When the Repukes took congress in '94, How far left did it push the Dems?

[WonderGrunion]

I seem to remember that being followed up with NAFTA, GATT, DOMA and ending welfare as we know it.

Staying home won't teach anyone a lesson.

[MineralMan]

1. Tu as raison. Tienes razon.

Very good point.

[leeroysphitz]

2. So them dems move right if they lose seats AND they move right if they win a majority?

Great.

[WonderGrunion]

4. Get MORE involved and elect MORE progressives.

That's the only way to push the party leftward.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

5. Isn't it strange how so many seem unable to figure that one out themselves? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

9. If they admitted it to themselves, they'd see they have to take responsibility.

And that would be hard.

[WonderGrunion]

24. Oh no! It's the party's fault

for not forcing them to like the Democratic party enough to vote for them. :sarcasm:

Here's a clue, if you don't really like the Democratic party, maybe it has less to do with the Dem's winning your vote and more with you not being a Democrat.

[treestar]

34. Amen!

It's so much easier to play the entitled, put-upon purist! We didn't deliver, therefore we should be punished! Even if they live in a country further right as a result! The point is to punish somebody. the end result doesn't matter! Gawd, these people make me sick! :mad:

[WonderGrunion]

22. That's why I spelled it out.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[last1standing]

32. Easier said then done when our politicians break their promises.

n/t

[Raineyb]

58. You mean people who the party actively submarines?

How's that working out for Winograd? The Progressive Caucus is actually raising money for Harmon who is no progressive. Try asking the Democrats who ran in Florida for Congress where other Democrats refused to endorse the Democratic candidate so they wouldn't piss off the Republicans because they're "friends." Then tell me about how we can get more progressives elected.

[WonderGrunion]

62. Once again, if you've waited until election season then you've already lost.

Taking control of the party starts years earlier by attending EVERY monthly party meeting and getting progressives elected inside the hierarchy of the party.

[Raineyb]

66. And the machine that's there when there is no election is no friend of progressives either.

Or did that escape your line of reasoning?

[MineralMan]

7. And what are you doing to correct that?

I can tell you what I'm doing: Getting Al Franken and other progressives elected. How 'bout you?

[WonderGrunion]

8. The only bad thing about Al Franken as Senator is...

He's no longer on the radio every day.

[MineralMan]

There is that, of course, but I'll take the hit to have him in the

Senate. Now, this year, aside from trying to find a decent candidate for governor (could be a losing effort), my efforts in Minnesota will be heavy into unelecting Michele Bachmann. She's not in my district, but my district neighbors hers.

Caucuses on February 2.

[leeroysphitz]

17. What am I doing? Well for starters....

I'm funneling MILLIONS of dollars in campaign contributions to the most corruptible politicains I can find so that they will focus on my interests to the exclusion of all others.

I'm also hiring HORDES of high paid lobbyists, most of whom are former career politicians. I'm going to send these lobbyists to Washington to spread around even MORE cash to make sure that things I don't want aren't even included in any "debates" that occur regarding legislation that interests me.

Also I'm using my media conglomerates to frame the issues so that opposing points of view aren't even HEARD let alone acted upon.
I'll also use my national media resources to paint any incorruptible politicians as weak, unelectable kooks.

I've made sure that all my surrogates tell those dissatisfied with the process about how corrupt it is and that they should just be happy with what they have.

Oh wait. That's not me. all I have is one little vote every couple of years (that gets completely taken for granted BTW) and if I'm lucky a few bucks to throw at candidates who CHANGE stripes ten minutes after they take office.

[WonderGrunion]

19. Your role is limited because you only vote every couple of years

Start attending monthly party meetings with some friends and take over the system from within. Then you can send up the candidates you want to the general election.

[MineralMan]

25. You think that's all you can do? Vote? How silly.

There is much more you can do. Like devoting the energy you spend posting on DU to working on reforming the party in person.

