Democratic Ideological Diversity

I like this piece from The Democratic Strategist on making the debate about "What Dems Should Do" a constructive one. But I take issue with this portion:

While various elements of both the centrist and progressive wings of the party may sincerely believe that in the long run a smaller but more ideologically united party would ultimately be preferable, the present moment categorically demands a basic level of Democratic unity from every element of the coalition.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is silly. No one wants a SMALLER party. Everyone wants a larger party that adheres to the views they espouse. Ed Kilgore, one of the authors of this piece, wrote a terrific piece last December regarding the very real substantive differences on health care policy in the Democratic Party. The group whose view prevailed love that Affordable Health Care Act. The rest of us think the "reform" part of the bill is a bad joke (we like Medicaid expansion of course.) What both groups want is for MORE people to agree with them. I say let the debate go forward, with respect of course. But more importantly, with honesty. The Third Way is not an honest organization. And I won't stop saying that until The Third Way stops being dishonest. The virtue of folks like Ed Kilgore, Stan Greenberg, Ruy Texeira and William Galston (the folks behind TDS) is their ability to argue their views with respect and integrity. I don't agree with them that much on the politics, but I will defend their way of handling the debate. They are models to us all.

Speaking for me only

< What Can Be Done? | 49% >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "I am not a member of any (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    organized political party. I am a Democrat," Will Rogers.

    The center-right, moderate-to-conservative pandering in Congress isn't doing much for me or folks like me, or for the country as a whole, IMO.

    Ideological diversity means accepting left ideas and going with them, not just accepting republican-lite ideas. When your own party marginalizes you for years, then calls for unity, well, whose unity? I am I supposed to sell out New Deal and Great Society policies for unity?

    I don't think so. I'll stay in the margins.

    Well said (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    Henry David Thoreau (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    "How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    I have been registered inde for years.  I voted for a few Repubs when I was younger, then shifted and would even vote D even as a default, then added an occasional third party lib.

    This vote, a couple of Ds and several greens.  Greens actually govern as libs.

    The Repub party is now the bastion of the freak fringe and the Dem party now has the old fashioned 'free markets!' Repubs and the old fashioned spineless Dems.  Not interested in a free market approach to SS.  I can't wait until the Dems start pushing to privatize medicaid and MCR as an expansion of the 'new' (as in 20 yr old Repub) HCR legislation.

    Of course, I don't feel I'm in the margins at all any more.


    Thanks, and a Slight Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by edkilgore on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:50:12 PM EST

    Long time, no talk.  

    Thanks so much for the props about our commitment to honest and civil discussion at TDS.

    I do want to respond to your concern that we were creating a straw man by suggesting some Dems want a temporarily smaller but more coherent party. We were specifically thinking of Ari Berman's recent and much-discussed NYT op-ed on the Blue Dogs, which very explicitly called for a temporarily smaller but more coherent party. Yes, of course, he and everyone else ultimately wants a "big tent" party, but some argue the route to that goal goes through some disciplinary measures that are seriously exclusionary (and nearly all of us think there are some lines that can't be crossed, regardless of the political consequences).  

    We certaintly weren't making any broad-based criticisms in that passage; just trying to accurately describe the perennial points of view that are often expressed.

    Ed Kilgore

    party platform (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by dandelion on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    Well it does seem reasonable to expect that anyone calling himself or herself a Democrat or running as a Democrat should at the very least support the party platform.  Otherwise, what is the point of having a party or a platform to begin with?  

    You may enjoy this Times of India (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    article.  A number of electees decided to form their own party post-election.  High Court disqualifies rebels

    Justice Sabhahit observed: "It's well settled that the petitioners cannot be permitted to resort to dual hat theory, contending that they are elected by the voters. They were elected on the basis of their credibility having an expectation that they would be fulfilling the aspirations of the voters and implementing the manifesto of the Bharatiya Janata Party...."

    I thought coherent (none / 0) (#67)
    by Madeline on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    was what was being created in 2008 with the Obama election.

