The Big Tent Is Collapsing

[BeFree]

Thanks to a bunch of elephants sticking their noses under the flaps, the Dem big tent is falling down.

And because they are so many of us who are willing to let the damned elephants into the party, the tent will continue to fall.

It's time we chased the elephants out. All of 'em, along with their centrist and moderate enablers.

We need purity in the party. We need to be rid of the republican butt-kissers and cheap labor owners who have infiltrated our party, and turn back to propping up America's common folk.

[ixion]

1. kick for the big tent

:kick:

[Fovea]

2. We need to return to our FDR true Spirit

and not a moment too soon! Because we are entering a time when a new deal will be the only thing saving working class Americans from the economic effects of fire sale republicanism.

And we need a Moon Launch scale search for new energy sources that are renewable, and non monopolizable.

[BeFree]

4. Ahyup

And we're not gonna get 'er done if we have to keep dealing with the bushco enablers. We have to run them out of the party. Only the true blue dems can save America and we don't have the time to hold the hands of the chicken hawks and others who live to follow the elephants around eating what comes out of the rear ends of those creatures.

[Perry Logan]

3. Ever the optimist, I see it as growing pains. We're fighting out of a grotesquely rigged system.

I think the worst thing is that--if there is any good news about Democrats--you will absolutely not hear it in the U.S. media. So of course, Democrats are bummed about everything, even as things are improving, because they just don't hear a good thing about their party.

In my paradigm, this is the media's strategy. They can't always make the Repubs look good. But they can simply refrain from saying a good word about any Democrat, ever, and thus accomplish their purpose of weakening and demoralizing liberals by making them think they don't have a party. I see confirmation every day that the media is bumming liberals constantly. I urge you to take a fast from the U.S. media. It'll cheer you up no end.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I made a quick list of some good things that have happened:

There are countless investigations going on. Healthcare is on the table. The internet is safe for now. Our wounded vets are no longer lying around in their own urine. The Senate Ethics Committee is back in action. Many 9/11 Commission recommendations are being passed. A bill to increase financial aid for colleges has passed--the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill. The President's signing statements are being investigated. Legislation to restore habeus corpus has been approved. The Senate Armed Services Committee has passed legislation "that would grant new rights to terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. The unions have a voice in the government now—as do gays, women, and minorities. The environment has a fighting chance. The House passed the Taxpayer Protection Act, to protect taxpayers against "identity theft, deceptive Web sites and loan sharks." It also makes it "easier for taxpayers to retrieve property lost as a result of a wrongful Internal Revenue Service levy and directs the IRS to notify lower-income people that they qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit." The House approved a bill spending $1.7 billion over five years for cleaner water. There's a new House committee devoted solely to addressing the issue of global warming.

Also:

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

And:

this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any
other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):
The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous
record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a
mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the
chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000
votes on the House floor in 2007.
Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison,
the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in
1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any
records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.
Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in
6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a JulyMcClatchy report. “If this
pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous
record number of cloture votes.”
It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under
his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record
“for the fewest days in session in one year since the end ofWorld War II.”

[BeFree]

9. Sure

You're right, of course. Who, but real dems, can do so much in the face of all the crap that has been spread?

What amazes me, however, is that you can be so complacent with the meager success. Are you saying that all is fine? Of course NOT!

So now we rise to fight, eh? Time to completely end the intruders and sellouts, don't you think?

[datavg]

77. Oh...

...so you're gonna "end" us, right? Fat chance. Just what group do you think comprises the moderate Wall Street Democrats that elected Bill Clinton to two terms in office?

No. What you'll do is split the party in half and make it that much easier for the Republicans to retain the White House.

That's what always happens. It happened in 1968 and 1972 because of the war.

And then you'll pop another anti-depressant.

You libs are like a fucking stupid kid who brings a knife to a gunfight. You don't have any street smarts, kind of like Susan Estrich and Bob Shrum and some of the others. They're all the same.

[L. Coyote]

31. Thank you Perry. You are the Media That Matters! Everyone can BE THE MEDIA today

and we don't need to focus on darkness and gloom.

We are not mushrooms, fed BS and kept in the dark, anymore. We are fun guys shining light on truth.

