HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The fatally compromised P...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:32 PM

 

The fatally compromised Progressive Caucus.

"The failure of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to stand up to President Obama on many vital matters of principle is one of the most important – and least mentioned – political dynamics of this era.Principled and right on the issues? Often. Tough when the tough gets going? Almost never. (Photo credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images)

As the largest caucus of Democrats on Capitol Hill, the Progressive Caucus has heavyweight size but flyweight punch.

During the last four years, its decisive footwork has been so submissive to the White House that you can almost hear the laughter from the West Wing when the Progressive Caucus vows to stand firm.

A sad pattern of folding in the final round has continued. When historic votes come to the House floor, party functionaries are able to whip the Progressive Caucus into compliance. The endgame ends with the vast majority of the caucus members doing what Obama wants."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/09

You've got to do more than talk a good game, you've got to be willing to fight when it is necessary. What does subverting your liberal and progressive values to the President when crunch time comes achieve? Nothing good for the American people, that's for sure.

79 replies, 4640 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply The fatally compromised Progressive Caucus. (Original post)
MadHound Jan 2013 OP
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #1
ProSense Jan 2013 #5
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #19
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #25
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #34
bvar22 Jan 2013 #46
democrattotheend Jan 2013 #65
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #48
ProSense Jan 2013 #50
ProSense Jan 2013 #51
JReed Jan 2013 #66
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #67
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #52
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #62
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #6
ProSense Jan 2013 #9
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #13
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #17
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #20
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #18
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #21
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #24
1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #73
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #75
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #37
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #35
shiningseas1971 Jan 2013 #36
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #39
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #42
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #40
cali Jan 2013 #43
shiningseas1971 Jan 2013 #47
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #56
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #61
shiningseas1971 Jan 2013 #72
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #74
tpsbmam Jan 2013 #77
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #79
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #53
Honest_Abe Jan 2013 #31
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #49
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #63
ProSense Jan 2013 #2
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #26
patrice Jan 2013 #54
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #3
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #4
Scuba Jan 2013 #7
Poll_Blind Jan 2013 #14
Scuba Jan 2013 #23
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #58
Selatius Jan 2013 #68
lunatica Jan 2013 #8
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #59
forestpath Jan 2013 #10
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #11
forestpath Jan 2013 #57
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #60
pampango Jan 2013 #70
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #71
Poll_Blind Jan 2013 #12
ProSense Jan 2013 #16
Poll_Blind Jan 2013 #27
ProSense Jan 2013 #29
cali Jan 2013 #44
sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #69
Enrique Jan 2013 #15
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #22
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #32
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #41
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #76
FarCenter Jan 2013 #28
reteachinwi Jan 2013 #30
phleshdef Jan 2013 #33
msanthrope Jan 2013 #38
cali Jan 2013 #45
patrice Jan 2013 #55
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #64
hfojvt Jan 2013 #78

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:37 PM

1. You know, I have become convinced that Obama will be remembered as the 1st black Presidet

And not one other thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:40 PM

5. He'll be remembered for this:

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

Maybe ending the Iraq war, DADT and some other stuff too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:15 PM

19. 10 years from now none of that will be remember

It may be called "Obamacare" by its detractors now but 10 years from now no one, and I mean no one, will remember where it originated,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:18 PM

25. It's called Obamacare by EVERYONE.

Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:15 PM

34. Obama even calls it Obamacare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:30 PM

46. Remembered as the President who made certain...

...that access to health care in the USA would be firmly controlled by "Private" For Profit sources, and the movement toward a national Government Administered Program was derailed for at least another generation?

Yes. There are some who will celebrate that.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:41 PM

65. There never was a movement toward government-administered healthcare

At least not one that had a snowball's chance of succeeding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:23 PM

48. Within a decade Obamacare will be viewed as a curse

 

And for those who understand it, it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:25 PM

50. Within an hour your comment will have no historical significance.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:27 PM

51. Here,

progress:

New Mexico’s Republican Governor Accepts Medicaid Expansion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022162865

It's something you don't seem to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:24 PM

66. Easy to understand

 

This bill feeds off of the majority to increase the wealth of the corporate elites.

