Democratic Party Divided As Obama Inauguration Approaches - FDL

Now don't you have a republican to back?

So very concerned as they are.

answer, they both take money from the GOP to spite Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1337889

They attack Obama for not being pure, and they take money from the GOP, and know that the GOP uses them, and they do not care.

enough suckers willing to keep them in style.




http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/01/professional-lefts-boyfriend-signs-up.html

I would, because a lot of "Kucinichbots" are putting their eyes out to remain blind.

This poster is trying to distract us from the actually, as we speak, splintering of the repug party. We're not falling for it. Good try though.

but rather Republicans in Democratic clothing. SS and Medicare are soul of the party. Where are we as a party if we stop caring about the poor, the elderly and the environment?

Politico:


Dream on. Never mind that the GOP is imploding.

Don't think FDL is a cesspool, here:




Some good reads:

Krugman: Extortionists Versus Con Men
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022213941

The Morning Plum: The increasingly isolated GOP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022201031

And if you're interested in climate change policy:

Beyond baby steps: Analyzing the cap-and-trade flop
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022194635

Seems to me that THEY are part of the Democratic Coalition.

stringing together quotes to create the impression that the Democratic Party is in turmoil, and illustrated with photos of Elizabeth Warren and Rahm Emanuel (WTF do these two have to do with each other), I tend to ignore it.

I mean, the piece is trying to create the impression that Obama's second term dealings with Congress has anything to do with elected Democrats across the country...as if there is supposed to be a monolithic bloc that defines whether or not the President is a "lame duck."

Beyond silly. The Democratic Party is going to work to elect Democrats in the next election.

I'm not really familiar with firedoglake.

I like this one (not):



"Kubucki"???

Sid

So who did you finally decide to vote for Sid ?

This place is a real hoot today. Krugman admits Obama outplayed the GOP, complete with kitten gif in the NYT and all they can come up with is a dreary gloomy FDL article. So sad.

Thought you were more clever than that, Willy.



Sid

Lot's of work, considering our little crew takes care of the largest state in the Union... all by ourselves.

It's what happens AFTER the Inauguration that will be interesting to watch.

In WHAT direction does the Democratic Party proceed?

Time will tell.

predictable and boring. Like anyone who wants progress listens to their bullshite.

How's that grover norquist hookup and raging her damn head off about ObamaCare.. working out for hamsher?

I know that in a technical sense I am wrong. It still seems to me more like an outside group that we use for some of the things which need to get done that we don't want to do.

Kinda like an outside accounting firm. We have our business, they have theirs and we utilize them at times. That is about it.

There are times you have to dry your eyes and play ball with the big boys.

Whose side are they on anyway?

So far in this thread, I see mostly dismissive posts rather than an attempt to participate in this debate. This issue isn't going away.

What the corporate centrists (corporate liberal is an oxymoron in my mind) want is for the rest of us to shut up and fall in line, so they attempt to create a climate where opposing the corporatists is akin to supporting Republicans.

Meanwhile, the progressives are Left Out. Sometimes even pushed out. As are the policies they support. Which is a shame, since they are the policies needed to fix our problems, and they are supported by large portions of our country's citizens.

If I wanted to support Heritage-Wellpoint-Romney-Obama-care, I'd be one of the former "moderate Republicans" who now wander the land in search of a party. I don't, and I don't agree that we need a "uniquely American" solution to this problem. A Medicare-for-all single payer solution is what we need. There are plenty of working models in other countries, too. Controlling or preferably eliminating corporate profits is the key. As it is in so many areas of our increasingly stratified and dysfunctional society. Healthcare is just one example of many.

So, assuming we can agree to support more populist or progressive policies, the question needs to be, how do we get there? Already I see people clamoring for someone like HRC or Biden to lead us in 2016. Why? That's the same road we're on, with politicians who campaign to the center-left and then govern from the center-right.

That road (the one we're on) enables endless foreign interventions, whether overt or covert. Bending over for the financial industry. Tiny tax code tweaks instead of seriously attempting to roll back the massive upward skewing of wealth this country has gone through in the last 35 years or so. Continuing the failed drug policies that have filled our prisons with people who should be living freely. Giving support for education "reformers" whose solutions move us closer to private interests, producing human resources that will make good cogs in the corporate machine rather than the informed critical thinkers we need to be a vital democracy. An unaccountable and vastly overreaching national security apparatus. Paying little more than lip service to the most important issue or our time, really of any time, the looming environmental crisis which has been directly caused by this same corporate-military paradigm.

