If things were reversed I doubt moderate Dems (not Blue Dogs) would react they way the left is now.

For example if Dennis Kucinich would have somehow miraculoulsy won the Presidency, I suspect we moderates would support him even if we thought he was going too far left and in doing so he risked alienating many in the country and losing the mid-terms. I might criticize him but in the end he is the President and he deserves the support of those in his party. There would be no other option. Why cant the left understand that now?

typo: Denise change to Dennis.. ha!
edit: to clarify moderates are not Blue Dogs.

:eyes:

never mind.

You do realize we need to win elections?

:shrug:

Mao would probably be too far left. Probably.

The other day some DUer claimed I was Pol Pot because I suggested the wealthy bastards should have to do all the dangerous jobs they make the poor people do today.

...and need to be dealt with harshly. Of course the far right is another story, they need to be placated with capitulation and understanding.

I know I'm getting confused about what's what and who is who.

With 1 being liberal and 5 being conservative, how would you describe each category (maybe what issues someone would support or reject, such as univeral healthcare or the war in Afghanistan) and who is an example of a congressman and/or senator in that category. You could also add the percentage of Democrats you feel are in each category:

1. liberal
2. moderate/liberal
3. moderate
4. moderate/conservative
5. conservative (my personal opinion is the "Blue Dogs" belong in this category)

Feel free to add categories or rename them or ignore this post entirely.

like supporting labor, public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, strong financial regulation, etc.

before there's anythung to bitch about.

with respect to Obama...

tax cuts
cutting the deficit (said while proposing $700B more tax cuts and with a straight, even angry face) :eyes:
health care reform
wall street reform
stimulus

and as for moderate voters? they are jumping ship left and right with a significant percentage now intending to vote against the things they supported 2 years ago.

Well some of us do understand that. I still support him, but I am afraid he is going to have some explaining to do if he appoints another rethuglican to a post when there is any kind of Democrat available.

Don't think so.

If he say ran on private insurance plans, and no change to your company funded health insurance, and then came out of the gate and took it away and passed single payer, alot of moderates would be apoplectic. If he ran on "ending Iraq responsibly" and then told them all to leave in a month, and leave the equipment behind, the moderates would blow a gasket. If he ran on "maintaining a capability in Gitmo" and then shut it down and set them free in the streets of Texas, the moderates would howl to the moon.

Even Dennis at his worst beats a Rupublican at his best.

It's the moderate/independents that are leaving in droves, not the liberals. You know, you're moderates that are sticking with Obama through thick and thin.

Under the conditions I described? Heck "moderate" democrats like Lincoln already brag about how "independent" they are of Obama. "Moderate" democrats in the House are running AGAINST their own parties.

maybe I used the wrong term.. Most moderate Dems are not Blue Dogs.

Are you trying to differentiate between centrists and moderates or do you have some spectrum here that is conservative/centrist/moderate/progressive/liberal/wacko?

'Cause your premise is falling apart fast and it looks like you're just trying to create some narrow definition of "moderate" to exclude anyone that would behave like you just described.

You seem obsessed with trying to make me out as a Blue Dog which I am not. I am a Obama "pragmatic" Democrat.

So who are the "majority of moderate democrats". Are they the same as "pragmatic" democrats"? Really, who in the congress is your "standard bearor"?

I support the President and Democrats.

You can't point to any body of democrats, especially elected democrats, that behave as you originally asserted.

I think thats my "body".

yet you disavow most of them.

:D

Irony is not dead after all.

just because the conservadems are trying to hijack words like liberal and progressive doesn't make them either.

you wont recognize the place.

and the tea bag fuckers will never ever get a sniff.

you dismiss the teabaggers at your own peril.

that the whole point of my post.

In a time of crisis, we Dems need to stick together and stop bashing the leadership. What wrong with that?

The decibel level would be about the same, but that difference is important. When push comes to shove here, the left really is more reliable than the 'moderates'.

As I said before Dennis at his worst beats a GOPer at his best.

The left consistently votes in alignment with the party platform.

Blue dogs? Not so much.

They consider him to their left and feel free to do whatever they please because... well, y'know... he's to the left.

A LW Dem president would be savaged by "moderates" from the get-go.

I am talking about your regular ole run of the mill Democrat.. who has many liberal values but is also realistic and pragmatic about how this country works and how elections are won and lost.

All the people on the left I know are working hard to elect Democrats, the 'moderates' sit around whining about others being more liberal than they are. Which is not a surprise really, as they are unable to define what a 'moderate' is specifically, so it is hard for them to organize. They are defined only by what they oppose as far as I can see. I assume if they are not happy, they vote Republican, or for Crist types, erstwhile Republicans, Republican simulacrums, that sort of thing. Personally, I do not vote for conservatives, last week's Republican rejects, or any of those hybrids from Bushco.
You say you would criticize a liberal President. So what the fuck do you expect? This election, I get to vote for good, Progressive Democrats, not Obama types. This is very good. He's got little to do with what we are doing in our elections.
Are you still supporting Crist in Florida, or the Democratic candidate?

