Skip to main content

A piece after my own heart is Glenn Greenwald's recent: Daley is a reflection, not a cause. (Since I last looked, it's fallen below a pile up of pieces on our eroding civil liberties, our globally feared "justice" system, first under Bush, now under Obama - alarming articles which folks would do well to read.)

Not that I have much to say about the Daley appointment, but it really isnt the focus of Greenwald's piece either. Rather, the appointment, having stoked a recent billowy emission of outrage from Progressive Central, serves as a jumping off point to examine a deeper problem - that of progressives highly dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party.

I posted a diary here recently, Happy New Year, Progressives! Ready to Get Shafted (again)? In it, I went down some of the same paths as Greenwald (although not all, and down some where he didnt go). Where we converged is where chronically betrayed progressives insist on keeping their powder/power dry when it comes to the party that takes them for a ride, time after time.

Here are some quotes from Greenwald's thoughts on progressives' latest outrage (Daley) and their long-standing dilemma (all annoying bold and italics and underlining is mine and mine alone):

But I do find the angry reaction from some progressives to be somewhat perplexing (even though I agree with the substance of their critique and am glad they're voicing it).  [.. ] Why, angry progressives seem to be asking, would Obama ignore the views of his so-called "progressive base" while seeking to please those who are his political adversaries?

But it's perfectly rational for Obama to do exactly that. There's a fundamental distinction between progressives and groups that wield actual power in Washington: namely, the latter are willing (by definition) to use their resources and energies to punish politicians who do not accommodate their views, while the former unconditionally support the Democratic Party and their leaders no matter what they do. The groups which Obama cares about pleasing -- Wall Street, corporate interests, conservative Democrats, the establishment media, independent voters -- all have one thing in common: they will support only those politicians who advance their agenda, but will vigorously oppose those who do not. Similarly, the GOP began caring about the Tea Party only once that movement proved it will bring down GOP incumbents even if it means losing a few elections to Democrats.

That is exactly what progressives will never do. They do the opposite; they proudly announce: we'll probably be angry a lot, and we'll be over here doing a lot complaining, but don't worry: no matter what, when you need us to stay in power (or to acquire it), we're going to be there to give you our full and cheering support. That is the message conveyed over and over again by progressives, no more so than when much of the House Progressive Caucus vowed that they would never, ever support a health care bill that had no robust public option, only to turn around at the end and abandon that vow by dutifully voting for Obama's public-option-free health care bill. That's just a microcosm of what happens in the more general sense: progressives constantly object when their values and priorities are trampled upon, only to make clear that they will not only vote for, but work hard on behalf of and give their money to, the Democratic Party when election time comes around.

Question to ponder: Does this latest bout of outrage signal real rebellion or simply more blowing of smoke?

If it is the latter, then that means exactly nothing when it comes to effecting change, given that, at the end of the day, it manages to reconfigure (conform) into smoke signals issued forth from Donkey Central: Swallow, hope, comply: BUY! Regurgitate, volunteer, donate: SELL!

If, on the other hand, it is stoked by the fires of actual rebellion, either because it lit the proverbial final straw that ignites the fire, or because it added to a fire already burning, fed by numerous previous betrayals by Obama/Dems, then it might just mean there's hope for change.

A few weeks ago much of the media was in full orgiastic delight over Obama's tax cut-hippie punch, issuing the ever-familar taunt to progressives: "Where else do they have to go?! titter, guffaw" (Their version of a climax, I believe.) Thing is, although progressives will complain about this disrespect from talking heads, they look ridiculous doing so... I mean, they arent going anywhere! To make the media look wrongheaded for saying this (which is something they usually accomplish, all on their own), they'd actually have to be proven wrong.

Some thoughts that have sprung from reflections on this problem:

It's the promises, stupid!

(Forgive my foray into a Carvellianism)

Chronically betrayed liberals often misinterpret the pile up of broken Dem promises and wayward acts as yet more proof of their powerlessness, when, actually, I think this is proof of their power - power they would have if only they would USE it!

The huge pile-up of broken Dem/Obama promises, their nasty habit of enacting polices they acted like they were against (during the 'courtship' period, aka, campaigns) or ignoring what they said they'd go for, is the bright arrow to enlightenment the disaffected Dem base somehow manages to blindly stumble past, time after time.

I mean, if progressives are so nonessential to Dem politicians...

Why woo them in the first place?

Why promise the good stuff?

Why play like they like liberals?

Why deal with the bitching of the betrayed?

Why create the need to task operatives with crafting those awkward CYA lines leaders must then lamely spin, to whitewash their betrayal?

Why make it that much harder to sound believable when Promise Time rolls around again, ie, re-election season?

They make these promises because they NEED progressive votes!

Until progressives draw real lines in the sand, threaten and follow thru with Dem rejection, they cannot have any chance of effecting change. (Ironic that they expend so much energy blaming pols for not doing what they themselves will not do... really fight for progressive causes like they mean it.)

A blueGreen dream...

I am profferring a potentially effective way for progressives to finally use this yet unused progressive power - an in-your-face, loudly trumpeted movement of disaffected progresive Democrats going from blue to Green (party).

I am imagining a movement that materializes by taking a breathtakingly convenient step over to an already available progressive party. Show up and speak out with conviction and strength in numbers, to threaten the corporate bought and sold establishment Dem party. Yes, threaten! (Tell me, what else has worked thus far? How many times have we seen our countless petitions of "outrage" show up on the news? Make even a dent in the status quo?) How about voicing, with conviction, a pledge to vote for principles over party (an increasingly endangered concept!)?

Such a movement could potentially create a stronger standing for progressives in our political landscape... similar to that of the Tea Party's to Republicans. I find it pathetic and appalling that progressives lag so far behind their rightwing counterparts in striking fear in the hearts of their party's leaders, especially given that progressives have had a much easier pathway to significant rebellion in that they havent had to create a movement from scratch. Yes, yes, I know about TP astro turf, but the rightwing had to clump this new thing together, regardless of the composition of fake to real turf.

I also know that the corporate media is much more willing to advertise rightwing views than those of the left. (Push that Overton Window, push it! that-a-way-->>) However, this should be all the more reason to fight fight harder and stronger and to use every tool available, like... oh, I dont know... supporting an already existing progressive party?

Isn't it worth it to make a real battle cry (yes, battle. Progressives are in opposition to the corporate establishment, thus to Democrats... thus, valentines and gentle whining move nothing). Isnt it worth a try to bring on a message which is clear and unwavering, one which demands that they stop selling hope and start delivering (common sense) change on the issues, especially given that on many of these positions they can find agreement with most Americans? (Or at least a 50/50 that begs for a real fight!)

By stepping over that line, going from blue to green, progressives can create that necessary line in the sand, the one they spout off against Dems for never seeming to find. They need to prove they mean it when they say progressive principles MUST inform policies. Policies that must be fought for.

We have no progressive movement in Congress or the White House. Progressives from outside lead or ... no one does. The only place the Dems will lead you to is to another round, on them, of yet another pint of HOPE. Plenty of that on tap... Yes, you can! (Cry in your beer - by all means! - while we help Republicans push the Overton Window that-a-way-->>)  

Originally posted to NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 07:58 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Most important point Greenwald made (21+ / 0-)

      Similarly, the GOP began caring about the Tea Party only once that movement proved it will bring down GOP incumbents even if it means losing a few elections to Democrats.