[aquart]

5. Tents collapse when you pull out the poles that hold them up.

Which is what you are, in the most intolerant and bigoted way possible, proposing.

The Democratic party will never fit in a pup tent built for one: you.

[BeFree]

16. You're damn right I'm intolerant

I do not tolerate crooks in government. I do not tolerate the people being ripped off.

You may want to sit and break bread with the bastards, but I can no longer tolerate, nor afford to do so. Been there, done that. Got the knife in my back.

[aquart]

32. How dare you assume I do.

HOW DARE YOU.

But then, I guess everyone who disagrees with you in any way is a scum criminal.

Perhaps the Democratic Party is NOT for you. Since democratic process is too impure for you.

[RainDog]

46. LOL

are you really so naive that you think all politicians do not have so negotiate with others who also have some power? I mean, those you agree with... you think they're all "pure???"

I have to think this is a purposeful flamebait post - otherwise... who decides who is pure? those who work for the party, right? so, are you in the party at the local level, etc. working to create the political party that you want?

[Trajan]

6. Hmmmmm .... I dont see that ....

While I despise 'republican butt kissers' and 'cheap labor owners', I would assume many 'moderates' hate the butt kissing and slave economy as much as you do ....

I am a Left-Of-Center Democrat, but the whole definition of 'centrist' and 'moderate' is vague and ill defined.

Further: I see a party that is vibrantly alive, as evidenced by the loud bickering in pockets .... It seems the numbers currently indicate the Democrats will win come November 2008 .... and there seems to be heightened interest here and elsewhere over Democratic party issues ...

The old adage applies (paraphrased): 'Rumors of my demise were greatly exaggerated' ....

[AndyTiedye]

17. "Centrist" and "Moderate" are Very Precisely Defined by the MSM

Bush** is, by their definition, the center, so "centrists" or "moderates" are those who support Bush**'s policies.

The fact that by their own polls only 24% support Bush is irrelevant.

[Trajan]

28. Someone might believe that ....

Do you ? ... I certainly DONT ....

So, when you say that even their own polls indicate Bush is 75% OUT of mainstream public opinion, then this would indicate the population as a whole REJECTS a re-characterization of what constitutes a 'centrist' or 'moderate' .....

So .... Why would you ascribe to it ? ....

Frankly; I refuse to carry water for the media ..... I do NOT preach their gospel .....

I recommend others refuse likewise, even as they attempt to enlighten us here ....

Centrism and Political Moderation are NOT well defined by any stretch of the imagination, and are therefore open to much phony controversy based on equivocation and misdirection ...

[Breeze54]

42. As in HRC

and a few others. :puke:

[Audio_Al]

45. Trajan, that's a great graphic! Thanks for posting it! May I use it with your permission?

There is nobody here whom I would not be proud to support for President and/or Vice President.

Let the games begin. We're just spectators here in Oregon due to our primary date in May 2008. But we're watching everything.

Respectfully,

Audio Al

[leftchick]

7. too late for that

waaaaay too late. When the "frontrunner" is the face of the friggin DLC the infiltration is complete.

[OKNancy]

8. LOL - what all 2% of you?

I wonder how many political parties there would be if each faction were "pure"?

[BeFree]

11. Purity

Look at the pubbies and how they hold together. Even tho they are so far away from the people, they virtually rule, because of their purity.

Time for us to purify. I am tired of dealing with half-ass dems who can't find their asses from a hole in the ground. And we're all sick and tired of having to explain why dems shoud be in total control. Don't you think?

[cali]

72. yes, look at the repukes. Their ideological purity is ripping them

apart. Start with Jim Jeffords leaving in 2001- though it really goes further back than that; the seeds were planted by Reagan and nurtured by Newt 10 years later. Crowd out people like Linc Chafee. Now look at 2006. They lost the majority in both Houses. Coincidence? I think not. And they no longer virtually rule; they can throw up roadblocks, but that's about it. The purity of the repukes is set to cost them at least another 4 seats in the Senate, and at least 8 in the House. Do you realize that 8% of house repukes have announced they won't run for re-election next year? Can you figure out why? Need a clue?

Time for us to purify, my ass. Let's run the most progressive candidates against incumbants who are selling us out, but if that doesn't succeed, vote for the dem against the repuke. Larger majorities will empower the progressives in both houses.