[leeroysphitz]

46. Let me see if I understand you. If I am not devoting 168+ hours per week to taking

on the monolithic big money establishment then I have no right to complain about shitty government. Ok got it. Thank you that was some very helpful input.

[WonderGrunion]

49. You spend 168+ hours a week arguing on the internet?

No wonder you don't get listened to by the party.

[LoZoccolo]

53. Your response reminds me of /Happy Gilmore/.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMAhCCZDwtU

[Edweird]

23. Right. The best part of that jedi mind trick is that it is ALWAYS YOUR FAULT.

No matter what, it's not enough and it's all your fault.


Elected official turns 180 degrees and pushes legislation they clearly and articulately campaigned against? Well, obviously it's your fault they moved to the right. You should be ashamed. You didn't do enough.

Both houses of congress and the whitehouse? Not enough. It's your fault. (Never mind that the r's did whatever they wanted with a much smaller majority. Don't even bring it up. It's your fault, too.)

Discouraged? Unenthusiastic? Not falling all over yourself to toe the line after being called 'irrelevant"? It's your fault if they move right.

It's your fault. You are supposed to hold them accountable. But not right now. If you hadn't screwed things up so bad, they wouldn't keep moving to the right. They only move to the right for two reasons: when you don't vote for them and when you do. So quit making them move to the right.

[WonderGrunion]

26. The more progressive you vote into office...

the more progressive congress gets. Staying home doesn't get more progressives elected. The congress became sharply more progressive in 2006 and 2008. It's still center-right, but it's no longer hard right.

You're just pissed that you weren't given points for a touchdown after you crossed the 50 yard line.

[Edweird]

27. No, I'm pissed because I was lied to.

[WonderGrunion]

28. I've worked in retail too long to buy that line

You weren't lied to, you only chose to listen to what you wanted to hear.

[Edweird]

29. Ah. Ok, so please decifer this for me, oh great one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRNx-F8vRmM

[WonderGrunion]

31. What I saw on the video

Obama on the campaign trail promised to fight to pass healthcare legislation. It's passed both the house and the senate. No lie there.

He said any bill presented to his desk must include an insurance exchange with some form of public option. Until reconciliation is over, we won't know if he has that or what he will do with it. No lie there.

He said mandates were bad. Once again, still waiting on reconciliation. No lie there.

Which Senators and Congresscritters are you calling to make sure the final bill has those items?

WE are the change WE have been waiting for.

[Edweird]

35. "you only chose to listen to what you wanted to hear". Mmhmm. Project much?

Good luck with that.

[WonderGrunion]

38. How is what I said wrong.

It may not fit your "Obama Sucks" worldview. But it is a factually accurate representation of what was said in the video.

[Edweird]

36. Obama..actively discouraging...public insurance option

"President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

[WonderGrunion]

37. That article shows Obama's support for a Triggered PO

At a time when it seemed possible to get Snowe's vote with it. If Snowe wasn't just jerking our chains on this, we would have had a much stronger Senate bill than the one we got having to deal with LIEberman.

More progressives and less DLC types in congress would have meant not needing to water it down that far even.

A triggered public option is still a public option and therefore, not a lie.

Try again.

[Edweird]

40. No, sorry. Either there is a public option, or there isn't.

The house bill has one. The senate does not. He actively worked AGAINST it. Which is in direct contradiction to his campaign promises. He campaigned against mccain's plan, only to turn around and support it. If you choose not to believe what is documented, then that is willful ignorance on your part.

[WonderGrunion]

41. You're right. A triggered Public Option IS a Public Option

Pushing for a triggered public option is not campaigning against a Public Option. Thank you for pointing out how HuffPiece has it wrong on this issue.

[Edweird]

42. I can see you are having a hard time understanding things. Maybe this will help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4UZeHLxsvI&feature=related

[WonderGrunion]

48. You post a lot of links. Do you have any opinions of your own?

Or do you prefer to let other people do all your work for you?

[Edweird]

57. Uh, do what now? Are you 'multi-tasking' or something?

I stated my view. I also provided supporting documentation and testimony. What part of this is unclear?