      If we can't learn an object lesion from that, then Progressives don't deserve a seat at the table.

      Demand Filibuster Reform call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 -AND KEEP CALLING

      by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:31:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, so now progressives should be the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, virginislandsguy, Lawrence

        mirror image of the tea party?

        Interesting, to say the least...

        I'm a concert pianist with a double doctorate... AND YOU CAN BE TOO!

        by kenlac on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:53:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Did he forget about Lieberman in 2006 and Specter (4+ / 0-)

        in 2010?

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:58:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Blanche too (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque, Hilbertsubspace

          Okay, that wasn't ultimately successful but a serious effort was made to primary her and after she won the primary she was left out on her own.

          •  Greenwald's real grip is that there aren't enough (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, virginislandsguy

            far-left progressives to influence most races.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:06:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  real gripe, rather. eom (0+ / 0-)

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:06:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  no, you were right the first time... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                conchita, Robobagpiper

                "real grip"... as in, he has a real grip on where the problem lies with progressive fail...

                Whereas, it appears you have a "real gripe"... with his grip.

                Doesnt conform with the Dem story line.

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 07:08:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I think he has a valid point. (16+ / 0-)

              This isn't about "far left" progressives, and frankly the only people I ever hear using that term are "far right" conservatives.  So the fact you have used it here as an attack seems to expose your motives.

              But assuming you are being serious...Greenwald's point is that the liberal BASE - that means everyone, not just far left - keep getting angry at President Obama and the Dems for caving on campaign issues time after time after time.  Issues that the MAJORITY of Americans support, in favour of Republicans compromises that very few people support.  

              Yet no matter how much compromise they make, or promises they break, the base keeps openly saying they will support Dems no matter what because it is better than the other party gaining power.

              So the Dems KNOW there will be little to no repercussions for their constant selling out of their base.  I have made many posts on this very same topic here on Dkos.  I've tries a number of times telling people that if they want true change, real progressive change, then they need to be willing to lose elections in the short term to get true representation in the long term.  This is often met with "If you think this is bad policy now, what do you think will happen if Republicans get power next election!?!?  No, we have to keep supporting the very people who have betrayed us!"

              But as the saying goes, insantiy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

              •  Rosencrantz, you are so spot on... (4+ / 0-)

                I can only say...

                Thank you for thinking!

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:59:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I will add, because I think it is something... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  conchita, joanneleon, 3goldens

                  progressive disaffected (but-still-hanging-onto-blue) Dems fail to recognize:

                  They stop short of supporting the greens because they disagree here or there, or this point is lame or those candidates are lame, etc and so on.

                  To that I say SO WHAT?

                  But no, what I mean to say, to flesh out the "so what!" is that progressive Dems who stop short at considering supporting the Greens over these "problems" they have with them, blind themselves to the realization that, given their lengthy complaint lists filled with people and performance fail by the Dems, they should be the last ones to reject a party because they dont like EVERY thing about it, because they disagree on point A or point K. Because they dislike Person A or Person K.

                  They should be well versed by now in the practice of not having to cross every "t" and dot every "i" with approval, given the Dems performance. Hell, they havent even been given the t to cross or the i to dot with the Dems... they have been given a lot of crap.

                  Again, the Greens dont hedge in their messaging on progressive principles.

                  I have to conclude that among those who who still support the Dems in hopes that they wont hedge, fudge, do the opposite of progressive once in power, either hasnt been paying attention (newbies are exempt from criticism, like kids just beginning political awareness and involvement... ) or has limited intelligence. Or is just extremely weak... like a co-dependent is.

                  Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                  by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:24:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Heh. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NYCee, conchita, joanneleon, m16eib, geomoo

                If you think this is bad policy now, what do you think will happen if Republicans get power next election!?!?

                Oh, I dunno... the exact same fucking thing???

                Cue Lewis Black:

                Only Nixon could go to China; only Obama could dismantle Social Security.

                by Mehitabel9 on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 05:50:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Define "far left" without going the "far right" (6+ / 0-)

              route.

              The fact is, there certainly are more than enough progressives to influence elections.  What happens if the progressives stay home?  Or vote 3rd party?  Or show up to vote and don't vote for Obama?

              This liberal has no idea who I'll be voting for in 2012, but it will not be Barack Obama.  I don't reward the "bait and switch" with my vote.  And, yes, I will be voting my interests.  Obama doesn't happen to represent them.  

              If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time. Harry Truman

              by ThAnswr on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:29:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you for honoring yourself! (6+ / 0-)

                Which includes your principles.

                Principles are too dear to be trampled on.

                Once they are, they are no longer principles.

                Sadly, some folks mistake them for disposable diapers.

                Shit all over them, discard, wipe, change, repeat...

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:22:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The principles for far too many here consist .... (5+ / 0-)

                  .... of the "Isn't Barack dreamy" variety.  

                  It's unthinkable for some people to understand not everyone's self-interest includes genuflecting to Obama's "greatness".  

                  Oddly enough, that's some of the same ones who were pooh-poohing the idea of an enthusiasm gap last November.  

                  They'll be about as successful in the future too.  

                  If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time. Harry Truman

                  by ThAnswr on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:35:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Lieberman? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman

          You mean where he did everything Progressives warned the voters he would do (saying to themselves: "He can't be that bad? I'll vote for him") and then figuring out we were right and now they want to toss him out in the next elections.

          Good point. The left is almost always correct. And the Dem establishment? Can't even come close.

          ePluribus Media
          Collaboration is contagious!

          by m16eib on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 12:56:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You know the Tea Party formed on the MeetUp (8+ / 0-)

        site. They were all over it.

        Howard Dean used it, but otherwise do we even make use of MeetUp now or a similar type of site?

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:04:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am not sure if I find this convincing ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYCee

        from the beginnings of the tea party, the GOP had some decisions to make: do they chase them out and back to the extreme fringes or do they attempt to co-opt them and use them to maintain power?

        Honestly, the question comes down to whether they can use them to stay in power as they simply do not care whether this country is run as a democracy or not ... the thing that is important to them is covering and ensuring the economic privileges of the elite and that can be done in a democracy or a dictatorship.

        The situation with progressives is a bit different, the center and right of the democratic party need us to win elections but we have become used to being betrayed, we do not have a mass movement behind us (which would certainly force them to take our points into account) and we are trapped in the idea of working within the political system to get things done. We need to try building a movement independent from the party in order to be able to force them into an accommodation. We can do this, but we need to move beyond simple outrage to organisation.

        No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

        by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:17:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I rec'ed the bulk of what you say here... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NY brit expat

          But just exactly what is it you are not sure if you "find convincing"?

          You are responding to the Greenwald comment highlighted by LeftyCoaster...

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:41:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  your diary is really good, I tipped and rec'd it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYCee

            and agree, I was responding to greenwald's comment in lefty coaster's post. :)

            No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

            by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:09:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, thanks a bunch. ;-) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NY brit expat

              I guess I shouldve waited till late morning to publish it... As is, though, got more recs than a diary like this would have in the past... (but most of them werent on the night shift;-)

              I guess that's progress, though, for this site. Some.

              I was just wondering what it was in Lefty's quote of GG that you didnt find convincing...

              That the TP has a change effect on the GOP's MO?