After 1934 Roosevelt had freakin' supermajorities to work with. That's how he was able to pass all that progressive legislation. You didn't really think he had a congress with narrow majorities, did you?

I'll take Mark Warner next year over Jim Gilmore. I'll take Jeanne Shaheen over John Sununu. I'll certainly take Tom Udall in NM, and Mark Udall in CO, over Heather Wilson and Schaeffer, respectively.

[L. Coyote]

10. Yes, let's go back to being an irrelevant minority party. Sound thinking that BULL!

In fact, the Big Tent is growing like never before because the other tent is a complete circus of crooks, carnies, cons, and money changers.

[BeFree]

13. Cancer is growth

And all those damn crooks are invading our party because they know dems are gonna rule. And we are wasting our time trying to make us look like we want them. We don't want them. We don't want those crooks, carnies, cons and money changers in our tent. At least I don't... how 'bout you?

[brazos121200]

15. Agreed. This poster seems eager to drive everyone who doesn't share

his "purity" into the hands of the Republicans. And make the Democratic party as small as possible. Hmmm...

[BeFree]

18. Well,

You just don't get it do you? Do you believe America is on the right path? That the leaders of the government are leading us away from war, death and destruction?

Or do you feel, as I do, that it is time to take back our country?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

91. actually, the DLC enablers caused us to be aminority party

sure, they got bill re-elected, but at what cost?
taking dick morris' advice, alienating the base, losing both houses of congress, legislatures, governorships and making the 2000 election close enough to steal.
it was by listening to the so-called "purists" that got us victories in '06. you'd think they'd learn, but carville wanted to oust dean for harold ford (wtf?!?) and now the party elite is shoving mrs. iraq war down our throats.

[question everything]

12. And by "purity" you mean?

And why should your definition of "purity" binds the rest of us?

What's the difference between your demand that all Democrats accept your definition of "purity" and the Talibans and the other religious zealots with their own definition of "purity?"

How can you possibly post something like that here?

[BeFree]

14. Well

Had you read the OP, you'd have a sense of what purity I mean. The American common folk need a purity of purpose in our government and the republican style of catering to the owners is what's ailing us.

Are you for pure, good government, or what?

[aquart]

33. I like pure water. After that, I'm not that big a fool. You?

[RainDog]

50. LOL

thank you for posting this.

anytime anyone writes about "purity" -- that is such a linguistically loaded word in U.S. history - good americans, bloodlines, volken...

[cali]

73. Aren't you a condescending sort.

Who the hell are you to decide what "the common folk" need. They get to speak for themselves- or they would if there was such an amorphous category of people.

I'm for the government that does the best for the working men and women of this country, for the young and the elderly. It ain't never going to be "pure". Government is made up of real live human being with all the frailities and shortfalls such condition entails.

[spoony]

67. I always cringe when people call for "purity" in groups of people

Nothing good, nothing, can follow those words.

[shadowknows69]

19. Don't think we'll ever have "purity" but

We need a steep slide to the left IMO.

[Trillo]

61. That's what I was thinking the OP was referring to.

But s/he's come under such attack, bordering on the personal, from a few who've been apparently "progressive" and on this board for some time. Maybe their "outrage" is false for discussion-driving purposes?

Or maybe it's the word "purity" that everyone keeps quoting and is some kind of PC codeword that some are truly offended by, and which the OP seems to have used. I tend to read things "looser" than that, at least on first reads, which is about discussion board level.

Perhaps a good question to ask is how "left" is "progressive" and how much scatter density should the graph have?

[balantz]

20. Any good suggestions on how we do this purification?

I see "Democrats" getting elected, then appearing to turn into Republicans. I voted for a first term Congress Person in my district last year. She was running against a Republican, so naturally I voted for her. I am now disappointed in that I can't distinguish her actions in Congress from many of her Republican colleagues. Is there a silent and orchestrated conspiracy to ruin the Democratic party?

I found this source the other day http://www.progressive2008.org/index.jsp

[BeFree]

21. Yes

The purifying of DU is a start. And we're are far along that course even now. As we define further what it means to be a true blue dem, we will grow stronger and more united.