Yes, we have a divided party. We have a divided DU along these same lines. The OP is pointing to this important ideological divide. K & R.

That's how it is far too often these days. Sometimes I feel like there are just vultures hovering waiting to attack. It serves no purpose other than to make the snarker feel superior for "putting down" the poster, and hijacks important threads. It's sure not the old DU, and it's sad.

I agree with much of what you say, BUT I'm one of those who feels any step toward our goal is a step away from the way things are that aren't working. Look at Gay Rights -- step by step, a lot has been achieved (my State voted to approve gay marriage) and that gives me hope even MORE will be achieved as we continue on.

The ACA thing bothers me, but again, I feel we DID get a lot of good (along with the crap) and we can build on that, hopefully.

AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer was even blunter.



From OP.

The two examples cited are issues that I feel very strongly about. On those, I see NO wiggle room for "compromise". We've compromised enough.

But there are some decisions Obama has made that, while I hate them, I realize he gave to get (and looking back at the unyielding opposition on EVERYTHING, I'm surprised he made any gains at all). But I have no allegiance to Wall Street -- I despise their despicable actions with every fiber of my being. I'm not the only one, I'm sure, who is more forgiving (maybe pragmatic is a better word) when it comes to these unfortunate, and at times, heartbreaking actions.

But I agree there ARE some who don't feel the betrayal or outrage of what it has done to us and our country.

It's sad.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022208553

our citizens? Too often it's as though we're the "enemy".

I've heard repeatedly of Social Security automatically denying a claim the first time around. Why is that better than some for-profit agency? And the WAIT -- what are people supposed to do in the interim?

Sometimes I just want to weep.

These banks are always just flicking it off and continuing on with no repercussions.

No way do I expect progressives to get everything they want (I'm not saying you said that, just elaborating on my position). Often it seems to me progressives don't get anything at all. I can even handle losing on an issue, in fact I expect it.

Where I draw my personal lines is I try to distill what it is that the politician or legislation in question is attempting to do. ACA has some positive things, such as expanding coverage, hopefully it will end the pre-existing condition rejections, and some other things. Overall, though, and there are better examples than health care, but it seemed to me that this reform was intended to lock us into a corporate solution, rather than a less expensive public one. Could we have gotten a public solution then? No, I don't think so. We should, however, have fought like dogs for it, then compromised down to a private system with a competing public option, all the while going kicking and screaming to that compromise as if we had gotten nothing. Instead, Obama secretly negotiated away any possibility of a public option, and also didn't fight for getting Medicare D to be able to bargain down drug prices, like every other country does. It was a giveaway to the corporations, from the beginning. So Obama was never on the track I support.

It was even worse with the handling of the mortgage crisis. HAMP was an absolute giveaway to the banks, very few homeowners were helped by it. Principle reduction for troubled properties was off the table. The trillions lost in deflated assets and blown up securities were paid off on the side of the lenders, then they give us austerity to pay these private debts (and not OUR private debts, not the debts that became overwhelming to homeowners who lost jobs and couldn't sell their underwater homes, but the mortgage originators, and, worse, the imaginary money they had created through insanely leveraged securities on those same mortgages) from the pockets of taxpayers. This was completely unsupportable, and is a good example of corporate Dems working on the wrong side of an issue.

So I don't see the party embodied by Obama, Biden, and Clinton(s) getting us much of anything we need. Their entire perspective is that of the fat cats. Sure, they'll try to put a human face and a gentle hand on it, so they can successfully defeat Republicans in elections, and also because they truly aren't quite as bad as those guys. But they're just a slightly kinder version of the same animal, one which is devouring the middle class, devouring the environment, and actively works to subvert any alternative political models.

Anyway thanks for your post and for its reasoned discussion. I have seen your posts before and know that you're more accepting of our party's direction than I am, though ultimately we may be looking for similar things.

became crystal clear which direction the Democratic Party is going to go in.

One group of democrats angrily shouting "there's no divide" at another group of democrats. lol.

There is NO DIVIDE amongst Democrats... you traitorous DINOS !!!

There is clearly a divide. K/R

Fairly certain some people consider members of the Progressive Caucus to be sellouts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022160908

If it's understood (as claimed) that they support the President (who those making the claim consider a sellout) no matter what, where's the divide?