Or are you voting to the right, like folks who call others 'the left' always do? Still promoting Crist over the Democratic candidate?

I would be thrilled if Meek could win.. but he cant... and its starting to look like Crist cant either.

If Meek dropped out, Crist would still lose.

If Crist dropped out, Meek would have half a chance.

If you recall, Meek was getting trounced by Rubio before Crist ever announced his "I" candidacy. BTW, why would Crist even consider dropping out?

He is now.

Crist on the other hand has seen his numbers decline since the GOP primary. Crist is fighting with Meek for votes, since the vast majority of the GOP wants nothing to do with him. Meek on the other hand has a real chance of picking up votes from moderate GOP voters who just hate Crist.

That's a bit hard to imagine.

And they'll both go down together.

I have to agree with that.

support. Those who 'know the future' are selling something, pal. You have you, nothing more. You claim moderates support liberals, but I have seen you here advocating for Crist. It is what it is.

I am convinced Crist would caucus with the Dems and would be a reliable vote with the Dems.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The duly elected President deserves the support of his party. Especially at a time when there are serious risks of losing elections to the opposition. Obvious you are the one that doesnt have clue.

??

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Isnt this DU for Democrats?? If you are arent a Dem what are you?

i don't feel an inherent need to belong to any particular party as they don't really represent my beliefs. if you can point me to the rule at DU that states that you need to be a democrat in order to participate in the discussion i'll be more than happy to read thru it.

I just though all DU members (except for the few fake sock puppets) were Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Oh, and you might want to go back and re-read the Tom Tomorrow strip. You're not grasping that, either.

and that my response would be deleted for pointing out that i've been here signifigantly longer than the person who asked. just fucking love it.

some of the best Democrats just got invloved two years ago.

if i were wrong.

Did it ever occur to you why that is?

can you cite how many minutes dennis was afforded to discuss his policy position versus that of obama or clinton?

then I and most others begin to cringe when he goes off on some bizarre extreme tangent.

like:
*Renegotiating Trade Treaties

*Ending useless Wars/Occupations in the Middle East

*Health Care that is equivalent to every other civilized country in the WORLD

*Transparent, Verifiable Elections

*Cutting Military Spending

*Repeal the Patriot Act

*Protect the Environment

*Balance between Corporations & Workers

*Redirect funding from concentrated Agri-Business to decentralized small farms

*Fair Competition protections for Mom&Pop that allows them to compete with Big Boxes on a level playing field

*Fully funded, quality PUBLIC Education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich_presidential_campaign,_2008

Man....that guy is Waaaaay Out There!!!!
What an EXTREMIST!

Wow, that's cool, I've never done one of these before.

Your OP is meant nothing more than to attack an entire segment of DU. Your responses to your fellow DU members are belittling, and childish at best.

Please, many on DU are pissed off right now. Stop adding gasoline to the fire.

(edited for spelling)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Real encouraging for those of us who are new to posing on Democratic Underground.

But you go ahead and keep feeding that fire.

Because the Republican hate machine is in full swing, and all you're doing is adding to the anger and resentment many are feeling.

But I think you are attacking the wrong side of this debate.

You don't see much of that around here these days.

I know where you're coming from man. I see resentment and anger, and it's all misdirected.

The "Pragmatic Side" seems to be really angry with the disillusionment among the "Idealist Side".

And the "Idealist Side" is really pissed because of things like...

The Patriot Act still being in place
Torture and rendition still being practiced
DADT and DOMA are still on the books
Afghanistan, Iraq
Missed/Compromised Opportunities by the Obama Administration (Health Care, Financial Reform, INSERT OTHER LEGISLATION THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE GRADE HERE)

And in the end, we all want to see Obama succeed.

Because if he fails, we all go down with him.

And I can't have that shit DCBob. I just can't stand the thought of Tea Bagging Republicans taking this country, the country I have been told since I was a young child, was the "Land of the free and the home of the brave".

And these Tea-Party fuckers want neither nor freedom or bravery. They are cowardly, fearful people, and they let themselves be manipulated by the likes of Glen Beck, and Sarah Palin.

We need a plan of action. And we need it now.

The way you have phrased this OP, and your subsequent responses to those who disagree with you, expose your intentions.

If you want to deliver a "reality check" to those of us who are in such desperate need of YOUR enlightenment, perhaps you may want to rethink what you're posting before you click "Post Message".