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:18:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  there are differences between the (0+ / 0-)

                tea party and the needs of the republicans and the relationship between the left and progressives and the democratic party. The democratic party uses us to secure election results and do much of their lower level political organisation (see my above post), but we exert little or no pressure on the leadership. We are not extremists, we are a legitimate mainstream membership of the dems.

                In the case of the tea party (whom are right-wing extremists), their independent organisation and the failure of the republicans to sell their brand (as honestly taking care of corps is no longer a one party trade-mark in the US) has put them in some trouble. The tea-party (if successful) will actually enable a right-wing extremist fringe to exist in a mainstream party (even though a right-wing mainstream party); if the leaders of the GOP allow this, they are essentially hoping that the tea-party can recruit white disaffected working class people to support them (perhaps even throwing them more than a bone) and the real leaders (the extreme rich and right-wing financiers and MNC leaders and defense and security companies) will still control economic decision making and hence the party. does that make sense?  

                No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

                by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:34:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, well, we have a harder row to hoe... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NY brit expat

                  We, the progressive left, demand an actual move to the left in policy, a leftward ho that our system is busily undoing to suit the neoliberal new way... we have to move the big resistant machine leftward in that infamous (amongst us wonkier sorts) Overton Window... Whereas, the Tea Partiers manage to get all riled and out to rallies and townhalls over things like death panels and govt control of healthcare without giving a whit of importance to the insurance overlords stranglehold (dont know how their brains managed this feat, given that many of them are not, by any means, wealthy).

                  I use this as one example to show that, overall, they use their rebellion chits in the stupidest of self-denying ways, which are the ways that fold in quite nicely with the neoliberal machine. No speed bumps except for the right from the TP, except for their unfortunate tendencies to some impolite and creepy racial/violent utterances from time to time,  the guns and god bs, but the American right has had to deal with that devil for some time now, having signed on for their support decades ago. (The Tiller Killer prodders, etc... )

                  However, I think that if we were to become an annoying presence to the Dem establishment, a faction of refuseniks they could not ignore, they would have to play ball with us... it would take a lot of refusing, a lot of acting out, etc... but they couldnt ignore us, if they wanted to win.

                  Now, as far as the Green thing - I just think it should start now, and every time they fuck up, show them that is why we wont vote for them in 2012 - they need to undo the fuckups theyve done, and stop fucking up in the present/future. There is enough time to start the ball rolling.

                  As for who gets at the table in Congress out of all of this, I couldnt care less if its some lone Green or a true BLUE Dem (a Tasini type, for want of any other example of a real stickler for the principles)... let them compete for our votes. We keep hearing, increasingly, how many Americans are turning Independent... but that is constantly framed as some murky centrist mush, or else, they lean rightward. It is time we changed that framing.  

                  Dammit, we have to give them something to worry about. As is, it is dead - there is no movement, all the vital signs are flatlined... and so, they go on their merry way, bullshit as usual, selling us out. They dont even think of it that way, given that we hardly merit a blip in their decision making... Whozeewhatzee are we selling out, again? But they do court us when campaign season rolls out... hence the promises. (And all the scary Palin/SCOTUS/Satan! threats... ) That is where we must hit them.

                  Lol... it's bad.

                  Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                  by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 04:03:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  In my last diary on this topic... (9+ / 0-)

      I quoted some key points from Taibbi's Obama's Big Sellout. I also mentioned Greenwald's related comments, made around that time, re the Democrats' Rubinesque/triangulation affair, which the party has bought into for quite some time, which Obama is more than happy to reinforce.

      For much in this vein, I recommend Roger Hodge's The Mendacity of Hope:
      Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism
      . (Hodge is a former editor of Harpers.)

      I havent read it yet, but am looking forward to checking it out. Apparently, he has covered a lot of ground... I have seen him on TV, most recently in a debate with Jonathan Alter (well, Cspan just televised it last week, but it happened in October)

      To me, the most bizarre thing Alter said, during the debate, was that he thinks Congressional Dems are corrupted but Obama is not. (He's what Hodge calls an "Obamaphile.")

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:48:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I still don't see how that could break up this (7+ / 0-)

    oligarchy.  Maybe it would stop the bleeding, or perhaps provide some substantive change, but I don't see how an offshoot of the democratic party, aka, the progressives, is going to change the systemic problems we have that benefit the oligarchy.  They aren't going to give up those benefits easily and as we've seen they're going for the gusto now.  Not to mention how difficult it would be to get enough progressives to agree on what actions we want and when.  

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:19:56 PM PST

    •  The more the stronger... (3+ / 0-)

      Hey, most Democrats dont feel the same about all issues, dislike different Dems for different reasons, etc.

      Why cant folks have the same tolerant acceptance of differences w/ the Green Party, IF, overall, moving to it moves the message, overall, where most progressives want it to be moved?

      If we were to be grown up about it, we would say, we have to do something bold that might make a change (given that the status quo most certainly isnt).

      I just think it makes common sense. The Brits have the Lib Dems, why cant we forge a progressive presence - given that it is virtually absent from the Dem party.

      (The progressive caucus? lol)

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:26:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, as you said, what we're doing now ain't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYCee, chuckvw

        working.  Those interested in real change should be interested in taking chances at this point.

        S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:28:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please, the lib dems in britain have (0+ / 0-)

        returned to the old whig economic agenda since the choice of Clegg. There are other places where there is a coherent left and centre-left opposition, forget the Lib Dems, they are rapidly losing their left to Labour due to their actions and votes in the coalition. Why not use another party in another country for inspiration, please?

        No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

        by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:20:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, they had some gumption, at one time... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NY brit expat

          And they managed to make a third party with a presence in Parliament. That they fucked it up is unfortunate. Even as I typed that, I was aware that I wasnt aware of any great strides they have been making... and I thought they were supposed to be adding their "progressive" voice to the table, where they now sat...

          Part of that is the British people to blame. They voted in the Tories, rather like the Americans do the binary flip when they dont like the status quo. And why dont they push the lib dems, both is greater support and greater pushback, when they arent serving their interests? Why did they keep drinking from the Labour trough, even as it kept triangulating? Why were they so timid about breathing life into the Lib Dems, so afraid of them at the helm? Guess theyd rather have the "grown up" conservatives in charge.

          I use it as an example of a progressive wing getting into the mix. There is a lot that can go wrong, obviously, but here we dont even get to the point of trying...

          And I am not even going that far, re having a Green presence in Congress. I am talking about a necessary portion of the Dem base - to help them get elected - revolting, en masse and alto vocce, against the status quo... no votes if no change.

          Why dont you give us another example, btw?

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:56:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Lib Dems fooled a lot of people, most (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYCee

            of whom never heard of the Orange Book where there was clearly free market positions advocated to deal with the economic problems of the country.

            The essential problem in the UK is that all 3 main parties were running under a neoliberal economic agenda; this was evident if people listened to what was being said by all 3 candidates and their prospective chancellors of the exchequer.

            It came as no surprise to me that Clegg and his main people fit so well into the Con-Dem coalition. Now there are people that were left liberals in the Lib Dem party serving as MPs that are very uncomfortable with the coalition and the Lib Dems are losing their left flank rapidly (especially amongst students and those that are in the Labour heartland in the NW and NE of england).

