2009: Democratic "centrists" = to the right of Richard Nixon.
2009: "Blue Dog Democrats" = Nouveau Dixiecrats
2009: "Far left, Liberal Democrats" = formerly known as Democrats (before 1980)
2009: Senator Harry Reid = Barney Fife
megatronbomb
· 7 months ago
I'm becoming incredibly disenchanted with the Democratic party. There's always an excuse not to move forward with a progressive agenda. Do you think if the situation was reversed, that the Republicans wouldn't be cramming every right-leaning bit of legislation they could come up with down our throats?
America supposedly voted for "change." Well, where is it?
Can we please have a serious progressive third party now?
Butch1
· 7 months ago
Yes!
Dateline_Molly
· 7 months ago
Obbush is losing his political capital BY THE DAY. People are fed up with how weak the stim bill was, and now there is backpedaling on the public option and health care, plus they just funded another $160B to pay to kill more innocent civilians overseas - for 3 months. That's right, the newest war crimes funding bill of $160 billion is for the next THREE months. He outright lied on LGBT issues. Just came out and lied.
He didn't lie about escalating the war. He said he would do it and he has done it. And for that he can't be forgiven. But to come out and lie about so many other issues? The man is a psychopath.
Kelly Canfield
· 7 months ago
What will be "interesting" is which Dems will end up filibustering progressive legislation.
BeccaM
· 7 months ago
To paraphrase an observation made by Bill Maher: America has a center-right party -- the Democrats. And the Republicans, who've become the Crazy party.
There is no viable progressive/liberal party in America these days.
The problem is the Dems keep making like they're going to support progressive causes -- universal healthcare, banking & mortgage reform, environmental protection, restore progressive taxation, minority civil rights (including GLBT), and so on. At *best*, we get nothing. More often lately, the 'reform' attempt instead turns into a travesty, where we end up worse off than if they'd done nothing.
As regards healthcare reform, for instance, I've said it before: My nightmare scenario is where everyone is required by law to buy insurance. But there's nothing done to make it affordable or anything other than total junk. And the sick people continue to get shuffled off to 'assigned risk pools' where they have to pony up $1k a month (or far more) for garbage insurance that covers almost nothing. Meanwhile, health insurance industry profits SOAR.
Houndentenor
· 7 months ago
This time last year when Clinton and Edwards were both advocating forcing everyone to purchase insurance, they weren't very clear on how most of the people without insurance were going to pay for it. A good many working people in this country aren't making it as it is. Look at how many payday advance storefronts there are all over the country. Where are those people going to come up with even another $100 a month?
caphillprof
· 7 months ago
This is perverse. A slim Republican majority is all it takes for wingnut legislation to sail through the Congress and be signed by GW. But Democrats somehow require super duper majorities just to pay the dog catcher.
Grrrowler
· 7 months ago
If they had 99 votes in the Senate, the Dems would still cave to the Republican and call it "bipartisanship". I'm really unsure of what the point of voting a majority of Democrats into power was. We're still back where we were in 2004.
chrisnyc
· 7 months ago
i have always been a "they are better thean republicans" guy and opposed to a third party; however, this crap is making me rethink that.
I think we have a better chance at that, then actually getting rid of all of those weak-kneed democrats who have strangleholds on their states. let's make the main dem party have to make deals with a liberal party.
John
· 7 months ago
The new Democratic excuse when 2010 rolls around?
"Sorry for the lack of progress. But we won't be able to get anything until we have 90 seats in the Senate and 350-375 seats in the House."
FunMe
· 7 months ago
Here's my reponse:
"Sorry for the lack of my vote for you. I won't be able to vote for you until the Senate and House has something to show for it.
Buh bye"
johninsd
· 7 months ago
I just came from the historic raising of the Gay Flag at our former Naval Training Center to commorate Gay Pride here in San Diego. The former NTC is now a public park.
One of the speakers mentioned that 1 person changed Bill Clinton's mind on opening the service to all during the Clinton presidency, and we ended up with DADT. The name of that person was Rham Emanual, Mr. Obama's current Chief of Staff.
Interesting, No? We are being thrown under the bus for?
