satisfy these activists outside of your district and lose (and screw over everyone on the issues that the activists are not railing about).

And WHY DO THESE PEOPLE FORGET THAT OUR CANDIDATES ARE SELECTED BY PRIMARIES? If you don't like the candidates we run against the Republicans, well, that's who the people in the district selected. Tough.

I thought for a while we could make a difference. But I realize now we can't. The best we can do is point out the injustices of voting for an unnecessary war, a bill to take prosecution of Bush et al off the table, a bill to hurt the elderly and ill who might lose their homes.

I think we are all totally completely absolutely aware of which group of Democrats won this time. There is no doubt at all.

They are surrounding Obama, and he will probably have to go along with the entrenched philosophies now.

You guys can put down those of us who care. That is very easy to do.

The conservative Dems won. They always do win.

But at least for 5 years I thought what I did mattered. Now I know it doesn't, and we are saving mucho money each month.

Somewhere along the way someone might pay attention and really care rather than just mocking.

Speaking out matters, it is very powerful. Were it not powerful, did it not matter, the conservatives among us would not be so anxious, so quick, so motivated, so frantic to jump all over everything you say and throw every sort of mocking and derogatory insult at you they can come up with. They know that it is dangerous to their wishes that you continue to speak out, because it threatens to expose their agenda, and it threatens to get people to think and compare notes about how we are being bullied and railroaded by the few.

The conservatives here cannot be honest about their views, because if they were that would be the end of anyone ever taking them seriously. So they lurk in the weeds, and then ambush anyone who speaks out against the conspiracy of bullying, the relentless effort to sabotage and undermine the party and drive it to the right, and attack them with a barrage of insults and character assassination.

I am a tireless advocate for PEACE.
I am a tireless advocate for Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL....no exceptions.
I am a tireless advocate for Rule of Law, no exceptions for the Elite Class.
I am a tireless advocate for The Constitution.
I am a tireless advocate for The Poor and the Disenfranchised.
I am a tireless advocate for Working Americans.
I am a tireless opponent of the MIC.
I am a tireless opponent to the concentration of Wealth & Power into fewer hands.
I am a tireless opponent to Corporate/Republican Influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

I am these things BEFORE I am a Democrat.

I've been here for a long time.
I am not going anywhere.
I am not going to be quiet.
I don't care if the Republicans/Bigots/Conservative get their feeling hurt.
I don't care how many assholes there are on DU.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

Politics is always about several small factions competing for the public's attention. Siding with power and wealth is also siding with a small activist faction outside of your district. It is the path of least resistance to go with the flow in order to attain office and take fewer risks.

Conservatives don't win because that is what the people want - were that true a rural midwestern state such as Minnesota would never elect Paul Wellstone.

The reason that so few leftist candidates win is because so few politicians have the courage that Paul Wellstone did.

The only "issues" that "the activists are not railing about" are those that advance the interests of the few, those with wealth and power.

I agree that the politicians themselves know what they are doing. I oppose what they are doing. You support and excuse what they are doing. You claim that this is not a matter of where you stand - no, you attack others for where they stand, but we are not to look at or even know where you stand. You hide your opinions behind discussions about "[practicality" and "being realistic" and spend most of your time ridiculing and mocking those with whom you disagree (we have to assume that you disagree with them, you don't reveal your opinions.) It is easy to mock and ridicule people, and bully them, when you have cynically made the decision to always side with wealth and power in order to "win." It is, however, reactionary and morally bankrupt to do that.

You cover many points well.

Lots of Dems IN those districts didn't like it either. I can't believe you'd actually revive the "outside agitator" meme.

And, after surrendering on health care and pushing through NAFTA, there WEREN'T any other issues. Nothing else affected anyone.

Who are you to act like you've been proven infallible?

Your wing of the party doesn't have the upper hand anymore. You're now obligated to treat activists with respect.

We'd have lost this year if we'd done what you want and run another "we can do it better" campaign on Iraq.

You have this absurdly mistaken assumption that the right wing of the party is its natural leadership. Given that that wing is solely to blame for the failures of 2002 and 2004, this is silly of you.

If you HAD a case for your contempt for progressives and activists, you'd have made it. You made none, therefore you know your attitude towards us is unjustified.

We did as much as anyone to elect Obama, therefore we deserve respect as an equally important group in the party to you and your fellow rightwingers.