This bill is worse than the "bailout" of the corrupt banks because it sets in law many possible legalistic maneuvers and loopholes - all at taxpayer expense - under the guise of "reform". It institutionalizes deceit and corporate profits and really does not ensure anything else.

The Dems blew it big time by selling out their constituents to Big Pharma and Insurance long ago, and asking for so little in exchange. THIS was the time to act. Later it will be harder.

Insurance Companies rejoice because THEY got the Lion's Share of their ultimate Wish List; it is THEY who believe this is the "first step" to ending any chance EVER for a Public Plan. They're likely closer to the truth because they've been given a good hand, and with the new economic power HANDED to them by Congress, they will further dominate any future debates.

Obamacare was created at the behest of the Insurance and Hospital Corporations with the intent of increasing already obscene profits, instead of actually providing healthcare. Actual competent medical care would threaten the Corporate bottom line, with medicine and drugs for proper treatment cutting into Corporate profits. Under Corporate law, this threat to the bottom line will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JReed (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:01 AM

67. ^This^

And after all that, after all the money flowing into for-profit insurance, we'll still have MILLIONS of people who cannot get health care but will still have to pay for insurance that doesn't cover anything. It was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation to counter single payer and adopted by this "Democratic" administration who took the ball and gleefully ran with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:44 PM

52. A curse uttered by ...

the once prevalent, but soon to be niche, private for-profit insurance industry, as ObamaCare ... a decade from now ... will likely be seen as the seminal step that led to single-payer.

Those of us that understand how progress really works, already recognize this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:29 PM

62. Gawd the trolls are out in force in this thread. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:44 PM

6. I worry that he will be

remembered as the first Democratic president to make damaging cuts Social Security and Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:50 PM

9. I'm not too worried about that.

A Democratic President enacted the COLA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022045787

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027

I don't think he'll do anything like the above. I know the chained CPI was mentioned, but I doubt it will resurface. It just doesn't have support in Congress. It would never pass the current Senate.

Lieberman, Nelson and Conrad are gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:05 PM

13. I hope you're correct...

I think it would seriously damage the party's credibility if you're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:15 PM

20. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:14 PM

18. Thank you for reducing him to the color of his skin. Totally not racist.

Your opinion will be rejected by virtually every other sentient being, including his critics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:15 PM

21. Nonsense

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:17 PM

24. Your post was idiotic and racist. To argue that the most popular Democratic President

since FDR--and most popular ever since WWII--is a mere racial token is racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:46 PM

73. I have to wonder if you are simply unable to read what I wrote

I said it is what he will be remembered for, and by the way, what makes you think that I am not a black man myself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:04 PM

75. You're the only person thinking of him in strictly racial terms, and you're

the one reducing his accomplishments to the color of his skin in an attempt to diminish them.

Your low post count and generally offensive behavior indicate you are not a black person, but rather a garden variety troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:19 PM

37. 2nd or 3rd president in US history to get RE-ELECTED by over 51% of US majority but he's black...

...so...yeah, that overshadows everything.

Come on man, listen to both sides of the issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:17 PM

35. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:18 PM

36. Why not

 

I live in Michigan and I spoke with alot of blacks and whites who voted for him only because of his skin color. I would mention his policies and no one cared. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shiningseas1971 (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:19 PM

39. Let me guess, gun rights supporter? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:20 PM

42. Yeap, coming here in droves with tons of thoughtless positions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shiningseas1971 (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:20 PM

40. ...I live in Texas, wanna go there? no? typical...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shiningseas1971 (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:21 PM

43. yes, genius, because people you may or may not have spoken to

is an accurate and scientific reflection of voting patterns.

jaysus. you little wannabes have got to try harder, honeypie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:48 PM

47. Excuse me

 

I happen to be a Clinton democrat so if anyone is a wanna be its you. Just because I spoke with people who said something that you object to, doesn't mean that you have to be rude. Did it even occur to your teenie weenie brain that I might have been trying to inform people to the good policies that Obama was bringing to the table? If you can't say nothing nice, yada yada yada