You catch more flies with honey...or something of the like...

I am probably wasting my time.

The anger on both sides is so alarming. And it all seems so...orchestrated. And perhaps not by even Republican moles, but just maybe the MSM, breeding out critical thinking skills back in the eighties...I don't know what it is.

But all I know is this.

Anger begets more anger. Any snarky remarks I've made in my history on DU have not served me, or my ideas, any justice.

But it's hard as hell to stay upbeat when everyone seems pissed all of the time.

For instance, before you apologized for dismissing me for me low post count, I thought you were a dickhead.

Now, I realize that I was reading too much into it, and that we're just misunderstanding each other.

So already, you have shown you can make coalitions. We all can. For some reason, we have forgotten how to talk to one another.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Neither of us know which way they would act, but I hope there would be some outrage. If not, to me, it would seem like they really don't give a poop about the state of their country and the people running it.

...when he was lobbying on behalf of 70% of the American People FOR a Public Option.

They were soooo "supportive" that my ears are still ringing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Look back at the McGovern campaign. Ed Muskie was the Dem's man, he was supposed to be the nominee in '72. But then he hit that crying jag, and basically self destructed in many ways. McGovern wound up getting the nomination, almost by default.

The Democratic leadership and moderates freaked. They essentially cut McGovern loose to run on his own resources, and many of them threw their support behind Nixon of all people.

Nope, if Kucinich got the nomination, that's all he would get. The Dem leadership would cut his legs out from underneath him and throw us all to the tender mercies of whatever whackjob Republican he was running against. He wouldn't even get within spitting distance of the White House.

There was even such an thing as "Reagan Democrats"?!? That would never happen in today's political environment. My point is most "normal" Democrats would support the Democratic President.. if for no other reason to keep the GOPers from taking over.

These days "democrat" appears to be a synonym for "republican".

on DU the way it is now. I'm sick and fucking tired of it. "Moderate" johnny-come-latelies have diluted this site into something unrecognizable. The vast majority of Americans must be "too far left" since they support the public option that Kucinich endorsed.

It's not obamaunderground.com, FWIW. If a Dem, any Dem, fucks up, he's going to be constructively criticized, and the fanboys and dreamy boyfriend contingent need to understand that. And yes, I'll be the first to say I disagree strongly with Dean's statement on the community center/mosque-which-really-isn't-a-mosque nontroversy.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those crazy leftist radicals who railed against trade agreements/globalization/the repeal of Glass-Steagall/Clinton/etc. -- you were right. And all those crazy leftist radicals on DU who railed against the Iraq War -- you were right. And those who are now railing against that fucking catfood commission -- I'm certain you are right.

Did Skinner, et al. ever weigh in after the "we get it, now please pony up" thread? I want to know what they get.

is alive and well on DU. Waiting for O's Praetorian Guard to show up...

---bvar22
A Proud FDR Democrat

Here's hoping your post isn't "disappeared" for too much truth.

Many would simply bolt to the Republicans. Like they did in 1972.

As there has not been a President, who was from the left in my lifetime, the closest to a counter example was the tepid support that many Clinton people had when John Kerry won the nomination. (JFK might have been the closest, but he was not the candidate of the left. Eleanor Roosevelt spoke against him - wanting Stevenson - even as the convention convened. There, you can argue that the moderates in 2004 were more understated in their lack of real support than the left was in 1980 of theirs, but they certainly did not give him deep, genuine support. Had they done so, who knows what the outcome would have been - or what support they would have given a President Kerry.

In 1992, Bill Clinton, with a poor environmental record and his questionable honesty, was pretty low on my list. Yet, when he won, I took the time to read his book and took from that the pieces I could agree with and persuaded people to vote for him. If I as an ordinary citizen did this, why did professional Democrats - like Begala and Carville, two of the few Democrats, not make a similar effort to find what they liked in Kerry's platform (which was very very close to the platforms of top three 2008 Democrats)or in his past. Instead both pushed the anybody but Bush meme, which previously had always been used more in the primaries - where it spoke of stopping a front runner. Both in 2008 pushed SCHIP as HRC's premiere achievement. Yet the fact that portions of that were authored by Kerry for a precursor bill that he sponsored with Kennedy - something Kennedy gave him credit for - apparently didn't impress them in 2004. Couldn't that - or his standing against all the powers that be on BCCI providing Morgenthau with some of the proof needed to close OBL's bank. They could have referred to the international anti- money laundering provisions that Kerry wrote that were being used in the real fight against non-state terrorists - if they really wanted to be big, they could even have mentioned that he fought for them since the late 1990s. It would have been a whole lot more helpful in bemoaning that he was not Bill Clinton and making snarky comments about Bush and Cheney that pleased only the base and angered some in the middle.