"The Left" is a term of dismissal by our party leaders.

[madfloridian]

They have had years of training in using it during the time that the centrist, conservative Democrats have been controlling the message of the party. It seems normal to them now, all the more reason to clarify who we are.

In mmonk's post here today he described the situation that exists between our party leadership inside the bubble and those of us outside of it:

The Left is used as a term of dismissal

The term "left" is an imaginary one at this point.

Requesting accountability is not left or right. Those that keep the lies and protections for politicians that break the law will continue to hear from us unreasonable "lefties" and "liberals" and "purists" and "extremists" and anything else corrupt politicians and their mouthpieces across the political and media spectrum love to call reality based concerned Americans. We're not against real bipartisanship to help America, we're against bipartisan lies and corruption. The term "the left" used to describe us is to continue to dismiss our real concerns. It is the speech of political persons.

I heartily agree.

The centrist Democrats who have been determining Democratic policy for years have been more and more catering to the wishes of the far right and the conservatives. They have as mmonk said here recently, used "the left" as a dismissive term. Like we were little annoying gnats to be brushed away.

That is why some of us are concerned. It is not that all of us are "far left" or "fringe" or "noisy activists" (to quote Al From's favorite term)...it is that anyone who is NOT right of center is dismissed by the Democratic leaders as the "the left."

That is why we gripe and refuse to back down.

They have for years been recruiting conservative Democrats and even Republicans to run all over the country. Their beliefs don't matter, only winning matters. The DCCC and DSCC have driven many a good Democrat out of a race so their handpicked candidate could run without opposition. Rahm's interference in Florida has for sure cost us one House seat, that of Tim Mahoney. David Lutrin, a good Democrat, a good man, was forced out just as many others have been.

Another case:

An intelligent, handsome, personable, capable, openly gay man who was doing a very good job of campaigning was sabotaged by Democrats here. They put in a man who was just like the GOP opponent...anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war.....and forced the capable candidate out. We lost that race.

Hey, I could go on, but that makes my point as to how these policies have harmed Florida.

Matt Renner covers the same things that happened in other states, catering to the right wing, shoving "the left" aside.

Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, would not comment on the DCCC's alleged interference.

However, a source close to the DNC indicated that there was disagreement between Dean and Emanuel over election tactics. In his recent book, "The Thumpin'," Naftali Bendavid, a journalist who spent months inside the DCCC operation and at Emanuel's side, reported a heated conversation between Dean, Emanuel and Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) regarding election strategies of the DCCC and the DNC. At the time, Dean was focusing on helping local organizations across the country to mobilize their communities to support Democrats. Emanuel wanted to focus the resources of the national party on specific races that were the most likely to be competitive for Democrats. According to Bendavid, Emanuel said to Dean, "You're nowhere, Howard. Your field plan is not a field plan. That's fucking bullshit ... I know your field plan - it doesn't exist. I've gone around the country with these races. I've seen your people. There is no plan, Howard."

How Emanuel came to his decisions about which candidates to support against Democratic opponents is known only to Emanuel and his staff. Emanuel declined direct comment on this story. But an examination of individual races reveals a pattern of financial and political support for wealthy conservative candidates and an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who were running on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Hoyer gave in on the FISA bill because he was afraid of the Blue Dog centrist Democrats who are more Republican than Democrat in many ways.

Caving in to "anxious" Blue Dogs

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

Florida Centrist Dems have organized to thwart activist Democrats.

Getting Bubba's vote

The Mainstream Democrats is an offshoot of the party organized by Democratic legislators. It is striving to help Democrats broaden their appeal, especially in rural northern Florida, because the basic electoral math is starting to look tougher and tougher for Democrats. They're faring so poorly in northern Florida and many outlying suburban areas, that it's no longer possible for them to win statewide elections merely by remaining competitive in Tampa Bay and Central Florida and overwhelmingly winning southeast Florida.

"North Florida is going to win the next election," predicted former Attorney General Bob Butterworth, noting that his home county of Broward is steadily diminishing as a Democratic powerhouse.

"We're here to get Bubba's vote," said state Sen. Steve Geller of Hallandale Beach, a founder of the Mainstream Democrats and one of those with a northeastern accent.

The centrist "hawks" have challenged Democrats to resist policies advocated by what they called the "non-interventionist left" wing of their party.

Non-interventionist...just another name for "the left"...which really is a simplistic term.

These centrist Democrats argued that voters are more receptive to the Democrats because of Bush's mistakes in Iraq. But they warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections. Instead, they said, Democrats should concentrate on charting alternative policies for fighting terrorism and succeeding in Iraq.

..."Bayh and others spoke at the launch of a collection of essays on national security policy published by the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The sponsors challenged Democrats to resist policies advocated by what they called the "non-interventionist left" wing of their party while vigorously challenging what they call the "neo-imperial right" viewpoint of many in the Bush administration.

It's all semantics, really. We who are referred to by conservative Democrats as "the left" are really where the center is now. Our standards and ideals fit very well with most of the country.

Which is why we must keep speaking out when the Democrats keep reaching out for the extremist religious right offering palm branches of peace...and warning those of us in their own party to behave ourselves.