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shiningseas1971 (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:52 PM

56. Funny ...

I know a lot of white and Black folks and NONE of them (claim to have) voted for President Obama because of the color of his skin. I have, however, heard plenty of rightwing folks claim that they have spoken with alot of blacks and whites who voted for him only because of his skin color. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:28 PM

61. Ding ding ding! +1000. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:43 PM

72. Don't know what to tell you

 

But you know its like this, different kinds of people living in different parts of the country. I live really close to a city in Michigan that has a pretty large African American population. So, I heard a lot of opinions before the 2008 election. Actually, my dad thought it was historical and I agreed, with Obama being the first black president. The thing that bugs me about your statement is that, I have friends who didn't vote for the President both times because he is black, but yet no one is allowed to vote FOR him also because he is black. Quite a few people I talked to liked being part of the history for electing the first black president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shiningseas1971 (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:56 PM

74. I, too, ...

as a Black man "liked being a part of the history for electing the first Black president", but that was not why I voted for him. I voted for him because I favored his policies and temperment over those of McCain (and I damned sure didn't want $i$ter $arah, the bible-spice, one heart beat away from the presidency).

But don't even try to equate that with those NOT voting for President Obama because he identifies Black.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:29 PM

77. That poster has gone bye-bye but really, that argument means they'd have voted for Cain

and you'd have voted for Herman Cain just because of the color of his skin. Bloody ridiculous and total BS. The ones who voted based on skin color were those who voted AGAINST him.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:43 PM

79. True that ...

Black folks didn't vote in large numbers for Jackson or the Reverend Al or Cain. You're right ... those that voted based on skin color were the one's voting against Candidate, now resident Obama. And they got to do it twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:48 PM

53. I was hoping ...

the commenter was speaking to the the publics, near total disregard of this president's accomplishments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:56 PM

31. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is history.

Obama supports marriage equality. It's not ALL about progressive economics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:24 PM

49. This

is how DU has gone to shit.

In one tidy post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #1)


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:39 PM

2. Kucinich is gone

That’s what happened on the first day of this year, when the “bipartisan” fiscal deal came down. Widely denounced by progressive analysts, the bill passed on the House floor by a margin of 44 votes – with the Progressive Caucus providing the margin. Out of 75 caucus members, only seven voted against it.

He also voted for the deal.

What's the point of attacking the Progressive Caucus for voting to pass a deal that extended aid to the poor, unemployment benefits and other aid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:24 PM

26. Waitaminnit. Bernie ferChrissake Sanders voted for the deal.

Yeah, it's got warts and could have maybe been negotiated better, and yeah, there's still room for the underclasses to be betrayed in the dealings over the cap, but I'm not jumping into the opposition on this one. I think they did what they had to do. Let's see what happens next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:49 PM

54. Are we talking about 3rd-Wayish Kucinich here, lover of Ron/Rand Paul & their anti-UN Gun Control

Treaty bill in the Senate here?

Or the Peace Department Dennis Kucinich?

See? Scratch a purist and find a 3rd-Wayer every time, so what we're really fighting about here is HOW 2 + 1 = 3, whether OP likes the current flavor of triangulating or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:40 PM

3. Just like OurPOTUS.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:40 PM

4. Here's the problem

You vote against the President, you look like you are a teabagger.

It does no good to be a heroic pebble and be crushed while trying to stop momentum of the boulder, but it does pay to hitch a ride and work to direct the outcome.

Lieberman and Demint are gone. We've out lasted them both. That is an example of the momentum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:46 PM

7. What a load of crap, smearing the only people in Congress really working for us...

... are they supposed to vote against the ACA because it's not perfect? Crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:07 PM

14. Did you read the whole article? I'm just wondering if that response is from...

...just the excerpt or after reading the whole piece.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:16 PM

23. I read it all. To wit ...

"What we have witnessed so far is surrender in stages – a chronic confluence of conformity and undue party loyalty, with brave talk from caucus members habitually followed by contrary votes on the floor of the House of Representatives. "


The author would apparently prefer that the ACA and other measure fail simply because they're imperfect. The Progressive Caucus is the best we have, and without them what does get passed would be worse for the People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:58 PM

58. +1 ...

the difference between purity and progress ... governing and writing/commenting on a blog somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:32 AM

68. The Caucus in the House won that battle. It's the Senate that destroyed the Public Option.

Nancy Pelosi's version of the health insurance bill did include some form of the Public Option.