            The recent by-election in Oldham East was very interesting: the results may appear confusing ... Labour won with an increase in 11% of the vote, the LD stayed constant (literally no change) and the Tories lost votes. so it appears that the Tories bore the brunt of the losses; what actually happened is that the Tories made a tactical decision to throw a lot of their votes to the Lib Dems to make it appear as though they have retained their support and perhaps steal the seat from Labour. Labour held and the true results were obscured. This does not mean that Labour will win next general election, but it does demonstrate that the seats that the Lib Dems picked up in the NW and NE will probably not be all held.

            No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

            by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:22:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the low down.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NY brit expat

              I did find it "hinky" when they first formed the coalition w/Tories.

              I honestly didnt see where that where the progressive light was going to shine. It did not.

              My god, but this neoliberal octopus has long arms and strong suction! Looks like even the lib dems have gone along for the ride.

              Good luck! (God save the Queen all us human beans! I am not religious but find religious sayings often hit the mark.)

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:02:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  as david bromberg sang (0+ / 0-)

                "don't let the glasses fool you, I'm a demon in disguise."

                I was sorry to see the Lib Dems pick up the neoliberal agenda; up until that point they were the one party that was not advocating that ideology. Labour has a long way to go to become a left-wing or progressive party, but there are still socialists in the party (although marginalised) and I am hoping that even though different factions of new labour still controls the bulk of the MPs, that they will need to understand that they will only get back to being a mass party again if they shift towards the left; they lost a lot of working class people to the BNP and progressives to the Lib Dems. The socialists have sort of sat there in shock, horror and frustration and are only beginning to regroup ... keeping a close eye on things. Labour lost a lot of members under Blair's leadership and Brown's economic agenda, we'll see if they can get them back or if they choose to stay in the centre. People will drift back simply due to their hate for the Tories and Lib Dems, but they will need to do more to secure election victories and rebuild the party.

                No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

                by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:18:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with your analysis, I am sorry if that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYCee

            was not clear as I have been advocating the same thing on the site. I am thinking perhaps of some recent changes in Italy where the left is moving away from the centre alliance (with the PD and other centre groups)... we need to see if this is going to pick up speed as essentially the left was jettisoned by the PD in this rush to the centre-right. This is a positive development and one we need to keep an eye on as it is more relevant to us on the left as opposed to the Lib Dems that shifted to the right after Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell when the parliamentary majority went with Clegg and secured his leadership.

            No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

            by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:26:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you think Kennedy wouldve been better, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NY brit expat

              progressively speaking, had he been in Clegg's shoes?

              Thanks for the lowdown, as well, on Italian movement, etc... I should pay more attention to parts elsewhere. Has seemed to be all I can do to keep an eye on domestic affairs, and, of course, I must fight my inbred American isolationist tendencies!

              (Used to frequent the Guardian boards quite a bit... was helpful. They seem to have degenerated, though, last I looked. Used to have a lot of sharp knowledge, debating, and, of course, wit, on display!)

              As for your supportive take on the issue in question, core of this diary, I do appreciate all thoughtful voices raised and raising these issues.

              Keep on keepin on!

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:09:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No doubt, I think that the Lib Dems would have (0+ / 0-)

                probably won more seats thereby making a left coalition possible if Kennedy had won and I cannot see him going into a coalition with the Tories (rumours are that he opposed it at the discussions).

                The Guardian boards have gotten terrible, it is as if a ton of right-wing americans have found them and gone over there to troll the site. The articles are good, but the Guardian editorial board actually supported the Lib Dems and were slow to criticise the actions of the coalition; they have started to make up for that but it is slow and happily I am not holding my breath waiting for an apology from them or I would have died by now. One writer that I never miss in the Guardian is Gary Younge who writes on the US and on racism in the US, the other is Seamus Milne who writes on foreign policy and economic issues. On environmental issues, Monbiot is always good.

                No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

                by NY brit expat on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:26:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I do believe it is that hope thing (6+ / 0-)

    Progressives continue to believe; they hate to give up, to admit defeat.  But, if we don't do something soon, defeat is almost surely a certainty.

    •  Defeat is already here. That is, progressives (7+ / 0-)

      operating within the status quo framework are defeated.

      Within the status quo...

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:30:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The way I see it (6+ / 0-)

      The way things have been going this past few years, defeat is already a certainty.  Obama ran an EXTREMELY progressive campaign and promised massive changes in how the system is run.  As a restult he was swept into office with record breaking support, especially from young people who are the FUTURE of this country and often don't vote due to apathy in the current system.

      So what does Obama do after receiving such an overwhelming mandate for change?  He nominates the same people who always get nominated, he befriends the same corporate hacks who always get befriended and then went out of his way on DAY 1 to compromise with REpublicans even though his party controlled all branches of government.  Hell, even the bills he did pass that could be argued to be sort of progressive were just old Republican ideas meant to get REpublican support.

      Now look at the 2010 election.  The young people stayed home once again and as a result, the Dems lost power.  But nothing will change because the Dems keep proving time after time that no matter which party gets into power, the only legislation they will even CONSIDER is right wing, Republican legislation.  And if that is how either party operates, then how can anyone say that the Dems losing will make one bit of difference to how the country operates?    How can anyone really say that defeat isn't already a certainty anyway?  

      If the end result always seems to be the same, then what difference does it make which party is in power.  Settling for only slightly right-wing policy clearly isn't working for the base OR the country.  When you are on a downward spiral, slowing the descent just isn't enough to help people and only means REAL help gets pushed further into the future.  Assuming, of course, it happens at all.

      •  Again, on the money! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vigilant meerkat, Robobagpiper

        And, again, the only thing for me to add is...

        Thank you for thinking!

        Oh yeah, and thank you for sharing.

        More people who think ... should share.

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 07:12:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I totally agree (0+ / 0-)

        This is the trend I've seen, and I don't see it changing anytime soon, unless we can manage a stealth move to get into the WH someone who is very different from the gate-keepers of the status quo, and how likely is that?  The cards appear to be stacked against us; those in power will ensure things remain that way.  I don't see how we gain any leverage over the process.  So, HOW do we alter course, change the trajectory, reclaim the ground?    

        •  My latest theory (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vigilant meerkat

          Only support trusted, liberal/progressive candidates.  Right now the discourse in the country really ranges from right-of-center to far right.  That is what people think is realistic so they start to think anything even remotely progressive is bad and evil.  

          But of course, they are believing a myth.  They think conservative policies are good, even though those very policies have dug us into the hole we are in.  Conservative policies have failed America and therefore DO NOT WORK.  Yet you can't win elections on this message is everytime Dems win, they push more conservative policies.  All that does is reinforce the myth that conservative policies are the only true/realistic policies and the only way to get out of the hole we've dug ourselves into is to keep digging.

          I think Progressive candidates need to run, and if they lose, you run them again and again and again.  You keep doing it until the conversation starts to shift from "right vs right" to "left vs right".  And once people start to see there IS a difference between the parties and the candidates, then they will start to see a difference in policies that is based in reality and not the myth the right wing noise machine creates.

          Think about it.  You are an apathetic to uninformed voter.  You believe what the media tells you.  Why wouldn't you believe that Public Health Care is crazy when for decades, all your really SEEN is one party saying "Public health Care is death panels" and the other party saying "Public Health Care is too hot button an issue to support".   Why wouldn't you believe that the REAL problems need conservative answers when that is what both parties have been doing for ever to fix problems (ie. Lower taxes, cater to corporate interests, etc)?  

          That has become the norm, the reality, for so many people because that is what has been happening.  And if you live in that reality, of course REAL solutions will seem crazy...because nobody has ever bothered doing them before.  

  •  It would be a sign of tremendous immaturity (6+ / 0-)

    to go third party because of who gets appointed White House Chief of Staff.

    If he proposes Social Security cuts?  Knock yourself out, it's at least based on a policy outcome.  

    If he continues escalations in Afghanistan into 2012?  Can't blame anyone for taking that approach.

    Over a WH staff appointment?  That would be petulance for its own sake.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:29:11 PM PST

    •  I think you are missing the larger point. (8+ / 0-)

      I certainly dont see the Daley appointment as a stand alone ball of fire outrage.

      Havent you been paying attention?

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:31:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  On the blogs there was plenty of smoke blowing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amk for obama

        about it on the blogs.

        Which seemed rather pointless.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:44:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Daley appointment sucks, big time. (7+ / 0-)

          I certainly dont mean to diminish its suckiness.

          Point being, it stands in a long line of suckiness.

          It doesnt break the unfortunate mold, only strengthens it.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:54:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The level of whining over the Daley (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, virginislandsguy

            appointment is literally unprecedented in recent history.  CoS appointments were never considered controversial--even by the other party--before Obama became President.  Now, everyone with a keyboard thinks they should have veto power over WH staff postions.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:00:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Howard Dean has no problem with Daley, either. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Uberbah, MrJayTee

              When Dean ran around saying "I like! I like!"... well, my thought was the same as Greenwald's on that, too, which I saw in his response to a commenter on the thread.

              That is, to put it my way, Dean has been so frozen out by the D establishment that it appears he has been reduced to cheerleading for the extremely nonprogressive Daley as CoS simply because Daley actually treats him nicely. He likes me! He really, really likes me! (As Greenwald noted, not too self-serving. He has a point.)

              Hey, that's the case he made for him. Period. And really rather pathetic.  

              As one who has supported Dean, I have to say, he really ought to, at long last, extract that one foot he keeps inside the tent - such one-footedness only hobbles him... and, to date, has gained him virtually zero respect from the the A Team playuhs.

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:23:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  CoS's job is to handle personal relationships (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cedwyn, virginislandsguy

                not to set policy.  Howard Dean is a Democrat, and a sensible one.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 10:11:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Howard Dean has been reduced to a swivel head... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cassiodorus, Uberbah

                  Phase 1 - rightly warns us that plan X is no Rx for the nation.

                  Phase 2 - wrongly tells us, never mind that man in phase 1 who told you X about plan X... Now, everyone in line! Follow the donkey!

                  (Go along to get along... that is, that is his MO re his relationship with the Dem party... flimsy tho it is, he stubbornly clings to it... )

                  What we hear, in phase 2, is his need to belong to a party that doesnt respect him or his better angels on policy - remember when he was the "crazy one" the "angry one" - the "irresponsible one" (like, 2003/04, saying we should be more evenhanded on ME Conflict, settlements must go... or that the Iraq war was wrong? He was anathema to the Dem establishment, and it SHOWED... they couldnt dis and dismiss him enough!)

                  Just because Howard suffers from this particular dependency disease doesnt mean I have to suffer along with him.

                  Funny you should call him "a sensible" Democrat.

                  I will give you that. However, that no longer means a "sensible person" to me.

                  Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                  by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:21:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Since you are so eager to disparage anyone (0+ / 0-)

                    who isn't a third party type, how on earth is your agenda any more compatible with a partisan Democratic blog's goals than the random Freepers who pass on through?

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:07:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That is an 'interesting' perception... (0+ / 0-)

                      of what I am doing. Can we simply dispose of the Freeper silliness right off the bat? As far as I am concerned, that doesnt even dignify a response.

                      My aim is not to disparage Dem party types. My aim is to elucidate the bad behaviors of those who happen to belong to a party that now encourages such bad behaviors. If Dems werent doing that, I'd be praising them to the high heavens.

                      If folks care to take a walk down that road, dont blame me for noticing. And pointing it out. And calling others to notice and take action to help change a bad situation to something better.

                      What do you prefer? Status quo?(Bad to worse)

                      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                      by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 05:39:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I don't think I'm missing the larger point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy, Geekesque

        At least I don't think I am, but you may - and no doubt will - correct me if I'm wrong.  The larger point seems to be backdoor support for creating a Green Party in the U.S. to provide a home for progressives who feel abandoned by the Democratic Party.  This larger point doesn't actually address the broad spectrum of values that make the Democratic party viable as a national party, nor does it offer any road map for giving a public voice to those progressive values that are being ignored or repudiated so that some majority of voters will actually understand that those values are their values...

        Challenging the entrenched leadership of the Democratic Party with threats of abandonment probably isn't a winning strategy.  That leadership will never bend to our will if we cannot demonstrate that we can be a meaningful participant in the public debate and convince a meaningful percentage of voters that we are By God Right in our views.  It's a target-rich environment out there, but there are targets other than Democratic leadership that need to be addressed in order for progressive values to be advanced...

        "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

        by Jack K on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:54:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said "north" of this... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrJayTee

          Most Democrats dont feel the same about all issues, dislike different Dems for different reasons, etc. Many Dems have held onto the party as the lesser of two evils, as the only game in town, awful as it has been for progressives...

          Now if they can hang on for so long, with so many disappointing outcomes, so many disappointing officials, on so many issues...why then cant disaffected progressive Dems have the same tolerant acceptance of differences w/ the Green Party IF moving to it moves the message, overall, where most progressives want it to be moved? Why, with the Green party, does it have to be a seamless signing off on every issue, crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" in agreement, or it's no deal, cant be done? Seems crazy after all weve put up with from the party we have stuck with for so long...

          If we were to be grown up about it, wouldnt we say, we have to do something bold that might make a change (given that the status quo most certainly wont).

          I think it makes common sense. The Brits have the Lib Dems, why cant we forge a progressive coalition and make a persistently loud, viral thing of it?

          We simply dont have a chance with the Dem party. They just keep tippy toeing, and sometimes even taking giant steps, further rightward.

          (The progressive caucus? lol)

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:43:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  btw, "meaningful debate"? (0+ / 0-)

          I cannot think back to a time when I saw meaningful debate by Democrats. Lots of bullshitting and excusing and parsing and avoiding... lots of platitudes, lots of promises... empty, Made in Reversible..

          Challenging the entrenched leadership of the Democratic Party with threats of abandonment probably isn't a winning strategy.  That leadership will never bend to our will if we cannot demonstrate that we can be a meaningful participant in the public debate and convince a meaningful percentage of voters that we are By God Right in our views.  It's a target-rich environment out there, but there are targets other than Democratic leadership that need to be addressed in order for progressive values to be advanced...

          As for the addressing other targets, I ask you why you refuse to pin the tail on the Donkey? The tail of responsiblility?

          For god's sake, we have been targeting Republicans till we're blue in the face. We have hit them with everything we've got... while the Dems get by scott free, in their ever-blackening "white hats."

          No, we have targeted the Republicans and it has only aided the Democrats in maintaining the pretense that they are our good guys, and therefore, we should keep them off the unemployment line. Keep them in business, the business of serving the elites...

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:06:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Who the hell are you to tell someone how they ... (0+ / 0-)

      ....... should vote or what their interests are?  Or they would be immature by not supporting the crap that's come out of this White House?

      It's none of your business.  

      Btw, you can continue to swallow the bullshit that comes out of this administration whole.  And keep calling the rest of us "immature".

      How did that work out for you last November?  

      Ahhh, it didn't.  

      You would think people like you would learn.  

      If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time. Harry Truman

      by ThAnswr on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:38:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Green. (5+ / 0-)

    aka:

    Getting Republicans Elected Every November.

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:51:46 PM PST

  •  Only 2 teams in the stadium (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HamdenRice

    One of them is going to win.

    Sending in plays or trying to influence the coaches on a team not on the field ?
    I know that team, I remember when they decided Ralph Nader was so important they abandoned all their principles to run him, and it gave us Al Gore,,,no, wait, the other guy, the other team won.

    When has a new party been successful ?  Where did the Whigs go, how did the Republicans arise ?  Took a pretty big crisis, as I recall.

    Maybe a more apt question is, why did Norman Thomas stop running for President on the Socialist ticket ?

    Because, he said, the Democrats have taken over our programs.

    •  Abandoned all their principles? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m16eib, Uberbah, MrJayTee

      Er, I think you have that backwards...

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:33:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  when you pursue a course of action, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy

        the results of which are all but guaranteed to not support your principles, it's quite the abandonment, no?

        what cause any leftie holds dear was aided by the shrubya regime?

        Judging from picturebooks, apparently Heaven is a partly cloudy place. - Rilo Kiley

        by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 03:47:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The direction toward Nader was toward principles. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus

          The direction toward Democrats is away from them.

          The ball is in the Democrats court to woo progressives.

          It has been sitting there for ages, but to see progressive dems, you'd hardly know it. They keep acting like there's something more they can do FOR the party to make it act in their interests.

          A useless endeavor. Shovel more money and more votes their way, and all you will get is more of the same rightward trajectory, with their assistance. It has worked so well thus far, why change?

          By the way, it is exactly because of Obama's shrubya behaviors that I have finally said, Enough.

          Too much shrubya, minus the Dubya. And you call that good?

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:27:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  ah, the Nader canard again (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYCee, m16eib

      Nevermind that nine times as many Florida Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader, and each Bush vote was twice as bad, percentage wise, for Gore.

      Now it's 10 years later and people are still bitching about Nader, and but not a peep for the conservative wing of the party that did 18 times the damage.

      "Pragmatists don't DO things! They explain to you how things CANNOT be done." - AndyS In Colorado

      by Uberbah on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 11:24:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll say it. I like Nader ... a lot. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        I have always loved to hear him speak. He tells it like it is. He has principles and he has smarts. I loved hearing him even while I was dying to see Gore prevail during the Florida fiasco, and I never felt ill will toward Nader.

        Quite the opposite - I consider him one of our national treasures, like Chomsky. You know, Chomsky, the one who curdles Thomas Friedman's cream, because, as Friedman says, he has turned American exceptionalism (or was it "achievement'/) belly up... you know, exposing all the warts and worms, as he does. How inconsiderate! Charlie, being a big TF arselicker, was so eager to say that to Chomsky, making it clear he only deigned to have him on because his viewers had been bugging him for so long to do so. A very distasteful half hour for poor Charlie. lol.

        Anyway, this is what Nader does and folks cant stand it. He exposes the hypocrisy and the real deal behind both parties. Why would the Dems want anyone to listen to him?

        Well I have listened and I have liked. A lot. Even while I was still pulling those levers for the Dems, still hoping they would prove Nader just half right.

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

        by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 04:17:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why do you assume (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, Geekesque, Uberbah
    progressives would want to join the green party?

    That, imho, is not a meaningful alternative.

    The unions should disavow the democratic party and start their own, with true progressive principles.  But I think the unions will have to change first.  But that change may take the kinds of things that brought them to power in the first place to happen again.  Unfortunately.

    Denial is complicity.

    by Publius2008 on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:57:09 PM PST

    •  The Democrats have given Labor nothing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, Uberbah

      certainly nothing commensurate with Labor's efforts to get Democrats elected.

      The Green Party wouldn't be my preference.  A working people's party... now that would be something.

      Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

      by chuckvw on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:04:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the Greens are there. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, Cassiodorus, Uberbah

        They are for the workers.

        Why such resistance?

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:07:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Green Party has been around for a long time (0+ / 0-)

          What great accomplishments can we point to?  I can see the GP in a coalition, but certainly not in the leadership role.  They are as spent a force, as riven with divisions as are the Democrats.

          We need something new and Labor seems to me a better place to start.  They have members and money, and they are getting pissed off.

          Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

          by chuckvw on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:18:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But the Greens have the message of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cassiodorus, Uberbah

            progressive principles. They support where labor should be.

            Labor should support them.

            Hey, if labor were to unhitch from its corporate masters and stop doing the Weingarten thing, I would be supportive.

            Unfortunately, look at the record...

             

            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

            by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:30:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Labor isn't monolithic (0+ / 0-)

              Some unions are more progressive than others.  I think Trumka gets it far more than did Sweeney.

              I just don't think the GP can overcome its past and have sufficient popular appeal, or much success in attracting unhappy Democrats.

              Just my opinion, of course.

              Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

              by chuckvw on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:57:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's true. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Uberbah

                But is Trumka really going to "get it" to the point where he would do something bold, like standing up to the neoliberal Dems, or is it just that he "gets it far more than did Sweeney"?

                Alas, Biden gets it far more than Nelson, but still, he's a company man. (Bankruptcy bill, Iraq war... nodding his head to every non progressive thing Obama does... Where is the help in that?)

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 10:21:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Remains to be seen (0+ / 0-)

                  Telling tests are in the offing. There's a strong possibility that Obama will declare himself unequivocally to be an austerity, "bipartisan", free trading politician.

                  Who stands up?  Remains to be seen.

                  Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

                  by chuckvw on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 11:14:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He will never declare that... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    chuckvw, Uberbah

                    At least not until after the election, but not even then.

                    Oh wait... I can envision a scenario where Obama would be so bold as to tell the unadulterated truth about who he really is and what he and the party stand for...

                    If progressives continue to willingly play abused spouse to the point where they degenerate a few notches lower... and given the pattern, I can see that happening, why not just openly declare

                    himself unequivocally to be an austerity, "bipartisan", free trading politician.

                    I mean, what would he have to lose?

                    Progressives? You mean the ones who repeatedly cry "Ouch, ouch! Stop! Youre hurting me!" And then back up for more? Even as the beatings get worse?

                    Yeah, given the pattern, it might actually come to that.

                    Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                    by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 07:31:27 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Watch the State of the Union (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      NYCee

                      Of course he won't say it so many words, but his soaring rhetoric can no longer conceal the reality of his actual policies.

                      We pretty much agree, other than on the efficacy of the GP, so your sarcasm may be somewhat misdirected.

                      Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

                      by chuckvw on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 11:42:30 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I dont think the GP is efficacious. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        chuckvw

                        I think it is a weak body that has the principles we so sorely need. I think it should be given an infusion of disaffected "blue" blood to make it strong, to make our refusenik message, to broadcast our principles in the way of policy demands - get some voice, have some power, make them scared.

                        Deny them our votes. But make it attached to a very clear message.