I'm just refusing to give in to your dumb-ass strawman. You don't approach me and tell me what I believe. You ask.

and primary voters themselves represent a small group, not a majority of the public or even the party. It's very difficult to beat an incumbent in a primary a political person can be risking their career if they even try. Consider the examples from 2006 and 2008. Ned Lamont runs against Lieberman, and every Democratic celebrity rushes to Lieberman's defense. Then Lieberman ignores the primary and still has a good portion of the party machine helping him in the general.

Look at Leonard Boswell of Iowa. PDA runs Ed Fallon, a former state legislator, against him. Again, all of the Democratic celebrities, even a supposed progressive like Senator Tom Harkin, rush to Boswell's defense. As if the incumbent does not already have a huge name recognition and money advantage, he/she gets the party establishment on their side too.

that, and only that, is what got them elected to even 'run' in the primaries; and while I'm here I also point out that politicians merely win power in a POPULARITY CONTEST, no different than High School President, except for scale & magnitude.

That we lost in 2002 and 2004 and that 2000 was close enough to steal. Bipartisanship can never lead to anything worthwhile again. The Nineties proved that bipartisan always equals conservative.

And nobody steamrolled the GOP in 1993 and 1994. They steamrolled us. Are you seriously arguing that we'd have done better in those first two years if we'd been FURTHER right?

Because Progressive policy is identical to Bush's policy. So it will obviously fail. No... wait. It isn't.

Of course you can't tell that to the DLC, they went along with almost all of it opting to 'keep their powder dry' or whatever euphemisim they used for political cowardice. Do you honestly think the actions of the DLC and the conservative democrats really fired up the imagination of the people that stepped up to their polling places to vote for "Change" ?

Really, just take those analogies and ram them someplace uncomfortable.

... DUer BlueButGlad's almanac-like blog? (link for it on the DU link)

Heading there to take a look.

:hi:

...and I must say I'm amazed at the virulent reactions it has prompted from our own merry band of conservative DUers.

Seeing as how you include facts to back up your positions, it is surprising to me that you are getting knee jerk responses and ridicule. How weird.

Anyway. I'm in complete agreement with you. We have a party apparatus that does not stand for anything at all. It started with the sellout to corporations, to the point where we've all been told "But we *all* have investments, don't we? We *all* have retirement funds, and insurance, and ..." -- and that being used as an excuse to legislate for the benefit of the big corporations. Now that it's all begun to melt down, now that retirement funds are vaporizing before our eyes and bankruptcies and foreclosures are becoming all too commonplace, where are the voices in government on behalf of the little guys? Where are the voices trying to give some relief to those who after all form the bedrock of our society? Nowhere, that's where. With a handful of honorable exceptions, the Beltway crowd continues to operate as an insider's clique beholden to the monied and the powerful, and the rest of us can go to hell. Caving to the Republicans without a fight, even when they are in the minority party.

The Republicans used the filibuster a record 96 times in the last Congressional session. Yet the public by and large does not know this, and the 110th has been successfully smeared as a "do-nothing" Congress -- oh excuse me, a "Democratic do-nothing" Congress. And why does the public not know about the record number of filibusters by the minority party? Well largely because the Republicans were never forced to, you know, actually filibuster. They just said they would, and that was that -- the Democrats tried to get the votes needed to break it, and if they couldn't then they acknowledged the success of the filibuster and went on with business as usual. Now if they had exhibited some strength and forced the bastids to put on real bona fide filibusters, then at the very least, people would know what was being obstructed and by whom. As it is, we lose again. Some "strategy".

I share your concerns with Obama's "strategy" of "reaching out", particularly since it has the same dismal pattern of kowtowing to the very people who should be kicked in the shins, metaphorically speaking. He's not going to change the "tone" in Washington, he's just going to make it easier for the most conservative, most unrelenting elements to continue to hold sway over the lawmaking process -- even in the face of the failures that they have wrought over the last 30 years, culminating in what may be the second Great Depression.

Oh and one more thing. I'm utterly sick of people saying "You want to fight, therefore you are just like those nasty Republicans who took over everything...". Rriiiiigghhtt... Does it not occur to these folks that you cannot beat a bully by caving in to them? And that standing up to fight them does not, in turn, make you a bully? Now when there's one of you and two bullies, sometimes you have to cave so you don't get hurt. But when there's three of you and one bully and you still cave, there's a good old-fashioned word for that: cowardice. And yes, I'm equating "reaching out" to "caving". If it turns out not to be the case -- if by this "strategy" we manage to actually pull off some progressive changes -- then I'll be the first to applaud. Unfortunately I do not expect that to be the outcome. Only time will tell.

those knee jerk responses are almost automatic now. Many are done without even reading the post.