It's just that our right-wing Democrats in the Senate weren't going to tolerate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:47 PM

8. As a Progressive myself

If they picked a fight nothing would get done. Nothing. Not with the damn Congress we have now.

And as a Progressive I think when the business of this country is actually progressing in the right direction we need to be satisfied and work with the President who is making that progress to make sure it continues. Holding everything up because it's not Progressive enough is to be just like the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:04 PM

59. +1 ...

You argue your point, then settle into what can be done without throwing sand in the gears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:52 PM

10. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:59 PM

11. The Progressive Caucus has been "triangulated" into supporting the 3rd Way policies.

They've become pathetic in their willingness to bow to the centrists and conservatives in the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:56 PM

57. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:06 PM

60. You mean ...

actually govern?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:22 AM

70. Agree. IOW, not supporting the GOP's effort to kill the ACA.

We all think that the ACA could have been better than it is, but when push came to shove Progressive Caucus members had to decide whether allow the 'perfect' to be the enemy of the 'good'.

PC members apparently knew that joining the GOP's effort to kill the ACA (for different reasons than those of the conservatives) because it is not 'perfect' would not have led to a more 'perfect' version of health care reform but to another in a long line of defeats for progressive efforts to improve the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:05 AM

71. Yep ...

It's almost if those critical of the Progressive Caucus expect the political world to operate differently from their real life world, where they're hungry and WANT a steak; but all that is available is a NY Strip, not the Filet mignon that they had their heart set on. I don't anyone of them would go hungry, doing without the steak, until that Filet is available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:02 PM

12. A simple truth: Our party's immune system has been compromised.

I can't state it any more plainly than that.

There are (IMO) three things which are the "backbone" of any political party:
- Party planks (i.e. a codified statement of ideology)
- Party endorsement of candidates who support the party's planks (i.e. proper vetting)
- Ideological champions (members of the party who champion some or all of those planks during their political career)

What happens when the President/Congresspersons chooses to ignore party planks?

What happens when Congressional candidates are endorsed who only pay the thinnest lip service to the core ideology?

What happens when the ideological champions dwindle and the few that remain are intentionally marginalized by ideologically hostile elements within the party?

What happens? This. This mess. This toxic mess inside the Democratic party. This toxic mess which doesn't represent the will of those who voted for the President.

Private monied interests, corporate interests are behind this corruption, as they always are. But that is an element which always exists. The quality of the politicians and their desire to adhere to party ideology is what has diminished.

Except for people like Peter DeFazio, my representative. One of the six founding members of the Progressive Caucus, he voted against HR 8 in the House just a few days ago. But there are fewer and fewer who are willing to stand up and stick with The People, especially when the President openly disregards the value of things long-held sanctified by the party.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:07 PM

16. Sorry, DeFazio is good, but

not a perfect example. He voted against the stimulus and the People's Budget (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll274.xml), which was a progressive package.

DeFazio is a deficit hawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:35 PM

27. Presidential Partisan (noun) [prez-i-den-shuh l pahr-tuh-zuhn]:

1. One who supports the President of any political party over the political party itself, other members of the party (e.g. congressmen), constituents, or even party ideology.

See Also:


PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:46 PM

29. Self-portrait?

Here's the thing: The President hasn't even started his second term, but his detractors are busy trying to define his legacy with made up bullshit.

With little success, they're now turning on people who are fighting the good fight.

From the OP:

"The endgame ends with the vast majority of the caucus members doing what Obama wants."

That's as pathetic an ODS statement as can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:23 PM

44. You are demonstrating that old saw about people supporting their own reps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:50 AM

69. Well, he's not my Rep and I support him and wish he was. He's one of the few honest

and courageous members of Congress we have.