                        See, if you just deny them your vote, the news the next day is: They stayed home. Why? We leave it to others to fill in that blank. (That still allows the "where else do they have to go!" CW to stay alive, too) There is no message attached to that, as in:

                        They didnt stay home, they voted, but they didnt vote Dem BECAUSE they demand delivery on progressive policy, such as is articulated by the Green party. They voted Green, instead.

                        That is what I am talking about.

                        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                        by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 04:30:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  They're "for" the workers... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy

          ...only insofar as a bunch of liberal bourgeois college students and ex-New Lefties can be "for" people they'd never actually associate with.

          No, if there is going to be a worker's movement in this country, it's going to have to position itself decidedly against the demographics that make up the bulk of those who are visible as the Green Party. A true worker's party won't look like the kids who were in the Battle in Seattle. They won't give two shits about "the arts" or self-expression. It'll be about helping out ordinary Americans, not about what the college-educated elites want.

          And in all honesty, a true worker's party would look, demographically and stylistically, more like the Tea Party than the Greens.

          What have you done for DC statehood today? Call your Rep and Senators and demand action.

          by mistersite on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 01:02:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, then join them... (0+ / 0-)

            Make them more of what you want them to be...

            At least those

            bunch of liberal bourgeois college students and ex-New Lefties

            (can you heap any more scorn?)

            had the gumption and guts to create a party that espoused the principles of all those wonderful non-Green-like folks you seem to see out there, who would do so much better at articulating and organizing around these principles... if only they would MATERIALIZE.

            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

            by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 07:15:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I was at the Battle of Seattle (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYCee

            Not a kid really, but I was there, as was a broad coalition of labor, environmental and human rights advocates.   There is more crossover than you suggest. And the Battle in Seattle changed the debate on "free" trade.  Of course, our side in the debate is always coopted by Village Democrats.

            I agree that the populist piece is critical, as it was in the New Deal, which, among other things, fostered the arts.

            I'm not sure anymore if such a thing is possible in my lifetime.

            Whom do you blame more? The rattlesnake, or the bipartisan guy who put it in your sleeping bag?

            by chuckvw on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 12:19:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  And who would push the unions to change? (0+ / 0-)

      A united coalition of disaffected Dems and Greens would have more chance of an impact, coalescing with unions, than a weak Green party and a corporate Dem party (they have become the "bosses" the workers should be fighting, at this point). Look at what the Dems, under Obama's leadership, are doing to education. Neoliberal, full throttle.

      However, most of the unions will first have to untangle themselves from Dem bedsheets to be worthy of the fight. There is a need for more grassroots caucus organizing and breaking of the old guard's chokehold, as happened with Chicago teachers, who, incidentally, got fired up in coaltion with parents, community activists to make the break... fired up due to the abysmal privatizing wreckage Chancellor Arne Duncan had left in his wake.

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:07:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Statistics (0+ / 0-)

    Are there any reliable stats on the number of voting Democrats that identify themselves as progressives or even further left? If we were to consider amalgamating with the Greens and any other left of liberal groups to challenge the status quo corporatist Dems we need to be both vocal and significant in numbers to attract media attention. And we need to attract spokespeople like Bernie Sanders and ex-senator Feingold. The Greens are too narrowly focused. We would need to embrace their agenda and expand it.

    the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror... FDR first inaugural address

    by blogokvetsch on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 09:02:21 PM PST

    •  I havent looked at statistics. (0+ / 0-)

      The Green party is pretty weak at present, from my general observation, but, hey, so was Apple, and look at it now! Point being, there is something good there, to do something with, to infuse with more progressive blood, to make it come alive.

      Why start from scratch?

      You know, back in the day, when workers were just starting to take action against the bosses, standing up for themselves, strength in numbers and in rejection of the status quo, well, if everyone had to first sit down and bean count how much support they had versus the forces aligned against them, weigh that, decide what to do based on those numbers (and wealth aligned against them) well... I dont think anything would have been put in motion...

      Sometimes I think modern times are the nail in our coffin. So much access to information, so much instant widespread communication at our fingertips... even your voice can type for you!

      And yet, it seems the more we have the less we act.

      So many things to pick up and talk about first, to examine and research and then... so many reasons to doubt... to reject... our own power as in strength in numbers, strength in the loud rejection of neoliberal blanketing and suffocating of our middle class and our democracy...

      I say start moving first, worry about statistics later.

      Time is growing short.

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:38:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good night... eom (0+ / 0-)

    Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

    by NYCee on Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 10:23:23 PM PST

  •  So you're advocating a repeat of 2000? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, ThisIsMyTime

    No thanks, I don't want another Bush in power.

    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

    by Lawrence on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 02:50:33 AM PST

    •  I am advocating a movement... (4+ / 0-)

      This party is DEAD progressively. DEAD.

      The things they claim as "achievements" are things Republicans dreamed up a few years before, they get recycled as Dem policies. There is no progressive movement - none. Look at the trajectory. What was rightwing a few years ago is the best we can do, and yes, quite progressive today... is how they sell it and the people swallow it.

      Cant even talk about gun control anymore.

      Cant rein in insurance companies and get down to actual HEALTH care

      Cant rein in the financial industry, the elites' continuing grab of more and more of the wealth, while the middle class doesnt just stagnate but atrophies... shrinks ... that is that trajectory.

      Cant keep education public. Cant keep the employees middle class, decent middle class:

      Education has gone corporate under Obama and Duncan. Neoliberal Oprahfied fairy tale bullshit: You get ahead, and you get ahead, and you get ahead... to a bright shiny career, in future, kiddies... but first the grown ups have to knock out the unions, de-tenure and de-benefit the teachers, and privatize those nasty public schools... (Malarkey alert! Malarkey alert!)

      Cant end our budget draining wars, put the MIC on a REAL diet and put those boys to work at something other than kill or be killed...

      Cant really push for Green jobs industry... we tried to push for deep sea drilling instead. Now its all in a dumb "on hold" stasis, because no one will do the right thing, while the wrong thing (more deep sea drilling) turned out to be too obviously a bad thing.

      So they continue deep sea drilling light... Baby steps back to same old, same old, memory hole should do the trick (Sorry brown gunked pelicans!)

      On and on and on we go.

      They cant, they cant, they cant... help us.

      Well, then why should I vote to help someone get in a position where they cant help me? Where they mostly harm me, by perpetuating the status quo?

      They cant? I cant... I cant vote for them anymore.

      You might try directing your complaints to them.

      I kept giving my vote, they kept selling out.

      I am done.

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:09:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you're done, then that's your prerogative. (0+ / 0-)

        From what you just posted, however, it looks like you're "done" mainly because you're being an ideologue.

        Alot of what you just posted is just plain false, in part probably due to you paying too much attention to ideologues like Glenn Greenwald.

        I'm not going to address it all, because it's just too tedious and I think you've arrived at a point where it won't make much of a difference anyway, but I will address one area that I know lots about:

        Cant really push for Green jobs industry... we tried to push for deep sea drilling instead. Now its all in a dumb "on hold" stasis, because no one will do the right thing, while the wrong thing (more deep sea drilling) turned out to be too obviously a bad thing.

        This is just plain ridiculous when one considers that the Obama Administration and the Dems on both the state and federal level have done quite a bit to create a "green jobs industry".  More than any Administration since Carter, in fact, and despite strong headwinds from Big Oil and their captive politicians in Washington and their captive media.