As we get stronger, the representatives will get stronger too. It will not be an overnight success, but if we fail, in the long run our country will fail. So we really have no choice.

[balantz]

22. What exactly do you mean

by "purifying of DU"?

[hootinholler]

65. Well, we can start with a big dance!

We can call it a purity ball!

-Hoot

[MonkeyFunk]

48. You think "purifying DU"

will have any effect whatsoever on national politics?

You're just a demagogue - and not a very good one.

[baby_mouse]

23. PEEEEYUUUURITEEEEE!!

[file83]

85. Our precious bodily fluids must be protected!!!!

The must have PEEEYUUUURITEEEEEEE!!!!

[mitchtv]

24. Time for many primary challenges

I'll go that far.
Then again, who is the "decider"?
The Cal Dem Party isfacing demands that DiFi be censured
Patience , grasshopper.

[cuke]

25. "We need purity in the party" - You sound real concerned about that Big Tent

but I'm not sure if you're for it or against it

[Mutineer]

27. Will their be a "purity" test?

Because I don't think too many of us here are virgins.

[datavg]

26. Yeah, Sure...

...but every time you leftists are allowed to do this, the party suffers. This is how we got Reagan and Bush. You should see what twenty five years of supply side economics and lousy trade policy have done to my former home in the Rust Belt. It makes ya want to vomit.

Witness 1972, when everyone with any brains said McGovern would lose in excess of forty states. He almost lost fifty.

Witness 1984, when Mondale promised to raise everyone's taxes. I remember that one well.

Witness 1988, when Susie Estrich had Dukakis riding around in a tank with a helmet on that made him look like a monkey. Like most academics and leftists, she didn't have one ounce of street smarts. She said she'll live with it for the rest of her life because it opened the door for Dubya.

Lee Atwater would never have made that mistake. Neither would Karl Rove. Neither would Jimmy Carville, for that matter. Those guys are too smart. But Bob Shrum does shit like this all the time, and the Dems keep bringing him back. He ran Kerry's campaign in 2004.

Shall I go on?

Whenever the party trends to the center, the election results of that cycle tend to be better than average. Truman did it in 1948. Kennedy did it in 1960. Carter did it in 1976.

Clinton did it both times. He failed to carry Florida in 1996 but was so strong in the rest of the south that it didn't matter. We aren't hearing anything from the DNC about importance of the south in 2008 and that tells me they've written it off. Howard Dean warned against this in 2004, and Elizabeth Edwards agrees.

Democrats running for the House and Senate ran to the center in 2006, thanks to the efforts of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer...with excellent results. This why all the impeachment talk coming from Kucinich makes those people so nervous. Everyone knows Dennis is nuts and left to his own devices, he'll end up taking the party down with him. That can't be allowed to happen.

You can't sell abortion, gay rights, gun control and unionism to people who walk around with a Bible in their hand! This explains the current popularity of Ron Paul. He's an Evangelical transplanted southerner who was against the war.

Why is this so hard to figure out? The South matters! Those people will determine who becomes President of the United States for the rest of your lifetime and mine.

And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. This is precisely the reason Republicans want Hillary as the nominee...because they know they can blow her out down there. We needed Gore but it didn't happen.

If you want to live where it is progressive, you have several choices. You can go ex-pat. Great Britain, France and Sweden are good choices. Even Canada isn't too bad. Or, you can look at the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle or New England. You'll need to have a lot of money already saved plus solid future income earning potential...

...or you can suck it up and stay wherever you are.

But one thing's clear. You're not gonna turn wherever it is that you presently reside into Northern California or Massachusetts or Sweden. Others have tried it before you and still others will try it after you are gone...and they will all fail.

I've said before that the country I want is what we had in the early sixties. It would take years of sacrifice and savings and rebuilding of our national physical infrastructure but it do think it could be done.

I want to live in 1964 again. It would mean we'd have to achieve energy independence. Having all that oil in Texas during the years preceding the seventies helped us control the market worldwide. This was confirmed by Alan Greenspan in his new book.

It would mean we'd have to stop spending more than we made...both publicly and privately. It would mean that public education, both primarily and secondary, would have to improve! No ifs, ands or buts about it. Results...or else.

We could do it. We've done stuff like this before. We could do it again.

[Trajan]

29. I think you might be confusing ....

'Leftism' with ineffective political campaigning ... especially by accusing Estrich of being leftist .... MANY here would disagree .....

Having Dukakis riding around in the tank was a public relations disaster, NOT a failure of 'leftism' .... The problem was the image itself, which was comical, not political .....

McGovern himself was not a dyed in the wool leftist either .... He was simply against the Vietnamese war (which in my view was the proper position), and his campaign machinery failed to counter the inevitable Nixonian attacks on his patriotism .... McGovern was a freekin WAR HERO ! : It was up to his campaign to blunt those attacks ...... They did not ..... He lost .....

Again: This had nothing to do with any specific adherence to 'leftist' principles ..... It was pure politicking ....

The Mondale fiasco was again a public relations disaster: It was a blunder to broadcast 'Tax Increases' as a campaign plank .... Why on earth did he grab onto that idea as some sort of winning message ?

Even IF you think taxes will need to be increased somewhere, somehow, the LAST thing you would do is declare it upfront .....

As far as pandering to 'southern' political sensitivities for the sole purpose of winning elections: what is the point ? .... I can understand using leverage on some issues, like gun control, to help bring some southern states into the electoral equation, but to completely revamp Democratic party principles so they are virtually indistinguishable from the GOP platform makes little sense to me ....

I would just as soon give it up if we had to give away our collective political spine ....

Why bother if we become the GOP ? ..... why not just JOIN the GOP then ?

That isnt going to happen .....

[Trillo]

63. How do we know those candidates really lost those elections?

(election fraud sense) Wasn't most counting done by a centralized computer?

[Alexander]

30. We need members who put the interests of the PEOPLE first, regardless of ideology.

I don't care if you're a right-wing Democrat. If you pay more attention to your constituents than corporations, you're okay in my book.

[Breeze54]

34. Not to be obtuse or anything but I really had

never heard of this 'big tent' crap theory until I started frequenting DU.

Who started that fairy tale anyway? :shrug: Big tent Dems? :wtf:

Dems are left and if you ain't left then be gone! :P

[datavg]

35. Actually...

..."left" is what loses elections in this country.

And I don't like to lose.

The one reason Chuck Schumer's campaign to retake the Senate worked so well in 2006 was precisely because it wasn't left.

The United States isn't Europe and isn't going to be. How many times do I have to say it? Schumer knows it. The Clintons know it. Heath Shuler knows it. Jim Webb of Virginia knows it better than anyone. Edwards knows it, too but won't admit it publicly. A guy that smart would have to know it.

Why the hell do you think Clinton was able to carry all those southern states? He failed to carry Florida in 1996 and it didn't even matter! Can't you fucking count? Geez, look up an Electoral map of both races. It's there plain as day.

More importantly, how many national elections do we have to lose before this is understood?

[Breeze54]

36. Stop buying the RW RED kool-aid!

Of course the DEMS are left and they're supposed to be LEFT!

It's the DLC trying to tell you that left is out but don't believe them!

It's a sham, a scam and a fallacy!

The LEFT is still here and WE VOTE!!!

[datavg]

38. Yep...

...the left votes.

Problem is, there aren't enough of them. There never were enough of them to make a difference. That's why we've never had a leftist president.

Left is always out. Haven't you ever heard the story about two aides to Howard Dean making fun of lesbians at a fund raiser in 2004? These were white male, preppie Yalie types who thought they were off-mic joking about how Democratic fundraisers always look like the bar scene from Star Wars.

And they're right, of course. Absolutely dead on.

Even Larry O'Donnell says the left has nowhere else to go. The Democratic godfathers will nominate Hillary as the Wall Street candidate and you'll follow her because you're told to. That's the party. That's how it works.

And she'll be elected. And she'll continue the war because she voted for it.

And she'll fuck you in the ass...just like her husband fucked the unions in the ass because Wall Street told him to. That's what Robert Reich said in his book. Read it! That's why he resigned from the administration.

[Breeze54]

40. You are crude , rude and immature.

The left is where the Dems should be but you go ahead and keep
butt kissing the RW DINO's there pal. You MOFO turncoat traitor!