Thanks for the comments. I honestly believe the Democrats are afraid a little of this administration and what it might do if crossed too much. But that doesn't explain the utter giving in on issues that are vital to our country and its people.

...or they are unable to distinguish the interests of "the people" from "the corporations" who generate so much money for them. That explains the whole thing. Then, whenever someone actually gets to Washington, they become part of the "in crowd" where there is the mainstream way of thinking, and anything outside of that is seen as radical and must be squashed -- usually starting with ridicule. It's like a hazing, and it is very effective. Very few people can withstand it.

Our lawmakers are, with few exceptions, corrupt in their thinking if not in their actions. And sadly, the same can be said for our society in general.

To see why that is so, we might start by looking into corporate charters, where the law creates a single imperative: to make profits for the shareholders. As everyone knows, if you create incentives -- especially financial incentives -- for an action, then that is the action that will be taken. We have created this hard and fast legal incentive for people to act single-mindedly in pursuit of profits, and then we wonder why people act that way. Duh. It's the engine that drives bad environmental policies, disastrous social policies, warmongering, etc. etc.

You say "you cannot beat a bully by caving in to them? And that standing up to fight them does not, in turn, make you a bully?"

That is very good.

Notice that those defending caving to bullies here employ bullying themselves? We can see the sneering and hostile rhetoric of bullying right here in this thread.

...it tends to take the form of ridicule.

I have never understood why the left is subject to ridicule from so many quarters, while the right is always given a hearing, however ridiculously "out there" they may get. Yet just let someone espouse universal health care -- no matter how many facts and figures we may provide, it is "socialism" and "socialism is bad, so there!"

Well hopefully the worm is turning. It's about friggin' time. There have been serious leftist movements in this country in the past, they've been pretty much dormant since WWII. We defeated the fascists over there but unfortunately the fascists over here have been a very strong force.

And yes, I am more than willing to go beyond political labels of left vs. right vs. liberal vs. conservative vs. fascist vs. communist. I think these times demand a fresh view of how things are set up and how they should be set up. I think we have learned that centralized, state control of everything is a bad idea. We've also learned purely private, unfettered markets are also a bad idea. Some things make sense to be run by government -- but not always by the big central bureaucracy. Energy comes to mind -- decentralization is a good idea. But it is also the case that private entities can provide innovation, and for trade of consumer goods they are IMO demonstrably the way to go.

So there's lots of room for improvement without getting bogged down in old labels. If Obama succeeds at this, good for him. I just don't see how extending his hand to so-called conservatives while brushing away anyone with a truly progressive outlook, will accomplish this. And it makes me angry, for which I make no apology.

In a little over two weeks and in the next few months we'll see what is what.

Maybe this is a good time to adopt a more Russian attitude.
:kick: & R

My wife came home from shopping about 15 minutes ago, and she had me a nice new bottle of Stoli. And I'm only going to open it, because you said so!

Thank you.

:toast:

n/t.

vodka's a great idea, too.
:hi:

Whether or not Obama, or the Democratic majority, is now, or will be, listening, is another story.

offer an alternative to the policies that have led us where we are. I'm posting less now, probably because I have less to say (in that I find myself just repeating things). I have little enthusiasm anymore. I'll still stay active with groups seeking justice, truth, and constitutional reinstatement but I have to have longer breaks now for my own sanity. I don't want to scream into a vacuum anymore.

Fingers crossed for Obama, he's a good man. But he's surrounded by the same people and will be in a bubble.

Other voices are needed instead of the echo chamber of cautious words and careful ways of not offending the other side.

It's frustrating and tiring. I've written called and faxed so much to members of Congress in the last few years that it has gotten to me.

Another good compilation.
You make a strong case and support it well.
You can judge your effectiveness by the those who work so hard against you.

“First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win."---Gahndi

about the part about judging effectiveness. Lordy, I hope so. :evilgrin:

I feel like the party has gone right back again to how it was. I don't want to feel that way. I know hubby and I are saving a lot of money a month now in donations to the party. It takes some getting used to when the passion is gone.

"better known as Democratic Leadership Council Democrats, and Blue Dog Democrats - a group of Democrats who are only Democrats because they couldn’t get elected from their respective districts if they were registered Republicans."