And in answer to an earlier post, I did not say I am a registered Libertarian, I re-registered as an Independent.
mml34
· 7 months ago
republicans call democrats "wimps/pansies" and paint democrats as unwilling and/or unable to "keep the country safe/stand up to dictators" etc. they say that democrats have no principles and don't stand for anything.
sadly, i think they're right.
say what you want about gwb, but he pushed his agenda. he took no prisoners. he didn't pull punches, he didn't compromise. you actually got the feeling that he believed in what he was fighting for. you can disagree with his agenda (i do!) but he molded this country/world to conform to his principles.
wouldn't it be great to have a leader in the democrat party who believed enough in his/her principles that he/she was willing to commit to doing whatever it took (within the law) to mold the country/world to conform to progressive principles?
what a pipe dream! democrats lack the killer instinct.
for too long democrats have taken the so-called "high road" re: don't want to throw red meat to the base, don't want to push the democrat agenda by all legal means (changing house/senate rules, if need be), don't want to use harsh rhetoric to push democrat agenda and values.
democrats have unilaterally disarmed under the guise of "we're better than that."
it's like dems think we live in this imaginary world where if they just give enough, the other side will surrender. dems think it's enough that they have better morals, ideas, principles, policies, etc. as though having better ideas/morals/principles/policies makes up for failing to pursue an AGGRESSIVE, integrated strategy that includes behind the scenes compromise, harsh rhetoric, political arm-twisting (i.e. blue dog democrats - if you don't vote with us, you get no money for re-election and we'll actively support your primary challenger), and exercising actual power. "the high road" in politics is just doublespeak for "unilateral surrender."
with the presidency and congress (at least for the next 3.5 years) in the hands of democrats, there's no excuse for not shoving the progressive agenda through to fruition.
HeartlandLiberal
· 7 months ago
Didn't you all hear the news??!!
Reid just announced that 61 votes will now be required for cloture to end a filibuster.
It just seemed to him the bipartisan thing to do.
Nick_Upstate
· 7 months ago
This is the funniest thing I've read today, except for the news that the Chinese have decided that standing room will become the new norm on some China airline flights.
FunMe
· 7 months ago
Get rid of the "Blue Dog Democrats" ... aka as DINOs!
RainbowPhoenix
· 7 months ago
Especially Reid.
devlzadvocate
· 7 months ago
The more things you believe in change, the more things you believe in stay the same.
jpjones
· 7 months ago
How rich! After two-and-a-half years of Harry Reid's incessant bleating that the Dems couldn't do anything without 60 votes, the storyline now changes to "Sixty is an imaginary number ... that's why 2010 is so important."
THAT was as predictable as the sunrise.
devlzadvocate
· 7 months ago
They could have 99 votes in the Senate and claim they don't have 400 votes in the House as a reason for not getting anything through.
Self-defeating.
cowboyneok
· 7 months ago
If we finally gave up on the two party system and actually empowered a progressive party, we would see the change we want to see. Until then, its the "elitist" versus "the poor people."
Steve_in_CNJ
· 7 months ago
what i hate is that we don't need 60 votes to pass legislation. the 60 is just for cloture and we can't even count on the "centrists" to allow an up-or-down vote on their own party's agenda. that is the main difference with the GOP. when did snowe or specter vote no on cloture when the repubs were running things?
jpjones
· 7 months ago
The worst part is Reid's refusal to call the GOP out on this tactic. If he would force them to stay in the chamber for a REAL filibuster, and let the public turn on their TVs to see Mitch McConnell reading the DC phonebook to a bunch of snoring geezers instead of voting on health care reform, you can bet the phones would be ringing off the hook in these jackasses offices. But it's all one big cozy club, and their commitment to protecting each other always trumps any "responsibility" they claim to feel for the public interest.
cowboyneok
· 7 months ago
THANK YOU AND EXACTLY!
RainbowPhoenix
· 7 months ago
I don't suppose there's any way to replace Reid with someone who will do that?
jpjones
· 7 months ago
Only the Senators themselves have a say in electing their leader (how convenient) and naturally, they are perfectly content to be "lead" by a wimpy milquetoast who's incapable of pressuring anybody to do anything.