You do a lot of cut and paste but offer up nothing on how you feel about possible cuts.If cuts are made are you okay with that Prosense?

You're too damn familiar, and yet you have no clue.

Welcome to DU.

Simple question really.Do you support cuts to the safety net such as (raising the retirement age,chained CPI,and benefit cuts for future retirees) and will you defend them if that should happen.

Been lurking here for years Prosense,why would i be unfamiliar with your loyalty to this administration at all costs?You can use all the witty one liners you want but why will you not answer the question.You would like to play advocate for both sides of the issue and tell people to chill out and see what happens(once it happens it is too late),without making a stance it seems to me.

I support no cuts to these programs.Can you guarantee that will not happen in Barack Obama's second term or do you support cuts to these programs?

Then you should know, and I don't have to guarantee you anything. Did you sign up looking for a babysitter?

and I think you will indeed support anything this administration does.If cuts do happen,you will have no place to hide or you will have to state your case against what was done.And by the way,i hope you're right and there are no cuts and it is all griefer poutrage spewing from a spoiled child who needs a babysitter.

If Barack Obama would stand on that podium and announce to the country in very simple terms.

Enough,we will not balance budgets by cutting programs that the people who have been hurt the most depend on for survival.Then i will give him a some respect for that pledge.Cheers

What are your feelings on possible cuts to the safety net.If it were to happen are you okay with that ProSense?

The same handful posting thread after divisive thread. Sons and Daughters of the dearly departed Better Believe It.

you dance with the person you brung to the ball, and if you get your toes stepped on occasionally, buy band aids....

The moneyed interests, as always. Big shock, right?

The Reaganites can never allow a win for the People.

Repuglians or something like that.

about the Dems. Now, of course the Republicans are divided too, but this article was talking about the Democrats, not the Republicans. There IS a divide amongst people who normally vote Democratic in elections between the corporatists and the populist groups. And at some point in the future, if this goes on, there will be a split. And yes, it's the same on the Republican side too. Who splits first is the real question. We're headed for 4 parties.

Actually, the Third Way types, the "pragmatic moderate centrists" on here should be OK with this split. You can absorb your Chris Christies and Charlie Crists and not miss a beat. AND you won't have to worry about the silly lefties trying to influence the neo-liberal agenda. That's a win n'est pas?

They'll throw anyone under a bus for supporting the President. When Kucinich voted for health care reform, Jane Hamsher launched a site demanding he return donations.

She called the bill "fascism." (Sound familiar: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022201466)

That they represent what many of us thought the Democratic Party has been for many years.

And if it is changing... please, please... tell me what's to come.

the Planet, jane hamsher.

Washington to protest with doctors and nurses for Single Payer, and Kucinich came out as the Big Talker he is to give us a 'consolation prize' speech. I've watched how he backs out of floor fights or whipping votes. He's seldom been the progressive he's presented himself to be. On that issue, Hamsher was right.

I'll care. All you do is nitpick at us. Organize yourselves first. Get yourselves a platform that people will pay attention to. Anything instead of this silliness. Jill Stein? What an embarrassment.

Now you're pointing fingers at US and labeling US and just hoping WE will fall apart so you can pick up our crumbs? Good grief. Just maybe what's wrong with your "movement" is that you guys just aren't really doing anything. Just maybe you guys should be evaluating YOURSELVES and criticizing yourselves instead of us. Maybe you should concentrate on how to attract people to your message, whatever that is (other than that you have contempt for Democrats).

That is my constructive criticism for 3rd parties on DU. Because as people some of you are OK. I love one or two of you dearly, the ones who withheld their criticism of Obama prior to the election I have the utmost respect for. And if we had a parliamentary system, you bet I'd vote as far left as I possibly could and still have my vote matter. But that's not our reality here.

are merely pointing out the inevitability of a split. There is an essential truth that there is a divide among people who normally vote Democratic. That divide is between people who support a neo-liberal economic agenda (albeit of a softer nature than the Republican version) and people who support a more populist agenda. Since these two agendas are ultimately antithetical in nature, a split is the logical outcome. As I said in my post, the Republicans are also facing strains between those who support a neo-liberal agenda and those who support a "John Birch" or proto fascist type of agenda. It's easy to see the four parties forming out of this.

