The Right Flank Of The Dem Party

Via this dkos diary, Evan Bayh:

“I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”

The continuing struggle for what the Democratic Party will represent can not be seen through the lens of Obama's personality and political fortunes. There are different segments of the Party arguing for their views. Poms poms for Obama do not help progressives. There must be a Left Flank arguing for their view.

Speaking for me only

< How the CIA Misjudged the Pseudo-Informant at the Afghan Base | Hillary Arrives in Haiti >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bayh isn't part of the elite? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:36:26 PM EST

    As for me, (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    I'm still desperately searching for the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.  

    We left. Mostly. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    And no, that's not a pun.  It's a much smaller group than it used to be, so much harder to find.  Waste of time to look for progressive allies at this stage?  Not necessarily...but focus on the issue.

    You could google PUMA and get a road map for some of the deserters...google Howard Dean for other hints, etc.

    Or google the issue of concern and stop worrying about 'the Party.'


    Saw this this morning (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    Was grimly amused to think of those who think a Coakley loss would demonstrate that you don't mess with the left of the D party.  Even if it should send that message, it won't.

    Anyway, it's out of my hands, so pass the popcorn.  

    Scratch that - pass the scotch.  

    Whose Center? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    It seems that we continually allow a select few to move the bar as to what is the center. The public option or even the revised edition of lowering the age on Medicare weren't far left radical concepts. They were main stream solutions that the majority of the country were in favor of.

    Maybe these concepts didn't sell well in southern Indiana but I bet if he bothered to look he'd find that western Indiana and probably Indianopis didn't have a problem with either of these options.

    If you take Cedwyn and Booman (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    seriously, this is all because we say bad things about each other.  Everything would be on it's way to perfect if only we focused on being enraged at Rush and allowed the Left to continue to be as Rightwing as they are.  Neither one ever says how we will actually get the left to give us left representation though.  If you will only read them enough though and "believe" you can develop this fuzzy idea that at some point of our being super duper nice to those who bear the party affiliation but give us no representation...they will wake up one morning with us laying next to them after a night of being effed over, and suddenly they will realize that they've always loved us and would do anything for us.

    Bleh, Thank god the rest of my (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    weekend is going to be just as busy as the start.  I checked the Booman just now in hopes that he found himself, and guess what?  Obama "found" his inner FDR.  B.S.....Obama has been brung kicking and screaming to sit in the same room with the inner seed of his possible FDR that he tried to kill off long ago.

    Obama does not now (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:31:59 AM EST
    nor has he ever had even the hint of an FDR seed.

    There's also a marked difference between the Obama speech on Saturday and FDR's motives.

    Obama had a golden opportunity to jump hard into finance industry regulation and in fact, to break up the 'too big to fail' institutions as soon as he took office.  He didn't.  Now with his ratings slipping and mid-terms coming up he decides to make a proposal that hits at large financial institutions, a popular move.

    Contrast that with FDR who was involved in the background with the Pecora Commission before he took office.  It was FDR's intention to reform the finance industry.  Social Security was FDR, the GI Bill was FDR, etc.

    Nothing is Obama.

    During Obama's first months in office we so often heard stories about FDR saying 'make me do it'

    While that may be true concerning some issues it wasn't the case with some of the major elements of the New Deal.

    Everyone should understand this:

    There is no 'inner FDR' in Obama.  He was never anything but an utterly empty personality.


    You know what though? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 06:28:37 AM EST
    I don't care if Obama is an empty personality anymore.  I'm okay making Obama do what I need done in this world at this point.  Completely agree with you about Obama having NO inner FDR though.

    Yup (none / 0) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    good comment and I'm Ok with that as well.

    But, given his belief in what government IS and the people around him I wouldn't hold my breath.


    Well, this is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:55:52 PM EST

    If these pictures can be believed, it isn't just the "right flank" of the Democratic Party that could be a problem....

    See, this is what you get (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 03:59:51 PM EST
    And nobody thought of this because I have been to known to legitimately diss Obama and friends.  Obama and friends earned this all by themselves.  What was that write up that BTD linked to weeks ago that called the Senate bill a POS and said that it was going to lead exactly to this?  I can't remember the author's name.