Two separate groups are combined there. Blue Dogs, however, are largely from Conservative districts, places like South Dakota, Georgia and Kansas, where it is very hard to get elected if you are a liberal and it is hard to hold on to your seat if you are painted as a liberal.

In my own district, Nancy Boyda was defeated pretty handily, but she still out-polled Obama in her district.

At least now one group has been eliminated from the fray....those of us who worked for 5 years with passion.

Frankly, I really don't care which one of those reigns supreme. I know hubby and I are saving a kaboodle in donations each month. I just delete those fundraising emails and give only to the ACLU, the PFAW, and a couple of others who never gave up the fight to keep church and state separate...to have rights for women and for the gay community.

SO for now, I am learning not to especially care. I think I will be much better for it.

May the best group win... Blue Dog or New Dem, and may they hope and pray we are around to be active in 2010 and 1012.

are trying to promote more progressive candidates.

All the so-called progressive candidates voted in lockstep on FISA. That was the final straw.

Not sure whether we will ever really bother with donating again. Or working our butts off locally.

Because I find 128 Democrats in the House and 28 Democrats in the Senate voting against the FISA bill
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

Admittedly that may be the wrong bill, because there were a number of votes.

Keep trying...I make a lot of mistakes. If you are scouring with a fine tooth comb you will find something wrong.

but there were over 150 Democrats who did not vote in lock-step. Sure, I donated a little bit to Sherrod Brown and he has been on the wrong side of progress at times IIRC, but I am quite sure he is much better than the Republican he defeated.

At least I keep telling myself that. "I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do. I do. I do believe in spooks."

So I have the good sense to quit donating until I figure out who the good guys are.

Hard to tell anymore.

Is that why McGovern couldn't get elected in South Dakota? Why Paul Wellstone, Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale couldn't get elected in Minnesota?

What matters is having a strong and unapologetically left wing organization, such as the DFL in Minnesota, politicians with courage, and activists willing to support them rather than always kissing the asses of the powerful and taking the path of least resistance.

It has nothing to do with the middle, the center, being practical, being realistic, a conservative public, or any of the rest of those pathetic excuses for cowardice and compromise.

Left wing candidates could win in almost every district in the country, except among those apologists for the status quo, mostly from the upper 10% income bracket, and about evenly split between so-called "liberals" and so-called "conservatives," who vary in their political views from one another in matters of how subjugation of the working class should best be administered and managed. Most of our modern political battles are between two factions of upscale gentrified aristocrats, and the interests of the other 90% of the population do not figure in to that, regardless of which party is in power.

just because Hubert was born in South Dakota. SD is a red state, part of the solid Republican west. Minnesota is a swing state, but it has a much stronger and longer liberal tradition.

McGovern is a little bit harder to explain. Perhaps helped by the fact that he was first elected in an off year - 1962.

Left-wing candidates cannot win in every district. That's simply unrealistic, and a Dennis Moore from Kansas is better than the Republican who would be elected if he strayed too far to the left. As far as activists winning elections, I think you over-estimate their power. We had a professional from the DNC in our county who hired a team and canvassed the heck out of this county, and we lost every single election in this county, with only 3 exceptions, one the incumbent Sherrif, who is hardly a liberal, two an incumbent legislator for her 5th term against a weak opponent, and another legislator who did her own door to door work and was very good at it (and also a pro-gun and anti-environment Democrat with military experience).

There are some upscale districts, suburbs, that will probably always be conservative. But they are the exception. It is people in the upper 10% income bracket who are conservative, profoundly conservative, regardless of which party they are in. They control the Democratic party and the discussion. They already have a party - the Republican party. The Democratic party succeeds to the degree that it represents the working people rather than the gentrified upscale crowd, and that by definition means left wing politics.

Minnesota should be more conservative then Michigan or Ohio. The difference is the DFL - Democrats with courage and conviction. This "swing state" nonsense is a MSM construct.

I work in agriculture with people in "red" districts all across the country. I have no difficulty explaining McGovern.

On Michigan during the mid-terms by working through the farm organizations and taking strong left wing positions, almost every red district went Democratic for the first tom,e in decades. Every district except the Calvinist Dutch reform area near Grand Rapids was in play, and dozens and dozens - all but a couple that were toss ups because they have communities of more upscale second home people.

We can't win anything if we do not go to every district, and if we do not stand for anything. Get out, stand up, and speak out and everything is in play.