BTW, who's pointing fingers? I merely pointed out that people who support a neo-liberal economic agenda (the Third Way, No Labels types) should be completely happy with this split. Logically, they would be the larger grouping in this potential restructuring and it would have the added attraction of not having to pay ANY attention to the populists.

"Hey, I'm not advocating anything, I (and I think the article itself)..........are merely pointing out the inevitability of a split. There is an essential truth that there is a divide among people who normally vote Democratic. That divide is between people who support a neo-liberal economic agenda (albeit of a softer nature than the Republican version) and people who support a more populist agenda."

Newsflash: Every party gains its overall support by building coalitions. Do you think that when Presidents win by a landslide (FDR or Reagan) it's because everyone who votes for them is left or right?

People have been pushing the "inevitability of a split" in the Democratic Party for years. They do this shit constantly.

What's hilarious is while the reality shows a more unified Democratic Party in years and a more fractured Republican Party, the poster is trying to advance a silly meme.

and in case you haven't noticed... there's plenty of division here.

As the Corporatist Democrats gain in numbers and strength, you will begin losing more and more populist/progressives.

Hell... you have Ed Rendell on TV every other day telling us how entitlements need to be cut in order to have debt reduction. But I'm sure Big Eddie won't be feeling any pain.

depite the "dump him" campaign.

The people, including the media and Republicans, who were trying to split the party failed.

Party ID Shifts Back To Democrats In 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/party-id-gallup-poll_n_2441614.html

It wasn't a tie. That was all a big lie.

Or just let them think they're making headway in their little quest to break up the Party? Decisions, decisions. It is amusing to watch. And at last they admitted why they're here, given their contempt for us (waiting for the crumbs when the Dem Party breaks up). So some headway was made on our side.

Oh well, I'm bored with them now.

Hey, it's a win-win. We'll keep actually governing. And you guys will keep doing nothing.

that the farther left side would be free to advocate policies that the people actually agree with rather than worry about hurting some Third Way or corporatist feelings. You know things like marijuana legalization, progressive taxation on the wealthy, single payer or at least a public Medicare option open for all, not messing with social security or Medicare as it's currently structured, etc. Giggle all you want, if the Democratic Party continues on a path towards a corporatist neo-liberal agenda, it WILL happen.

Apparently these days... ANYONE can be bought.

Coming next, the Jewish wing of al Qaeda?

Oy gevalt!

They are crypto-Republicans, not Liberals!

Republicans.

Modern Republicans used to be called...
Whackos!

Predictable, but now with more desperation!

I think that the party is a broad coalition; I suspect that some who vote Democratic were those 'moderate Republicans' who used to ( or usually) vote GOP.

It looks to me that there is a 'practical politics'/'idealism' divide in the Party. The DLC is on on the practical politics side and the progressives are on the idealist side. At the end of the day, they may not actually disagree all that much.

The practical side is much more concerned with doing what is possible ( as determined by them). The idealists want to push the limits of what is 'possible'; to strive to get much more.

The practical side is much more interested in 'tweaking' the system ; making minor repairs is all that can be done. The idealist side says that major reform is long overdue.


The practical side seems more inclined to 'safety first'; more prone to being careful and low risk taking. The idealist seems to tend the other way.

I can easily see how the rhetoric can tend to get a bit overheated. Some care should be taken to moderate the rhetoric.


If the GOP is 'imploding' ( I have real doubts about that), then some of those 'moderate Republicans' may want to vote Democratic Party.

as "center-left." It's right of center, and it is destroying the party, as far as I'm concerned.

"Corporate Liberal" is an oxymoron.

What is most disturbing to me is the willingness, the eagerness, of that group, to purge the more traditional base of the party. To disparage, to bully, to demean, anything and anyone that dares to criticize their status quo. Many of the responses in this thread are examples.

Do they really think they can keep winning elections without us?

Obama had around a 90% approval rating among D's and liberals. I wouldn't exactly call that "divided". Nice try at diverting attention away from the GOP being fractured, FDL.

than the increasing irrelevance of money grubbing fake assed "leftists" like Jane Hamsher, and her fake ass, GOP money laundering enterprise, NorquistDogLake.

is anything better than an ally of grover norquist (a man who as much as the rape guys and the nra represents the real division in the gop) is attacking the democrats (who just vanquished their opponents in the election and stood the gop down on the debt cieling/taxes) for being divided?

fdl

lol