RainbowPhoenix
· 7 months ago
So we need to get him out of the senate. Lovely. On the positive side, I hear he's become quite unpopular in Nevada.
ndtovent
· 7 months ago
I hope that rumor is true. I'd love to see him lose in the next election. Time to retire, Harry.
RainbowPhoenix
· 7 months ago
I wish I could remember were I heard it, but apparently, his approval rating is hovering somewhere between 30-40%.
libertydan
· 7 months ago
But then we are assuming the 2 parties are really different
maiexile
· 7 months ago
Hillary has more cojones than Obama.
ndtovent
· 7 months ago
Agree with you there. Now I kinda wish she'd won even though I chose obama over her during the election.
ChrisM70
· 7 months ago
The article says, "Meanwhile, moderate Democrats like Mary Landrieu, D-La, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., have made it almost a point of pride in not allowing their votes to be taken for granted."
Moderate? Good description. These two are too moderate and won't join in with the other "Far Left" crazies and vote for universal healthcare like the MAJORITY of citizens in the country want.
To change the subject just a little...has anyone seen a list anywhere of the A Listers who attended the cocktail party on Monday?
And this morning on our local NPR Station the local president of the Liberterian Party was on talking about the LGBT community joining them in a third party push. Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had better watch out, sanity may move the country into a position with a strong 3rd party nipping at their heels. Wouldn't it be great!
I switched from Dem to Independent on Dec. 19 when Mr. Obama would not move on the Rick Warren issue. I felt it was the shot across the bow telling us of this that we find ourselves in now...the feckless Democratic party just assuming that their base will stick with them because 'there is no one else, and you might end up with another Repuglican."
Indigo
· 7 months ago
Yeah but . . . Libertarians?
sonofloud
· 7 months ago
I did the same thing but went Green instead of Libertarian......the Libertarians like their guns too much for my taste.
Dateline_Molly
· 7 months ago
Does anybody over the age of 15 actually believe in Libertarianism? What a discredited "theory."
RainbowPhoenix
· 7 months ago
Is there any way to get rid of Reid as SML? Having one with a spine would go a long way as we were painfully aware of for six years.
letonyc
· 7 months ago
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." --Will Rogers
Terry Andrews
· 7 months ago
Well, if we rely on the Democrats the way they're comporting themselves now and for the forseeable future, we'll be getting our equality in 2059.
KKT
· 7 months ago
I strongly object to this lanaguage in Sam Stein's article: "moderate Democrats like Mary Landrieu, D-La, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb."
My senator, Herb Kohl, is a moderate Democrat. These folks are really corporatist Democrats or conservative Democrats ... or more descriptively, Republican-like Democrats.
jpjones
· 7 months ago
Or assholes.
Indigo
· 7 months ago
See "Public Enemies." It's cold, cold as J.Edgar's heart and Obama's manner.
sonofloud
· 7 months ago
Absurd excuses from the cowardly Democrats.
Butch1
· 7 months ago
Indeed. As long as there are DINOs and "moderate" democrats around, nothing of importance will happen. Why don't they just call the "moderates" centrists, that is what they really are. What happened to our party? We have a bunch of republicans in democrat's clothing running around mucking up everything important.
ndtovent
· 7 months ago
Even though I'm very happy about Al Franken, I still wouldn't call it a 'smug' 60. We have too many blue dog dems plus arlen specter, plus some powerful rethugs on essential committees to f**k things up.
jasonut29
· 7 months ago
The Dems have been waiting for 60 votes, ya right what the Dems are waiting for is to grow some....they seem to be cowards at moving forward...if they weren't there would be legislation in front of the Pres now OR the Pres would have ask for legislation. Neither has happened, they want our votes but don't want to respond to their promises. Once again I'll say, at least the repubs admit they don't want us to have civil rights they don't lie and then ignore us. I know this will piss some people off but I will have a hard time voting for a Dem or the Pres if there isn't something done before its time to vote again.
All Comments
2009: "Blue Dog Democrats" = Nouveau Dixiecrats
2009: "Far left, Liberal Democrats" = formerly known as Democrats (before 1980)
2009: Senator Harry Reid = Barney Fife
America supposedly voted for "change." Well, where is it?