    Drew Weston's piece, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    And yes, he nailed it on the head.

    Errata: (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    It was Charles Pierce, writing in the "Sunday Slacker" column of The Nation, Dec. 20, '09.

    Charlie Cook Ripped Dems (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    For failing to recognize that having a job is much, much more important to most people than being compelled to purchase health insurance. So far Dems have been working against an extremely demoralized and badly organized Republican party.

    The worst thing about the Coakley debacle is that everyone can now see just how vacuous and lazy a year in power has made Dems.

    Drinking their own kool-aid, Booman and company have convinced themselves George Buch left office January 2010, not 2009, and that the Republicans, not Dems, handed out the checks to big pharma.

    That nonsense flies only with the fraction of low-information voters who still believe the emails they get from pols soliciting cash.

    There's nothing remotely steely-eyed about bending over for corporate America and then standing in front of the camera asking 'who done that?'Republicans are going to learn a lot about themselves and how to run against Dems from the Brown/Coakley race.

    Th two Davids are as good as anyone in the business. They'll need to be. Republicans are going to dine on the HRC fiasco for the next four decades  whether it passes or not.

    Get this straight: Dems borrowed a ton of money repeatedly over the last year and used it to pay big pharma and pay folks to stay home on extended UI benefits rather than putting them directly to work, as FDR did. The unemployment numbers scream incompetence and behind every statistic is an American worker or an American family who lost a year while Dems tried to erect a monument to their own awesomeness.

    As for Marshall, he became a shill for establishment Dems a long time ago. He's supposed to be smart. His complaints about Coakley and the failure of the Dems might carry some weight if he deigned to recognize he's exhibit 'A' of all that's wrong with the current incarnation of the Democratic party.

    When you forget that most people want a good job above all else, you can't claim any connection with the people, or with reality.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 08:33:09 PM EST
    this may be a first: I agree with Evan Bayh. I dont agree with him in the way you probably think though. The people didnt vote for higher taxes like he said simply because Obama didn't campaign on issues. Obama campaigned on personality and when you don't campaign on issues, you dont get a mandate on issues. So in the end Bayh is right that Obama had no mandate to do that but the bottom line is he had no mandate for any issue.

    So Bayh supports Medicare for All? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    Medicare for All does not cause higher taxes because people would be paying premiums for their insurance just like they do now.
    Medicare for All does not cause higher deficits because spending would come from the premiums.
    Medicare for All does not cause more intrusive government because there is no mandate to buy insurance.  People CHOOSE to buy into Medicare.

    Conclusion: Bayh supports Medicare for All.

    No, Bayh supports whatever will keep (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    pushing the value of his wife's Wellpoint stock up, and that sure isn't Medicare For All...

    Boos and Hisses for Obama don't help either (none / 0) (#3)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    If Coakley loses (and perhaps even if she wins), the Democrats should bring out the nuclear option.  Change the senate rules to eliminate or limit the filibuster.  How many votes would it take to do that?

    Help what? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    If he talks like Bayh, then it helps.

    If he talks like the Left Flank, then cheers and applause will help.


    I don't want cheers or boos (none / 0) (#6)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    I want to have a public discussion of issues on the merits, not the personalities.  One way anti progressive forces win is by tapping into the populist mood in the country and raising the noise level to the point where the progressive message is lost.  We should not get sucked into this trap.  Getting rid of the filibuster would take away a lot of the grandstanding and diversion.  It would also put and end to the post partisan nonsens and let the battle of ideas play out for the nation.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    I assumed we were speaking in general terms - to wit, criticizing POLICY positions.

    That said, I think there is pelnty of room to discuss political tactics and strategy as well.

    For example, the President's address today on wall Street banks is good politics.


    I agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    For example, the President's address today on wall Street banks is good politics.

    Good to see he is talking the talk.  Now let's push him and the Dem leadrship so that he walks the walk.  Financial reform ought to be an issue where the Dems can turn the populist tables on the Republicans.

    BTW Where is the NFL playoff thread.  I need to call my bookie :-)


    Bayh (none / 0) (#20)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    I dig Evan, he was my pick for HRC Veep