I'm sick of More Dems. I want Better Dems.

From Daily Kos:

by ultrageek:

This is a rant. It is unequivocally a rant. I don't usually rant. But here it is.

After Carter, the media said the Democratic party was dead, and the Democrats believed the media, because the media was liberal, and if the liberals say the Democrats are dead, well, they just must be.

And the media said that only way the Democrats could live was by stealing planks from the Republican party. So we got tough on crime. Crazily tough on crime. So that we now have more people in prison per capita than South Africa under Apartheid or the Soviet Union with their archipelagos stretching across Siberia.

Then we threw away the jobs. We threw Unions under the bus. We opened up Free Trade with any nation whose name we could spell. The last act Clinton did with a Democratic House and Senate was not to raise the minimum wage; it was to get NAFTA through.

Then we triangulated and watered down everything we believed in. We capitulated on everything that made us Democrats.

And look what we have.

We have a President who could have been the next FDR fritter every program he has away in pursuit of Bipartisanship. We have a weak stimulus package. We will have a weak health care package. Then a weak climate package. Then what? A weak jobs package? A weak Social Security package? A weak education package? A weak civil rights package? A weak stance against torture? A weak stance in favor of the government's rights to tap your phone, read your email, digitize your image, put cameras up everywhere? Or against it? At what point is it so weak that it doesn't matter what side of the argument you're on? Is a win in name only really worth the fight?

No. Screw it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. If you want to be a Democrat, you have to...

1-Stand up for the America by standing up for the Constition, the Rule of Law, Habeas Corpus

2-Stand up for those who have problems standing on their own: the children, the elderly, the infirmed, the women, the gays, the polar bears

3-When you stand up for America and you stand with those who have problems standing on their own, you STAND FOR THE AMERICAN WORKER, you stand for logical immigration, you stand for HEALTH CARE with a robust PUBLIC OPTION, you stand against the DONUT and Medicare Part D.

For Heaven's Sake, if you can't stand up for these simple basic things, don't call yourself a Dem. Call yourself an I-CT or something, but, not a Dem. And don't be surprised if real Dems run against you.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/14/793315/-Im-sick-of-More-Dems.I-want-Better-Dems.

I think those 3 criteria are understandable and simple enough.

we got now.

:thumbsup:

numbers matter

Kos said it best in one of his entries......I'll take a 57 seat majority with someone like Schumer running the show and calling the shots than a 75 seat majority with Reid continually making excuses and caving. I don't agree with someone like Schumer on a lot of things, but he clearly understands the importance of keeping things in line and disciplined and he pushes back when he needs to. Reid is about the 4th or 5th worst possible leader we could have in the senate after Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu and Conrad.

Which he's been doing lately against the interests of American workers.

Even Grassley has better positions on this issue than Schumer!

http://www.livemint.com/2009/10/08005635/H1B-bill-unlikely-to-come-up.html

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138777/Anger_up_visas_down_Top_10_H_1B_stories_of_last_12_months_

Putting it bluntly, I really don't trust him any more than I do Reid. And as an unemployed tech worker, Schumer is DEFINITELY on my shit list now for this!

But the 2 ways in which he's better than Reid:

1) He would be a more stringent disciplinarian with regard to keeping caucus members in line. I firmly believe if he were Senate leader instead of Reid that it wouldn't even be a question that he'd be twisting arms left and right to make sure the blue dogs knew that they could vote against the bill but had to vote for cloture.

2) He's in a safe seat from a solidly blue state and doesn't have to concern himself as much with seeming moderate.

So yeah, I do see your points. There are plenty of issues I disagree with him on. It's not as much a matter of how good a Senator he is as much as it is how good a leader he would be when it counted.

the bare minimum people feel entitled to, after decades of an anarchic redistribution of the wealth upwards by the corporate brigands and their political hirelings, leaving all too much of the population at risk of outright destitution. For many it is already too late.

The one thing that worries me about Obama is that his undoubted subtlety seems not extend as far as his dealings with Bernanke, Paulson, et al. I can't see how anything good can come from putting the foxes in charge of the hen house, to finish off the survivors.

...if size really does matter.

I guess it all depends on how you like to get screwed.

BTW - K&R