    Isn't that why so many progressives did not want Hillary Clinton? Too old school?  Too much of a traditional Democrat?

    Wasn't Obama the one who would begin the change to wealthier, more educated voters vs always representing the down trodden? Obviously Obama got the message.

    Sorry.  This convert conversation is always, always presented. Like millions of Democrats who voted this midterm, there was no where else to go.  They went to the Republicans


    Nice Dream (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    So they voted out Feingold? Because he was no better than an R?

    It has more to do with the traditional swing mid term against the party in power, and for the house redistricting. ANd yes the economy for all those to stupid to be paying attention to the fact that voting for the party that started the mess (R) is not going to help.

    Hillary Obama Gore bla bla bla mainstream Ds... etc all would have fared about the same, because they are all about the same. Trashed economies do not swing back at the clap of a hand.


    Not at all what happened (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:45:28 PM EST
    in Wisconsin.  Find another example as your evidence or do the research.

    Not My Theory (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:37:19 PM EST
    But Madeline's

    Like millions of Democrats who voted this midterm, there was no where else to go.  They went to the Republicans

    Do you agree with Madeline, but not in your state?


    Sen. Feingold (none / 0) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    lost because of a generally bad economy and because he did not run a good campaign. Voters may have also turned against him for not taking earmarks that could have helped the local economy.
    I do not believe the reasons that CC provided (Governor Doyle's unpopularity and lack of help from National Democrats) for Senator Feingold's loss. Her reasons cannot explain Strickland and Fisher loss next doors in Ohio but incumbent Bennett's win in Colorado.

    Look at the data (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    as it's not about believing me.  See jsonline.com; The data are so striking that the analysts are calling it nigh impossible, but it happened:  The votes in the gubernatorial and senatorial races were incredibly identical, town by town and city by city and county by county across the state of Wisconsin.  The two races were tied inexorably -- and the local analysts put it on Doyle for dragging down Dems in both races.  

    Now, that in part is owing, I agree, to Feingold just not having the fire in his campaign this time -- but that just means that he did not separate himself from the drag of Doyle in the gubernatorial race.  As for your statement re the DNC, that is not mine; I think that is andgarden's complaint on another thread?  I do not agree that money made the difference.

    And, uh, look at a map, too.  Ohio is next door to Wisconsin?!  The geographical errors on TL of late really do reinforce our perception of the rest of the country's perception of the Midwest.  If you don't know where we are, it's a good tipoff that you don't know what you're talking about at all when you talk about us. . . .


    Blaming others without introspecting (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    will not solve your problems. Sen. Feingold was not a newbie Senator. He has a strong following of his own among the left. One can ask the question why he did not generate enthusiasm to lift Doyle instead of getting "dragged down" by the Governor.
    Yes, I know where Wisconsin is. The "next door" phrase was used more loosely than you interpreted; it was used loosely to convey a thought about the general economy in the midwest; I did not imply that Wisconsin and Ohio were contiguous states.

    I meant (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    lift Barrett.

    Local issues played a role (none / 0) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:27:40 PM EST
    Hydrofracking became important in western Pennsylvania, job losses in the defense sector in Ohio, New Hampshire, owing to winding down of war in Iraq and procurement changes for war in Afghanistan, NASA job losses along Space Coast in Florida- all played a role.

    I want a smaller party (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    that forms coalitions on issues but then is not bound to dilute its platform and principles to accommodate those who affiliate for one issue but hold opposite or at least substantively differing stances on other issues.  That has destroyed the Dems with their Blue Dogs.  Even the Majority Leader in the Senate differs from the Dem platform on a key issue.  That's not a party; that's a mess.

    But I'm in a state that does not require that voters register by party, so it has worked here.  (I think that I could not move to a state that so restricted me to registering by party.)

    Well ya got one now (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Rojas on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    Let us know how that works out.