[datavg]

41. I'm Not Saying Anything...

...that Jimmy Carville wouldn't say to your face.

He knows it's true. You know it's true. You just won't admit it.

[Breeze54]

43. You are a Blue Dog?

They are most hated here at DU. The modern day scourge! :grr:

[datavg]

44. Hated?

Pardon me, but I don't give a fuck.

I didn't care what people thought years ago and I don't care now. I don't have a self-esteem problem. I grew up with people screaming in my face every day. I'm immune to it. Completely.

I'd rather be right...and I know I am. Looking at the Electoral maps of 1992 and 1996 confirms it.

[Breeze54]

47. 1996?

:wtf:

Maybe try looking at the 2006 election and today's polls?

:rofl:

78% against the war! ;)

[datavg]

52. Did You Know...

...that Democrats only took the House because of the Blue Dogs, and that many of those races were very close?

That doesn't sound like a victory for the left...at least not in my book.

This is what's so dangerous about Kucinich's repeated grand mal seizures during the debates about impeachment. Wolf Blitzer is a big Democratic supporter and was embarrassed for his party.

I'm sure Tim Russert feels the same way. He worked for Moynihan and (I think) Cuomo. You won't find a better, more level headed mainstream Democrat. But the difference between those guys and the lefties is these guys have actually worked in policy or out in the world and have run something. They're not mentally or emotionally ill.

Pelosi and Hoyer are seasoned politicians. They know that most people in flyover country are watching Fox News and think all liberals are nuts. It isn't fair but that's the hard truth.

If those millions of people are seeing Dennis Kucinich as the leader of an emboldened left which might do to the troops in Iraq what it did to the troops at the end of the Vietnam War, they'll return the House to Republican control faster than you can say sing loy.

I think this is why there was no impeachment. Democratic leaders are writing off the last eight years and moving on.

In my opinion, their strategy is the only one that makes sense for the long term.

[Mythsaje]

56. In "your book"

it's all about turning a blind eye on the abuses, the deliberate destruction of constitutional principles, and about sweeping the dirt under the rug where it can gather and return with a vengeance in a few years...just like it did after the Nixon debacle faded from the public mind.

There's a great plan. Maybe next time around, when the public gets to thinking there's no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats again, they'll vote in the Repugs once more and they'll actually manage to pull off the ultimate coup they want, turning this country into a one-party state.

Great plan.

Just look around DU...there are liberals from every state in the union. And they're not alone out there. The problem is that to too many people, the Dems don't seem to stand for anything. Especially not with the capitulators running things.

If Hillary wins, it'll be a disaster. Because the complicit will crow and the guilty will fade from view only to return in a few more years to try again under a different guise.

[datavg]

76. It's About....

...winning the fucking election. Can't you see that?

How many times are we going to let these people run over us?

Don't you get sick of being the passive little dork in a turtleneck sweather who just stands there and takes it? I know I do.

I don't like Hillary but she understands this process. She knows what it takes to win.

You have to win before you can govern!

[Breeze54]

57. "most people in flyover country think liberals are all nuts"

Really?!? :sarcasm:

Well; I have a LOT of relatives and friends in "fly over country' and they disagree with you!
Maybe that's why Ohio voted DEMOCRATIC in 2006? Just a guess. Could also be the removal of the
most corrupt assholes in Ohio government too. ;)

DK is going to do to the troops what Nixon did at the end of the Vietnam War? Are you nuts?

Most of America KNOWS now, there is no 'winning' in Iraq. Even the military families know that
and they are also calling for the troops to come home... NOW!!

There is no impeachment on the table due to incompetence!

It's not from some 'strategy' dense DEMS came up with. :P

Why are you unwilling to protect and defend the Constitution?

I thought you said you loved this country. :shrug:

[Breeze54]

49. You'd rather be RIGHT...and that says it all.

:puke:

[datavg]

90. Frankly...

...I rather like being this way.

I say what I want and because of my physical size, people don't get in my way.

[magellan]

51. The kind of people you support are taking this country down

I hope you get to see it.

[progressoid]

86. This ''big tent' crap theory ' ain't a theory.

Crack open a history book...or Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_tent#Examples

Examples

In the United States, a very good example of this approach was the New Deal coalition which formed in support of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies. This coalition brought together labor unions, southern Dixiecrats, progressives, and others in support of FDR's economic program, even though these groups strongly disagreed on other issues.

In Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is not strongly ideological or regional, but is instead open to members with a wide range of views. While some criticize the party for lacking in conviction, supporters argue that compromise is an essential feature of democracy.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United States have liberal and conservative wings and support bases to such an extent that some supporters from each party align themselves with a particular politician or group within the other. Republican President of the United States Ronald Reagan gained support from conservative Democrats, who came to be called Reagan Democrats.

[Yukari Yakumo]

37. And by that logic...

Say hello to a permanent majority in the Senate... a permanent, Republican majority.

And you can probably say the same in the House too.

The reality of the matter is that we need the moderate and conservative elements in the hopes of keeping the ReThugs in check. Not exactly working too terribly well... but what does anyone expect with a paper thin majority in Congress?

[datavg]

55. Wow!

Someone who can think dispassionately and doesn't have some kind of emotional problem.

Where the hell have you been?

[magellan]

58. That thinking will only continue to push the Dems to the right

You can't keep the Repubs in check by adding their element to the Dems. What you get by doing that is what we have now: a Dem majority crippled by an ever increasing number of moderates who vote with the Repubs. And it'll only get worse with each election cycle, as it has been doing. Shift right, shift right....

[MonkeyFunk]

39. I never understood why people

who value "purity" concern themselves with politics, when the priesthood seems a more fitting vocation.

[JCMach1]

60. Exactly, or people who support diversity as long as it doesn't apply to them

:(

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Ah yes

the people with a "celebrate diversity" bumpersticker, who think it means "You must love me, and I can tell you to go to hell if you disagree with me on political issues, don't follow my diet, have more money than I do or don't share my musical tastes".

[JCMach1]

64. We have a BINGO

[mogster]

53. .

Interesting debate

[SharkSquid]

54. Burn the Blue Dogs!!!!!

I HAVE A FRESH STAKE AND SOME KINDLING HERE FOR YOU....

[JCMach1]

59. Exterminate! Exterminate!

:sarcasm:

[KharmaTrain]

66. Greed And Arrogance Does It Every Time

It brought down Democrats like Rostenkowski and others in the early 90's that gave the House to the Repugnicans and our real nightmares began. Its now bringing down the Repugnican party. All these groups were promised some bone by the boooosh/rove cabal and felt that it wasn't delivered...so they're all taking their votes and going home. Uncheck one-party power corrupted absolutely and the country is seeking not to go totally in the other direction, but to find both some balance and accountability.

Party "purity" is what gave us a lock-step Repugnican party...sorry, that's not for me. I prefer and enjoy the diversity of the Democratic party...that it represents so many different interests yet has a basic core of fairness, justice and opportunity for ALL...especially the middle class.

Yes, money is a problem and there will always be greed...but change can't/won't happen overnight...it requires a long-term and patience effort by those of us who desire change and will work for it. But I'd far prefer the money going to Democrats who still stand for the middle class then back to crooks like DeLay who stole this country blind for years.

[DCKit]

68. MOUSE!!!!! nt

[sendero]

69. It is the rise in overall prosperity..

... that has given credibility to the right and their economic theories.

As the house of cards they have build crumbles, the country will swing to the left again. I'll bet on it.

[natrat]

70. nice post but i dont like the code words "purity" or "common folk"

purity has nothing to do with clean water or just taxes and that is equally important to the middle and upper middle class as it is to "common folk"

we dont need purity we need common sense and more equality for america

[cali]

71. Frankly, I think we need less stunningly simple minded people

in the tent- take that in the spirit in which it was intended- but that's not going to happen either. We'll always be stuck with stupid dogmatists with a purist totalitarian ideology. And I hate to break it to you, but many of those "common folk" are the centrists and moderates.

Don't like the big tent? There's the exit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. The Big Tent is sometimes a nice place to visit but you don't want to live there.

[slackmaster]

75. We must destroy our chances of winning in order to save teh party

:dunce:

[porphyrian]

78. That's the way they want you to see it.

The truth is that our party sold us out to corporate interests decades ago, and this is just a convenient way to divert the angry mob from their doorstep while they continue to sell us out.