Can we please have a serious progressive third party now?
He didn't lie about escalating the war. He said he would do it and he has done it. And for that he can't be forgiven. But to come out and lie about so many other issues? The man is a psychopath.
There is no viable progressive/liberal party in America these days.
The problem is the Dems keep making like they're going to support progressive causes -- universal healthcare, banking & mortgage reform, environmental protection, restore progressive taxation, minority civil rights (including GLBT), and so on. At *best*, we get nothing. More often lately, the 'reform' attempt instead turns into a travesty, where we end up worse off than if they'd done nothing.
As regards healthcare reform, for instance, I've said it before: My nightmare scenario is where everyone is required by law to buy insurance. But there's nothing done to make it affordable or anything other than total junk. And the sick people continue to get shuffled off to 'assigned risk pools' where they have to pony up $1k a month (or far more) for garbage insurance that covers almost nothing. Meanwhile, health insurance industry profits SOAR.
I think we have a better chance at that, then actually getting rid of all of those weak-kneed democrats who have strangleholds on their states. let's make the main dem party have to make deals with a liberal party.
"Sorry for the lack of progress. But we won't be able to get anything until we have 90 seats in the Senate and 350-375 seats in the House."
"Sorry for the lack of my vote for you. I won't be able to vote for you until the Senate and House has something to show for it.
Buh bye"
One of the speakers mentioned that 1 person changed Bill Clinton's mind on opening the service to all during the Clinton presidency, and we ended up with DADT. The name of that person was Rham Emanual, Mr. Obama's current Chief of Staff.
Interesting, No? We are being thrown under the bus for?
And in answer to an earlier post, I did not say I am a registered Libertarian, I re-registered as an Independent.
sadly, i think they're right.
say what you want about gwb, but he pushed his agenda. he took no prisoners. he didn't pull punches, he didn't compromise. you actually got the feeling that he believed in what he was fighting for. you can disagree with his agenda (i do!) but he molded this country/world to conform to his principles.
wouldn't it be great to have a leader in the democrat party who believed enough in his/her principles that he/she was willing to commit to doing whatever it took (within the law) to mold the country/world to conform to progressive principles?
what a pipe dream! democrats lack the killer instinct.
for too long democrats have taken the so-called "high road" re: don't want to throw red meat to the base, don't want to push the democrat agenda by all legal means (changing house/senate rules, if need be), don't want to use harsh rhetoric to push democrat agenda and values.
democrats have unilaterally disarmed under the guise of "we're better than that."
it's like dems think we live in this imaginary world where if they just give enough, the other side will surrender. dems think it's enough that they have better morals, ideas, principles, policies, etc. as though having better ideas/morals/principles/policies makes up for failing to pursue an AGGRESSIVE, integrated strategy that includes behind the scenes compromise, harsh rhetoric, political arm-twisting (i.e. blue dog democrats - if you don't vote with us, you get no money for re-election and we'll actively support your primary challenger), and exercising actual power. "the high road" in politics is just doublespeak for "unilateral surrender."
with the presidency and congress (at least for the next 3.5 years) in the hands of democrats, there's no excuse for not shoving the progressive agenda through to fruition.
Reid just announced that 61 votes will now be required for cloture to end a filibuster.
It just seemed to him the bipartisan thing to do.
THAT was as predictable as the sunrise.
Self-defeating.
Moderate? Good description. These two are too moderate and won't join in with the other "Far Left" crazies and vote for universal healthcare like the MAJORITY of citizens in the country want.
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/07/michael-...
And this morning on our local NPR Station the local president of the Liberterian Party was on talking about the LGBT community joining them in a third party push. Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had better watch out, sanity may move the country into a position with a strong 3rd party nipping at their heels. Wouldn't it be great!
I switched from Dem to Independent on Dec. 19 when Mr. Obama would not move on the Rick Warren issue. I felt it was the shot across the bow telling us of this that we find ourselves in now...the feckless Democratic party just assuming that their base will stick with them because 'there is no one else, and you might end up with another Repuglican."
--Will Rogers
My senator, Herb Kohl, is a moderate Democrat. These folks are really corporatist Democrats or conservative Democrats ... or more descriptively, Republican-like Democrats.