    Good line (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 01:47:27 AM EST
    but it didn't work out too well for you with your Blue Dogs, did it?

    That Big tent as a pup tent thing? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Rojas on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 08:37:25 AM EST
    Naw it ain't been workin out so well. When Bubba and the coasters pitched that NRA as public enemy #1 thing it cost us Ann Richards. I think we all know how that worked out...
    Chet Edwards is gone with this last sweep and we'll see Perry speaking to a national audience trying to gain traction.

    The sectionalism of the nineties had us selling the store to the multinationals and the east coast financial interests  while we argued amongst ourselves. I'm pretty sure it's all down hill now.


    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:07:29 AM EST
    I've been arguing for deciding on some issues we all agree on and fighting for them for quite a while now. It seems to me there could be some issues that we all agree on like stop bailing out the bankers.

    For the last eight years we've been running on "We're not Bush" or "we're not the GOP". It just isn't enough. Or when it is enough like 2008, you it really doesn't get you much because you never campaigned on getting a mandate based on issues. I've said it time and again: you really want to motivate people to vote then give them something to vote FOR not simply just against.

    How about some actual anti-war (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    Possibly Obama's biggest mistake was deciding to continue the misguided Bush War on Terror policies, with all the degradation of basic rights and values that entails, both here and abroad, not to mention the unsustainable drain on our finances.

    Is this (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:31:40 AM EST
    the Kilgore article you are referencing?

    From this perspective, what's strange is that defenders of private health insurance--or what Digby calls "Republicans and corporate centrists"--are still fighting the largely symbolic public option as it exists in the Senate today. She interprets that as a matter of pure power politics, and as an effort to crush progressive liberalism. Naturally, she thinks the Left should respond in kind--not out of indifference to "substance," but as a recognition that the real substantive fight has largely been lost, and as a demonstration of the Left's own power, backed up in this case, she argues, by public opinion.


    But what this debate illustrates is a broad and pre-existing gulf between Democrats on a pretty fundamental issue. Those of the Clintonian, "New Democrat" tendency have long argued for the use of "market means" to implement progressive "public goals." In the context of health care, that's always meant support for what used to be called "managed competition," and more recently, "premium support": a private health insurance system regulated and subsidized by government to provide universal coverage. On much of the Left, as noted earlier, "market means" are considered inherently illegitimate when it comes to health care. In the end, the "public option" didn't serve to bridge that gap. But we all need to be honest about the gap itself, and aware of its possible existence in other areas of public policy.

    Yes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:32:33 AM EST
    The idea (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:54:36 AM EST
    was to show that public opinion supported "Left" ideas and so therefore they were not "Left" but mainstream.  Obama's reliance on the market for a lot of things has surprised lots of people.  It's what's prevented him from being FDR-like.  

    Looks like after being a bit ill yesterday the blame is falling again on the Left from Dem bloggers.  If only we had organized more.  The other argument from Dem bloggers is that this was inevitable.  So which is it.


    a bit (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:21:12 AM EST
    of both?

    It is hard for me to imagine (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:06:11 AM EST
    that for the next three or four months, the media is going to beat on and beat on and beat on any one of the six things that the Democrats did wrong.  I'm just not built that way.  I'm only about attaining goals and when something stands between me and my goal, once I have selected it and if the goal is sound and ethical and holds up under some serious scrutiny, I will worry the thing that stands between me and my goal literally to death.

    But I will trust that it is important to focus on our unity....until that damned thing that I instinctively know is going to utterly destroy it blocks my vision.  That catfood commission MUST GO NOW, it is going to tear the party apart.

    Not months but years (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    It was fun for establishment media to take down a Clinton.  It was great ratings to elect Obama.  It will be National Esquireresque to take him out.

    Actually, with the Repubs in charge of the House, the President now has cover for attacking SS.  He can sell it as a bi-partisan fu to the working class.


    If he does it (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    He is done.  He may think he has cover but the people know he has a veto too.  Nothing is ever forced down his throat.  And is there cover when you are the one who put this commission together, and you are on the record several times saying that entitlements need to be cut before Republicans took power of any branch?

    I think I agree (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    that the way he handles this will determine more than any other single thing if he gets a second term.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    The seniors came out in greater numbers this election to vote against the Dems and him (even though he wasn't on the ballot, he really was).  Imagine the senior turnout (and those about to be seniors) if he cuts or tampers in anyway with Social Security.  About 20% of the country will be 60 and older by 2012 (give or take) - and they vote.  You think they are gonna let that stand??

    And I don't see the youth turning out like they did in 2008.  They didn't turn out this time, even though it was oh, so important.  And even with Obama on the ballot, he won't be new and exciting any more, so I think those numbers will sink - heck, he couldn't even fill rally halls now when he was campaigning.

    If the Cat Food Commission is successful, I look for a "walker march"  - right to the ballot box.


    the ironic thing is (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    they will vote for republicans.

    who are gonna what? increase social security?  I don't think so.

    Bottom line, he can't cut it without help.  And I think we all know where that help will originate.


    It will still be (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    His signature on the bottom of the bill.  No one is going to remember or care if Alan Simpson wanted it.

    They don't target the elderly (none / 0) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    No one ever talks about cutting current srs.  The cuts will be staggered to those below 60.  My parents are very secure that they won't be cut and are fine with my generation being cut.

    Below 60 is still (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    cutting right into the heart of the loyalist, always at the polls voters....and they will be raising the retirement age of those people when many of them are already experiencing many health issues due to aging, and their insurance is total crap now.  They are finished if they do it.

    You're (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    absolutely right. Even the GOP elite get that here in Ga. Isakson was campaigning on "saving social security" and don't think that people won't buy it from the GOP.

    Unfortunately, this time around (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    both Republicans and Democrats are going to save Social Security by destroying it. I mean make changes that make it worth less to the people who need it the most.

    Oh, no. Sorry I mean "fix" it.  


    Who are they going to vote for? (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    Repubs?  I'm not a Dem so I could care less if the Dem party implodes along with the Repub party...  but if neither Dems are Repubs support women's rights, neither will move on gay rights, both support war as a jobs program, both support cuts to social nets, just which corporatist are they going to vote for?

    I just can't see anything more than minor tweaks in either direction with our oligarchy.


    I agree, it looks that way (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    It will be a revolving front door to all of their jobs until someone stands for something other than big money again.

    Well there is some debate on whether or not (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    some of the changes to how benefits are calculated would have an immediate impact on the amount that seniors currently received. The information was vague without enough detail to really form an opinion but the idea is out there.

    Not all seniors feel that as long as I'm covered I don't care what happens to you. I do not feel that the government has a right to default on their obligation to you any more than they have a right to default on their obligation to me.


    thats absolutely (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    correct.  it will all be about "future" recipients and means testing etc.

    not touching current recipients will be the first thing out of their mouths.

    they know well which side of the bread is buttered.


    Actually, many elderly polled said they WERE (none / 0) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    very concerned about the future of social security for their children and grandchildren. I think your parents may be in the minority thought.

    not only that (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    but a recent poll of younger voters had something like 90% consider social security "very important", or something to that effect.

    Makes sense (none / 0) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    Younger voters are paying big dollars into the system PLUS contributing to a 401K (if they have access and a decent paying job). Paying in should make something available in return. Besides, they just witnessed what the 401K is worth when the market collapses on a grim day.

    Then, if social security were privatized, it would just be the new risky investment toward retirement (but, I bet contributing to it would be mandatory just like health insurance). What a thieving racket they have going.


    I think Republicans (none / 0) (#68)
    by Madeline on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    will be the saviors of Social Security. It's perfect for the 2012 election.

    this is my #1 fear (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    and you are already beginning to hear the drumbeat for this from people like Tweety and Scarboro.  we (the "blogosphere") is now mentioned in most every mention of the tea party.  as in 'ignore the blogosphere, ignore the tea party and sit down and make the cuts that have to be made'

    I honestly think the fact that it will happen is almost a given at this point.  the only remaining question is the severity.


    Then disarray it is (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    I'm not a sociopath and nobody will shove it down my throat that I must become one, I'm not a self centered scumbag either, if you cut me I bleed and I plan to stay that way. I cannot just stand idly by while they do this.  They have pumped billions and billions and billion into economic easing that will do nothing for the economy.  Even the people who have been doing it have said so.  Wall Street wants the days of unheard of robber baron profits back even though it is done and the bled out economy lies twitching on the ground.  Economic TEAM OBAMA only understands that economy though and savvy businessmen.  They are pumping 500 billion into bailing out the banks again, and they will make it impossible for the elderly at the same time and nobody gets to retire ever.  The only thing that can turn it around is utter insane protest, a party in shambles, and violent disarray I guess.

    or, god help us (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    President Palin

    There will be no President Palin (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    The Republican party is many things, but not into "women's studies".  The first set of respctable dangling nads will knock her right off the possibility pedestal and right out of her naughty monkey pumps.  The only way she gets on that ticket is VP.  Older rich republican men like what her mouth says, and they probably like fantasizing other things about that mouth, but like all rich republican men that is the extent that they want her dictating anything other than a memo they are vocalizing in her direction.

    Yes, the Repubs have their own bus (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    to toss Palin under it when they are done using her.  They do more often manage to use their token women without abusing them so classlessly as Dem men do.  But the result so often is the same for those token women.

    Of course, the result is not so classless for other women, the rank-and-file in the Repubs, which keeps them loyal and coming back to the polls for male pols.  The Dems have a lot to learn about that game to be played.


    She is something though (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    She deliberately went out there and shook the nickels right out of the trees while the shaking was good.  She is a playa!

    Heh Heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    "Naughty Monkey Pumps".

    Awesome.  :)


    I just think this is wrong (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    if you look at the early primary schedule its clear that it is totally possible for her to sweep the early primaries and totally upset the boy apple cart.

    I agree that they will do pretty much all they can to stop her but what can they do?  their record of shutting out tea party candidates has not been good.

    IMO the only thing that will stop her is her deciding not to run and everything she has done recently say that is not on the table.

    and as eager as dems are to run against her she makes me very nervous.  I would be far less nervous if I thought Obama had a clue.


    See: 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    As if the Repub boyz can't change the rules midgame, too.

    and really (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    how much better would president Barbour be?

    First off he is pasty and he has a penis (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    and he is not difficult to work with as long as he gets his cut.  Secondly, his voice exudes soft spoken entitlement........Home Sweet Home

    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    for the mental image



    Just getting even for the dance videos :) (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    Segue: the American south. Called (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    ATT to remove international roaming and data packages.  Very deeply Southern male voice with lots of politeness flourishes.  He asked if I had any questions.  I sd., where are you? Huntsville, Alabama.

    See--there is yet hope for the U.S. economy.  From Bangalore to Huntsville.


    A lot of the men down here (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    speak wonderfully.  It could be like hanging out with a bunch of Australians if so many of them weren't such a bunch of trainwreck flabby chauvinists. They could get top billing with hot girls on that use of voice alone if only :)

    Why would the boys in the backrooms (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    want her?  These are rich powerful Republican people who usually get your ball rolling.  Everything is rolling their way right now.  They would only trust her if they were desperate, and they were running against Obama....they needed pretty faced star power of some sort.

    The woman won't study the issues though before debates, she is very self centered and difficult to work with.....you throw a vagina in there and she is not the sort of cog they want in the top spot or trust in the top spot.


    I think you guys are missing the (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    story. I dont doubt they will try to stop her.  they are already doing that. but
    they MAY NOT BE ABLE to stop her.  
    they cant rig the early primaries.  and if she get the nomination you can be sure she will get all the money she needs.  

    she doenst strike me as someone easily sidelined or controlled.  if they get to aggressive I could see her doing it just to spite them.  did you see her "morning in america" ad post election this morning.


    mourning in america maybe.


    Did you follow the Dem. primaries? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    dont think (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    those lessons are transferable.  for several reasons.  first Palin doesnt give a damn about splitting the party which was what Hillary constantly tiptoed around.  second they only got away with what they did to Hillary because she was a democrat and a Clinton.  let them try to railroad Palin that way and I guarantee you there will be civil war in the party and a veritable eruption in the village with Palin as the poor victim.

    fun times.


    Per today's Times of India, Palin (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:13:41 PM EST
    is frontrunner for GOP nomination for President!

    check (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    That commercial is hilarious (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    Seriously though, she sold herself as a face this campaign cycle, she collected big money, she quit her low paying job to do it, and this was the time to do it.  As far as I can tell though that is all she is and when the Republican money wants to stop you in the Republican realm it does.  Our problems are not going to get better though, and the people she represented this go around will only make things even worse.  She is an opportunist, I'll give you that.

    morning in america (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    is only the most recent Reagan reference. she has been dropping them hard and fast lately.
    she sees herself as the new Reagan.  she is running.

    I predict that she won't :) (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    If she primaries she will be stomped :)

    Let's talk (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    GOP primary: The simple fact is that SC decides the nominee so while the people of SC may decide to do their usual bleeting number and come out and vote for whoever they are told to which is what they usually do, there is always that chance that they won't BUT if they break with the establishment, it will have been decades since the sheep have broken out of the pen.

    I'm being optimistic, Capt. Howdy (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:22:20 PM EST
    Or I'm thinking that anyone from any major urban area (like Chicago, e.g.) has inculcated a few Democratic "matters of faith," as it were. In the top two or three items that blare "Do no harm" is Social Security.  Words of wisom from my dad, who came of age during the depression: The Republicans want to get rid of Social Security...They will keep trying to do that." Let me tell you this: If the Democrats--as a party--and if any Democratic President, actually joins in harming or directly or indirectly destroying Social Security, I will turn away from said party/person permanently.  (This is from the yellow-est of yellow dog Democrats...myself.)  At this date, I cannot imagine President Obama falling into any trap that threatens Social Security.  No Democrat is that dumb.

    Not that there's anything wrong w/that (none / 0) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    Democractic Ideological Diversity

    as long as we are ALL willing to consider the arguments on both sides.  The word liberal implies an open mind.  If you are not willing to have one, then I submit, the word no longer applies to you.  A liberal would be willing to at least try (and consequently support the team/side from which the proposal came) what is feasible if it moves us toward a goal.

    I want you to have an open mind (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    and then agree with me.

    Heh. I often do. (none / 0) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:18:42 AM EST
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    Our society has become too polarized nowadays, and people only want to read / hear what they already believe.  Even within the Democratic Party, there are many interests that compete and contradict each other, and no one wants to listen.  Opposing views, or at least, alternate views are not welcome on many blogs, lest the poster be castigated and called names, as if the forum was a junior high school.  Basically, people have lost the art of having something called "civil conversation".

    Sad, really.  I don't see us going back, and everyone will become more entrenched in their position, and no one will be willing to compromise.


    At this blog (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:06:59 AM EST
    misrepresenting the views of other people is not welcome.

    I especially dislike your comment here in that it is off topic and an attempt to continue a dispute that has nothing to do with the post.

    Perhaps it is time for you to find a new blog home.


    A little paranoid, are we? (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    Was I speaking of you?  No.

    And I like some of the commenters here, so I'll be sticking around, thanks.


    No matter who you were speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    it was off topic.

    Stop the crap or you may have to stick to Jeralyn's threads.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:14:23 AM EST
    I want you to have an open mind (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:53:01 AM EST

    and then agree with me.


    On this point (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    It's not an option.

    Stay on topic.