[WilliamPitt]

79. The chair is against the wall. John hs a long moustache.

(joke)

But this is not. I have a great deal of respect for you, even in disagreement.

But this is one of the scariest things I've seen on DU in a very long time:

"We need purity in the party"

By whose standards? What is the penalty for impurity? Must everyone agree with everyone on everything always?

That's pretty much North Korea. I'll pass.

:toast:

[iamthebandfanman]

80. i hope I NEVER see what you said EVER again

"We need purity in the party."



Paaaaleeaaase.



i just wish everyone would stop trying to create this false sense in-ward fighting thats supposedly going on.


the tents only collapsed if you think it is and then convince everyone else that it is.

[UTUSN]

81. Same arguments from 2000. Crosspost from Cali's opposite thread.

This called for supposed "purity," if not the same individuals, of their persuasion-- the same who said the same thing in 2000, who said there is "no difference," who voted for NADIR, who withhold their votes unless the nominee is "pure," who help Rethugs at every turn---AND, I will say, who soon turn to cusswords in their "arguments."

I give the o.p. an electron point for taking it to the level of "purity = PURGE". I guess I'll be lined up against a wall, and in that case, after quitting smoking fifteen yrs ago, I'll take a cig, or actually just one will make me dizzy, so give me notice so I can fire up a pack or so in advance.

The o.p. is missing something in claiming that the strength of the Rethugs is in their purity. Not so. Their strength is that their TOTALITY VOTES every time. That kernel just matches the numbers of committed Dems who actually vote, such that their "wins" are just barely there. If every single eligible Dem voter actually voted there would not be a single Rethug in office anywhere.

He claims the overwhelming voice of "the people" is on his side. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Democratic constituencies DON'T VOTE. The eligible ones. It would be more to the point if the o.p. would focus on mobilizing da peeps. How about paying attention to the Rethug thrust at splitting the California electoral votes, for starters.

[ChiciB1]

82. There Was A Good Question Posed On C-Span Yesterday... It Was

about how the younger generation has so little interest in politics, and that far too many of them are NOT informed on so many many issues. We need CIVICS back in school or at the very least some sort of REQUIRED Government class before they graduate. While talking with my grandson and a friend of his recently, his friend asked me if there really was a REVOLUTIONARY War in America!! He knew about the Civil War, but was unsure about the other! He also asked if Julius Caesar was a real "character" or not!!

These kids are seniors in high school! Thankfully I have tried to keep "my" 2 grandkids informed and have taken them to D.C. to see for themselves, but I know that too little is being taught in our schools about this country. I had to take Civics AND American History in "my day" and I know as a Boomer when we found out that the GOVERNMENT lied to us, we got mad and we REVOLTED!

Way too much APATHY these days, and I can hardly get ANYONE interested in the process anymore! Mostly, I sit and wait for the other shoe to drop!

[IndianaJones]

83. another reason I'm glad to be a moderate. nt.

[autorank]

84. K*R We need to leave The Money Party & become a people's party again. n/t

[gulliver]

87. Actually, in travelling circuses, the elephants usually...

...build the tents. Just sayin'.

Then there is the old "I'd rather have so-and-so inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in."

And I want to know how the camel turned into an elephant. Indeed, how did the camel get through the eye of the needle? If a camel can get through a small hole like that and turn into an elephant, no tent is safe.

What's to keep that same camel from turning into a donkey? Scary.

[AntiFascist]

88. The entire left versus right issue is misleading....

what we really should be discussing in this election is pro-war vs. anti-war. One can compromise on many left and right issues and still be against preemptive war or supportive of it. People are afraid to take a stand on preemptive war against Iran because of fear of offending special intersts. The fact remains that most of the populace is against it and would prefer that we stop wasting money on war. If candidates really wanted to appeal to a majority of the people instead of special interest groups, they would be speaking to the one issue which may end up killing our economy in the long-term and take away funding from all Democratic social programs.

[BeFree]

89. Ok

So it looks like there are a lot of people here who want to keep the republican butt-kissers and the cheap labor owners in the tent and not kick them out into the cold.

So be it. But yall just got to think that we, as a democratic party, are watered down and diffused by catering to their way of governing.