But hope is on the way. Thankfully millions of other Progressives agree basically with this OP and are no longer willing to just 'go along' and support the party's choices on policies and/or on candidates.

A huge coalition was formed and has been meeting finally, to decide how to turn the policies that got us this basically useless Congress, around and headed in a 'left' direction, being that this is what a majority of the people want.

They have met in private and will no longer be donating their money as we all have in the past, to the Party, but will be using the huge power that has been wasted by just accepting the 'lesser evil' iow, 'you want Palin/Romney' etc and voting AGAINST something rather than for it.

We went along right up to this last election. However the planning for a powerful, huge coalition of Progressive/Liberal Orgs combined with the Unions, who together represent millions of disgusted voters sick to death of the 'you have nowhere else to go' mentality, formed BEFORE this last election. It is the first such display of unity among Progressives no longer willing to play the old DC game as we have over the past decade.

It is exciting and is already attracting money, lots of it and voters who also will now have somewhere to put their money where it really matters.

Enough of the excuses we keep hearing about why Democrats do not act like Democrats anymore. A new beginning has taken place to put an end to these excuses. Because if this is the best they can do, it is obviously necessary for us to take over and we are, to bring this party back to its roots and to remove every Third Way/DLC infiltrator possible and send them back to the party they belong to. We have needed this for so long, but better late than never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:07 PM

15. Solomon seeks to think there's hope they might change

but to me it seems too late at this point. There are a lot of things that will go into Obama's political calculations on the sequester and other battles, the feelings of the Progressive Caucus will not among them. That's perfectly rational for Obama, because their feelings on the issue will not matter when it comes down to it. When it comes down to it, the CPC will have Obama's back regardless whether they agree with him.

On the other hand, when it comes to immigration reform, Obama will be paying attention to activists on that issue. Because about two years ago, they made it clear to him that their support for him was NOT unconditional, and then in 2012 they voted for him big time. One example of the attention that he's paying to them is that he is very soon going to be pushing for a bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:16 PM

22. In other words, they should act like Louie Gohmert and the crazy-ass Teahadists

by voting against anything that doesn't conform to their ideology.

Amazing how purity is inversely proportional to a person's relevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:57 PM

32. So there is no area between rubberstamp and Gohmert and the caucus should just

accept whatever leadership sends, making no effort to influence the bills?

How is that representation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:20 PM

41. That presumes the CPC is a rubber stamp. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:08 PM

76. Is there evidence to the contrary?

I see no ability to say no and no willingness to demand with consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:39 PM

28. The Progressive Caucus has 75 members, so it can't be too much different from the Democratic Party

It seems to have more women, minorities, and older white guys than the average.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

They presumably have the same overwhelming interest in getting re-elected as their peers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:47 PM

30. Quietly effective?

 

I wish the Progressive Caucus was more muscular. However, there is a way for states, if they choose, to create a public option in the insurance exchanges. The fiscal cliff rigmarole did not cut SS, Medicare, or Medicaid. So perhaps PO makes a show of his bipartisianship while negotiating with progressives behind the scene? I'll take Raul Grijalva as speaker as soon as we elect the reps. who will put him there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:11 PM

33. I guess taking one's unsatisfiable nature out on Obama is getting old.

Time to go after the progressive caucus now...

Meanwhile, in the real world, where the rest of us deal with the reality of an ideologically divided government and an ideologically divided country with a desire to actually achieve the realistically achievable...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:19 PM

38. You Better Believe It!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:25 PM

45. that's a fairly disingenuous

article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:51 PM

55. Do you ever read anything but Common Dreams? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 10:29 PM

64. I bet that you would have been shit-less if you had lived during FDR's day.

Time sanitizes everything and make it look romantic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:41 PM

78. the worst part is not so much that they roll over

but that they seem so silent.

They don't even speak in opposition. They do not even offer alternatives - to the public.

To a degree, they seem to be caught in the same trap as the progressive voters. If they do not vote for the lesser of two evils, then the greater of two evils wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread