Dems Who Fight For The Rich

Sam Stein:

[Robin] Carnahan (D-MO)] isn't the first Democratic Senate candidate to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway [[D)] has said that he favors keeping the current rates for "five, eight, maybe ten" additional years. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who is running for Sen. Evan Bayh's soon to be vacated seat, also has said he would support extending the entire package of Bush tax cuts[.]

(Emphasis supplied.) Like Heath Shuler and Travis Childers (to name just 2) before them, these Dems are not progressives on most issues. Are they preferable to the Republicans? Of course. But why progressives lift a finger or spend a dime on trying to elect people who fundamentally disagree with them is beyond me. But by all means, join the voices trying to run Charlie Rangel out of office. After all, all Rangel does is fight for the issues progressives care about.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Roger Clemens Charged With Lying To Congress >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We in MO have the option of voting for a (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    "support the rich candidate" or voting for a "support the rich candidate."

    Can't wait until she, like "my sweet Claire, comes out in support of "fixing" the "entitlement program" because the deficit is the most important issue we are facing today.

    I prefer it when I had the option to vote for the dead guy.

    You're dead to them if you're not rich--- (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    does that count?

    I guess that explains the (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    policies and "reforms" and the Cat Food Commission, and the lack of action on jobs: if they can't kill you with one, there's always a chance they can get you from another angle!

    Here's one sentence you can throw into the conversation every time someone wrings his or her hands over having to fix SS in order to cut the deficit:

    Social Security has NOTHING to do with the deficit.

    Now, why doesn't the president know that?  Or if he does, why isn't he being honest about it?  Ditto for the members of Congress who can't seem to say "Social Security" without also saying "deficit."  Why hasn't the media done some honest reporting on this?

    Makes a person wonder, it does.


    IMO, the rich don't pay taxes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Untold Story on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:22:51 PM EST
    as there are too many loopholes - so even if we see a tax increase there are bound to be more loopholds created whereby they don't decrease their campaign funding.

    Why isn't anyone interested in campaign reform?

    Perhaps then some Honest Abe might be able to reach the people of America and win the highest office.

    I am allowed to dream . . .


    I don't recall seeing Carnahan (none / 0) (#24)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    say a word about Charlie Rangel? Have you? Of course I haven't paid much attention to this race up to now so maybe I missed it.

    I had no idea supporting Carnahan was joining the voices against Rangel.  


    I was referring to certain progressives (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    who will urge supporting Carnahan while demanding Rangel resign.

    I think you know exactly who I am talking about.


    uh, no. I don't. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    I've been too busy lately to know.  But never mind, I don't care who it is now that I know what you meant.  I think I must have misread what you wrote.

    I take it back (none / 0) (#35)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 08:33:29 PM EST
    You've made me curious. Who is it?

    I saw that Laura Clawson put Carnahan on the DK front page but you can't possibly mean her.  No one has ever taken her seriously as a political blogger. So who?

    Inquiring minds want to know.


    Think you have to take that point (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    (Rangel) up with the person who presented it.

    Think I will stick with fighting the Dems on issues where they join the Republicans to support what I consider a Republican agenda.


    yes, this is a disappointing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    position from Robin.  But at this point I only expect disappointing positions from Missouri Dems and I've pretty much given up on thinking I can influence them in any way to be different.  

    Oy, vey (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:43:20 PM EST
    Th current crop of Blue Dog Democrats make Richard Nixon look like a flaming leftist on a lot of issues.  Can we have a viable third party now?  A populist, truly progressive third party?

    isnt the "rich" in the minority? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nyrias on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    Isn't the dem party a party for minorities?

    Simple logic.

    My guess is that Carnahan would be (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    likely to reverse herself on this once in office. But she should not be rewarded for this. No way.

    Er, oops (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    Looks like her mother voted for them in the first place.

    Granted--I could have the wrong vote.


    Oh damm! (none / 0) (#25)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    I sent her a big check.  I thought of her Dad and Mom and thought they were the best chance Mo had in electing a Democrat.  Another Blue dog!aaaaagh!

    It wouldn't be the worst thing... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    in the world...I'm down for lowering everybody's taxes even more.

    But we'd have to surrender the war on drugs, the war on the undocumented, the war on all non-crime...as well as the 2 big occupations (yes, 50k permanent in Iraq counts), as well as the all the little occupations called bases...gut the CIA, gut the NSA, gut the FBI...absent some of that we need to raise more dough to pay for all this garbage.

    So I ask these Dems and their Repub cohorts...what's it gonna be?  Low taxes or War...you can't have both.

    Since Bush lowered taxes have you (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    seen any surrender on

    the war on drugs, the war on the undocumented, the war on all non-crime...as well as the 2 big occupations (yes, 50k permanent in Iraq counts), as well as the all the little occupations called bases...gut the CIA, gut the NSA, gut the FBI.

    The funding of many of those items has increased. All social programs are on the chopping block and that will not change any time soon.


    This state is completely broke (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    My daughter's college has them bringing their own toilet paper too...which is pretty nuts.  For Joshua though, the supplies that his teacher will need for teaching use are on his school supply list this year.

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    exactly my point...we need to choose for our grandkids sake, low taxes or numerous wars without end.

    My point was that will not be the (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    choice we are given. Low taxes will not result in the end of the things that you find objectionable. They will result in cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, schools, teachers, fireman, and all other social services.

    Too true... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:43:39 PM EST
    too depressing...I gotcha now.  

    It puts one in the awkward position of kinda rooting for national bankruptcy and collapse...it's the only way regressive spending will ever end, absent somebody pullin' a viable third party of the people outta their arse.


    Also kinda gives one an appreciation (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    of the French Revolution...

    Continued efforts to take more and more from those who have the least, to the benefit of those who can never seem to have enough - and don't care where it comes from or who gets hurt in the process - are going to come to a head, and it's not going to be a whole lot of good times for anyone.

    I think most people are in denial purely as a coping mechanism, because grasping the magnitude of it all is just too scary.


    You said it sister... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    but it's gotta get a lot worse before people have nothing left to lose and we burn the f*cker down...right now we've still got a little left to lose...we're still eating pretty good and livin' pretty good, even at the bottom....unless you're a p.o.w. in one of them wars I mentioned.  

    For how much longer is anybody's guess...but we're definitely moving in the wrong direction...my mind can't wrap around how a toilet paper economy of grift is sustainable.

    Well said on denial...it's the way most cope, thinking change is one crooked D or R false choice election away, denial that this puppy isn't hopelessly broken.  


    Hey, Anne (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    You bring the guillotine, and I'll help you sharpen it, girl.  (Okay, just kidding, but not all that much.)  I am perpetually amazed by how many people continue to vote against their own self-interest.  I do think that it is, in part, a coping mechanism, and in part, a manifestation of the "Green Monkey Syndrome," which the Republicans in particular have managed to tap into.

    Speaking of that 50K (none / 0) (#10)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    Did I see somewhere that the U.S. was going to double the number of civilians over there?

    You Did Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by The Maven on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    At least, that was the front-page story in today's NYT:
    To protect the civilians in a country that is still home to insurgents with Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, the State Department is planning to more than double its private security guards, up to as many as 7,000, according to administration officials who disclosed new details of the plan. Defending five fortified compounds across the country, the security contractors would operate radars to warn of enemy rocket attacks, search for roadside bombs, fly reconnaissance drones and even staff quick reaction forces to aid civilians in distress, the officials said.
        --  --  --
    The department's plans to rely on 6,000 to 7,000 security contractors, who are also expected to form "quick reaction forces" to rescue civilians in trouble, is a sensitive issue, given Iraqi fury about shootings of civilians by American private guards in recent years. Administration officials said that security contractors would have no special immunity and would be required to register with the Iraqi government. In addition, one of the State Department's regional security officers, agents who oversee security at diplomatic outposts, will be required to approve and accompany every civilian convoy, providing additional oversight.

    I'm sure we can all agree the the possibility of any problems arising from this scenario is remote in the extreme, considering how peachy it's all gone in the past. </s>

    Wouldn't doubt it... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    and lemme guess...civilian mercs with automatic weapons...half the soldier, quadruple the price.

    Close (none / 0) (#13)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    Not so much the merc piece, the Iraqi's have been shouldering the combat load for two years now, but the price piece I'm sure you're right.

    When I was deployed there last year, the civilian contractors were making a killing and didn't want to leave.



    And thats just the legit payroll... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    plus all the money gone missing?...cha-cha-cha-ching-ching!

    Glad your home safe man...and love the moniker, I think I'd like to vote for some republicratitarians.


    Thanks. the moniker is me, (none / 0) (#18)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    A little bit of everything. A little left, a little right and a whole lot of not quite sure.

    Sometimes it feels like only (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    stupid people stay in uniform.  It used to be worse around Ft Rucker watching pilots dump the uniform and go to work for the mercs and make sooooo much money.  A lot of them are back though trying to get DOD jobs now.  I am married to a dummy of the first order though :)

    Job security and bennies in uniform :) (none / 0) (#17)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    I'm Guard though, "part time". 3 and a half years mobilized in the last 7 years. LOl

    Wow that is a lot of deploying (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    Are they taking better care of you guys than they did at the start of all this?  My husband was at Al Asad that first year.  The National Guard was just told they would staying on for a year and a half but regular military couldn't be deployed for that long at that time, they had not changed the one year rule yet.  My husband says that a National Guardsman was standing in line in the chowhall and he says out loud that President Bush sucks.  A regular Army soldier tells him he can't say that because Bush is the CIC, but the National Guardsman says that yes he can say that cuz Bush isn't his Commander.  Then the whole chowhall breaks out into a swingfest and my husband tries to save the brownies :)

    LMAO (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    That's hilarious. Brownies. That guy would have been busted for sure, Guard or not. He was obviously wrong on his CIC. The active guys do a really good job of working with the Guard. I'm not sure what I would have done without their assistance. Made some great friends.

    They stick to the one year thing pretty good, we had to let some soldiers that were Inactive Ready Reserve go home a month early so they wouldn't go past one year. I'm sure there are exceptions still. But not like the early days.

    Talk about some people who didn't want to be there, these poor men and women had been out of the service for several years and got called up to go with us.

     I flew into Al Asad regularly, didn't get to see much of it. The air bases were more secure if you ask me because they were physically larger, harder to hit.


    Appears that she is looking out for (none / 0) (#34)
    by BTAL on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    the farm industry in MO.

    USDA Fact Sheet on MO

    When the number of farms/farmers are compared to the farm income numbers, there will be may individual farmers easily topping the $250K mark.

    Disclaimer:  Was farm born and raised for a significant portion of youth - farmers deserve every penny they earn.  Today's farm is not the low tech and low dollar enterprise it once was.

    Pols are Pols (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rojas on Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    except for Charlie Rangel....
    You thesis being Charlie Rangel is a "Progessive Pol" which is not really a pol at at all...

    Care to share your algorithm or is this simply another revelation to be swallowed on faith?


    Rangel is a pol (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 07:43:26 AM EST
    whose constituency is progressive and he fought for his constituency.

    He did what you, assuming you are a progressive, would want.

    Of course if you are not, you rightly want to run Rangel out of town on a rail. I am not really speaking to you on this issue.