        A green jobs industry can't be created from scratch - it has a growth curve.  The formidable German green jobs industry, for example, didn't just pop up over night... it took ten years of nurturing to develop into what it is today.  To me it looks like you're not paying attention here or just have bad sources.  I've written a diary about how Obama Admin policies are pushing offshore wind:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Susan Kramer, over at cleantecnica, has done excellent work covering just how much has changed thanks to Dems and the Obama Admin in the push to build a healthy national renewables industry.  You might want to do some reading up on it:

        http://cleantechnica.com/...

        http://cleantechnica.com/...

        http://cleantechnica.com/...

        "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

        by Lawrence on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 11:59:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? I hear how we COULD be ... (0+ / 0-)

          a leader in green industries but we are still too slow to act. How we need to do more, much more.

          But I will check out your links.

          Surely you cannot deny that Obama showed his (right)hand re his "concern" for the environment when he unveiled a drill-baby-drill plan that mustve made McCain/Palin GREEN with envy... "Hey, that's supposed to be US proposing THAT!"

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

          by NYCee on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 04:50:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The U.S. would've been a leader in green tech (0+ / 0-)

            if Gore had become president instead of Bush.  But instead we had 8 years wasted during the time when green tech development really started to take off in the countries that were ahead of the curve.

            We've probably missed the train in regards to becoming a leader in many greentech fields because of that.  I really don't see us catching up to Europe or China in pv solar, and probably not with large scale wind power manufacturing either.

            But there are areas where we still can be a leader, such as electric and other alternative automotive technologies, cellulosic ethanol, and possibly still offshore wind and micro wind tech.  And the Obama Admin has, indeed, done lots to push advances in those fields.

            In regards to the Obama Admin's previous but now rescinded decision to expand offshore drilling:

            I thought it was a mistake.  And boy, did the Gulf Oil spill ever immediately prove him wrong on that.  I am, however, also satisfied that he learned from that and reverted back to the old policy.

            As to why he made that bad decision in the first place, my guess would be that he had become aware of the numerous international reports of peak oil being upon us and that that had had a big influence on his decision.  Imo, the decision was wrong.... but the ever increasing price of oil does demonstrate what a difficult decision it is.

            "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

            by Lawrence on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 11:22:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You'll get that anyway. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYCee, Uberbah, In her own Voice

      Since "progressive" principles are only voiced, nobody will take them seriously, and the Presidency will be handed off to the Bushes anyway.

      Now what was the "progressive" claim to being taken seriously again?

      "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" -- Gandalf, in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"...

      by Cassiodorus on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 07:40:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It already has been... (3+ / 0-)

        Obama and the Dems acting as stand ins.

        Or as the necessary kabuki partner in the face saving pretense that we have two real opposition parties.

        I mean, we still have to pretend we are a democracy to the world, if not to our own bowing and scraping citizens, no? One party just doesnt look all that good.

        Ergo, the crumbs! Ah! The difference! I see, I see!

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 07:48:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you really think that the Obama Admin (0+ / 0-)

          is acting as "stand ins" for the Bushes, then there's really not much sense in even having a conversation with you, since you've obviously lost touch with both objectivity and reality, tbh.

          "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire

          by Lawrence on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 12:02:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Then I guess you had better get busy and ........ (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYCee, Cassiodorus, Uberbah

      ..... tell the Obama administration/DLC Democrats the enthusiasm gap is real.  

      If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time. Harry Truman

      by ThAnswr on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:39:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Progressives are too divided to affect change (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYCee

    I have given up on progressives and American voters to affect meaningful change. Progressives are good for nothing but pontificating on blogs and backstabbing each other. They behave like smart Aleck. They are as removed from working class people as our elites. They had the chance to reach out to the disaffected Americans that got screwed up by the economy and form a left wing tea party. Unfortunately, the dissatisfaction has been commandeered by the tea party abetted by the rise of Obama.
    If progressives want to affect positive change, it is time to work in the trenches and organize an effective counter tea party considering how much there is at stake whether it is health care, our hard fought pensions and social security.

    •  I think we are on the same page... (0+ / 0-)

      Progressives are a scant bunch in terms of movement anymore... those who are willing to do more than "pontificate" on blogs... etc.

      That is why I am trying to say: take what little of those left who are still willing to rebel for the sake of positive movement and MOVE... to where the principles are... convince some of the pontificators to put a lid on that (or that alone) and start moving... in a new direction.

      Greens are for healthcare (single payer) and are for living wages, for rights and a decent quality of life for the workers, not the sliver of elites. They are for drastically reduced military spending, an end to useless wars (how were the Dems on Iraq? Ugh! Presidential candidate Kerry practically showed up in uniform, with wannabe sidekick Edwards w/his nice hair and lip service, mouthing the same pro war bullshite to get elected. 67% of the D Senate fell in line for that travesty)

      You want to start from scratch and ignore a faction that is already there for the taking, fine. If the tea party had rejected all their "not ready for prime time" types amongst the faithful, they wouldnt exist today.

      To borrow a phrase the Dems have made me sick of hearing: Why make the perfect the enemy of the good?

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 06:57:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We've got Social Security on the chopping block (5+ / 0-)

    or at least everything points to that, and where are the leading voices of Progressives, and where are the grassroots groups on the left that we've been supporting for years?

    Where are they?

    And the majority of those in the blogosphere, from what I have observed here and on other sites, are still saying that they are going to vote for Obama in 2012 no matter what, so why should his administration listen to a word that we say?  Even if they cut Social Security, even if they step on the third rail of politics, most people here are going to continue following them off the cliff.  Why should they do anything other than to continue to tell us to sit down and shut up and give money and volunteer for campaigns?

    This so called movement needs new leaders -- leaders who aren't afraid to stand up to this party that does not represent the best interests of the people.

    •  I stopped paying attention to Move On, etc... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassiodorus

      a long time ago. Such groups dont have an ounce of independence from the party. Again, they play at movement, at pushing the party to do the right thing, but, at the end of the day, they always say: Follow the Donkey! (Just like Dean did on HCR)

      Again, it appears one supports them more to keep them in business than to effect any real change.

      Move on ... to the Dem Tent... that's about it.

      Even the Working Families Party urged voting for the same old Dem crappers. Cuomo, who they supported, who I refused to vote for) started thwacking at unions before his ass even touched down on the governor's seat. Morning Joe didnt miss the chance to praise him, just as quickly. Great movement of the Dems like Cuomo to a more sensible position, Joe claimed - away from the old days of union support. These are Dems I can wrap my head around and high five! (Joe loves union bashing, middle class "sacrifice" - cant get enough)

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 08:35:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I keep reading about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYCee

        the Working Families party.  Is it a party at all?  To me it's seems to be just an offshoot of the Dem party.

        There is no party on the left that represents the best interests of the 90% of this country. That's the bottom line.  We are unrepresented.

        •  "We are unrepresented" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon, Cassiodorus

          Absolutely. At first glance, I thought you said "under-represented" and I was going to call it a glaring understatement. Glad I took a second look.

          You are exactly right.

          That ought to be shocking to progressives, shouldnt it?

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:00:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not really a party in the typical sense... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          Sorry, I'd have to read up on it more to give you a more clarifying description of exactly what it is. It's purpose, I do know, is to throw support, votes, toward the candidates that will help working people... which is why I found it strikingly bizarre that they were telling me to vote Cuomo.

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 09:03:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site