I never see any activists in the red districts. People there never hear the left wing point if view. The are far to the left from most if the more upscale people in the activist community, but you have to get out there and talk to them. You can't assume "oh they are red" or "they are conservative."

If people here are serious about politics they must stop allowing the MSM to do their thinking for them, get out into the poor districts, the blue collar districts, and the rural districts, and they need to stand for something and have the courage to speak out.

Working people can be moved to the Left, they are moving to the Left right now. But they won't of we don't speak, if we don't try, if we are promoting some wishy washy "centrist" nonsense and playing "swing state" games and pandering to our imaginary "red" districts. That is all reactive rather than proactive, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

As the recent election approached, what I heard again and again and again, every day, in the packing plants, on the loading dock, at the farm co-op, and in the fields was "we need another New Deal." It is the conservatives among us in the Democratic party who are now trying to deny and frustrate the aspirations and needs of the working people.

That anything will change at all.

I have seen nothing from Obama, sadly, nothing at all to indicate he will stand up against the traditional power structures.

you say that the bankruptcy bill of 2005 was "completely and totally supported by the Democrats"

What I find here

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll108.xml

is that house Democrats voted AGAINST that bill by almost a 2-1 margin.

So they actually begged to vote for it. Sure a few voted no, but it was those two groups who pushed it. Those are the facts. The letters they wrote Hastert are included.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2772

Also included are the names from both groups which sold us out on the issue.

No, I am not wrong because they begged Hastert for that bill. In their own words.

Sad to see Dennis Moore, Stephanie Herseth and Ron Kind on that list. Ron Kind is a surprise. A Blue Dog from Wisconsin. WTF? Is that district really that conservative?

Yes, there were 70 some Democrats who voted for it, but 125 Democrats who voted against it. That's not total support, unless progressive Democrats like Tammy Baldwin somehow don't count. They were a majority of Democrats, not just a few.

stand in your way. There are many of us progressives/liberals out here wishing for more of your posts. Rahm is a DLC hack. Harry is and has been useless. He needs to go. The bills you cited (FISA, bankruptcy, etc.) are only the tip of Reid's pathetic policy iceberg.

They wear us out mf, with their hit and run posts and mean-spirited attacks, and they won't stand and defend their positions but rather flit from thread to thread throwing rhetorical hand grenades into them. Many who are with us can't stand the ugliness and don't post, and who can blame them? But there are hundreds of us out here at DU and tens of millions around the country who support you.

I love your posts and well, just wanted you to know there are many of us liberals/progressives who feel the way you do.

This "post-partisan" crap makes me see red, too. It's especially bizarre to see people (including a lot from my RL) who spent the primaries railing about the DLC now embrace the likes of Rahm and Kaine. Damn. In any case, now is the time for progressives to get louder, not sit down and shut up. If ever there was a time to be a citizen and not a "supporter," this would be it.

There are those who won't want to read or think about what you posted, methinks.

And that is not good.

it's the fucking media and how it decides to deal with our politicians, and the issues.

One has to be smart enough to outsmart them, and then that even nearly impossible. So it isn't about who's most "electable" or Progressive or conservative, etc..., it's how the corporate media decides to portray various issues and the politicians as well as the public at large.

Remember what happened to Howard Dean? The media did that shit more than anything.

That is why what will be important coming up is this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8056954&mesg_id=8056954

I stand beside you on that.

I am talking about the "retroactive immunity" in the FISA bill.

If telecoms are threatened with legal actions, then they will talk about who Bush ordered them to spy on, or whose phone records he got.

The coverage of this story on TV news would have been horrible, though. I doubt that Americans would have ever figured out what was going on.

I think we need a "truth and reconciliation" commission to at least get the facts out in the name of "justice".

that coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition does more to move the political center, or the perception of it, to the right.

when it comes to threatening and keeping the GOP reps in line for those filbusters or pressuring blue dog (limbaugh) dems to the right, or enabling right wing media bias or putting flat earthers at the discussion table, nothing has done better for the GOP and their corporate manipulators than the talk radio monopoly.

until progressives recognize the biggest impediment to progress is that radio monopoly it will continue to make real democracy and bipartisanship impossible.

during the FISA vote. The people who follow their leaders when they do the wrong thing, will follow when they do the right thing, too. That goes for intra and extra party. (That's on top of the obvious things wrong with doing the wrong thing.)