[WonderGrunion]

60. Ed, I usually put someone on ignore when the call Obama a liar

I haven't done that with you because I want you to be an example. You throw link after link to biased articles and videos that bash a Democratic president on Democratic underground and have the nerve to say that I'm towing a "party line" when it is clear that you are doing the same thing.

The only question is, what party are you towing the line for?

[Edweird]

64. I see. You're going to an "example" of me? Is that some kind of threat?

David Sirota and Cenk Uygur are 'biased'? That is at once laughably ignorant and pathetic.

The truth it what it is. Ignore it if you wish. But if you try to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, expect to hear about it.

Holding someone accountable for a blatant reversal in policy is not 'bashing'.

Lastly, I think you have a somewhat distorted view of what it means to put someone on ignore. Really. I couldn't care less. If your views are so fragile that you can't bear disagreement, then they aren't very strong. Good luck with that.


So, go ahead internet tough guy/gal. 'Make an example of me'.
LOL

PS It's 'toe' the line, not 'tow'.

[cliffordu]

55. This is the best point in the best goddammed OP this week.

No kidding.

Kicked again and R'd for sure.

[WonderGrunion]

59. Thanks Cliffordu

I appreciate the praise.

[laughingliberal]

30. Ain't that the truth. Perfectly explained! nt

[DisgustedInMN]

43. Abso-freakin-lutely!

The excuses are plentiful and the finger-pointing is easy.

Sounds eerily similar to the excuses the Repukes yse for getting us mired into the mess in Iraq...


"BUT YOU DIDN'T STOP US."

[FLAprogressive]

80. +1

[Blasphemer]

61. That does seem to generally be the case

Running to the left only applies during primary season.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Amen.

NGU.

[WonderGrunion]

6. What does NGU mean?

Google get's me STD references and North Greenville University.

[tblue37]

11. Never give up. nt

[WonderGrunion]

15. Excellent!

A much better message than "Go catch an STD".

I was making a joke there. Just thought I should point it out for the humor-impaired.

[tblue37]

79. Oh, sorry. People do often ask for clarification of the initialisms

that are used on various message boards, and since there are so many of those mysterious letters, I sometimes end up having to ask, too. Also, I have googled some initialisms myself, only to find entirely implausible translations. Therefore, whenever anyone asks for a translation of an initialism, I automatically give it to the person if I happen to know it, without second-guessig whether the post was just being playful, especially since the poster could be both playful and also really in need of the translation.

[NJmaverick]

10. K&R!!!!

[DisgustedInMN]

12. Well..

...friend, if that's the "lesson" they think is being taught...

Then they're too effen tonedeaf to represent me.

Thanks for yet another worthless browbeating.:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

13. Democratic precinct and senate district caucuses are on

February 2. I hope you'll be there to actually do something to affect MN politics.

Better to be active than to be disgusted.

[DisgustedInMN]

16. Well friend..

... I was a Obama Delegate at the 6th CD Caucuses in '08...

..been "active" in Demo politics since RFK's campaign in '68...

Perhaps you can serve your "get active" speech up to someone else?

[MineralMan]

20. Good. So was I. And I'll be there again on Feb. 2.

[WonderGrunion]

14. I don't think the browbeating was worthless.

It let me find another person to add to my ignore list.

[old mark]

18. The Dems became the party of "ME, TOO!!!" we got all kinds of ass kissing

by Dems to Newt and Trent Lott and that ilk.

ANY DEMOCRAT WHO SITS OUT THIS ELECTION YEAR SHOULD JUST BECOME A REPUBLICAN BACAUSE THEY ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO BE ANYTHING ELSE.

Yes, this applies to YOU.

mark

[WonderGrunion]

21. And ultimately, we got Shrub.

Cause Nader convinced enough people that there was no difference between the Democratic and the Republic party.

[treestar]

33. Exactly

It's so stupid and immature to "punish" the Democrats for not being far left enough, when they are further left than the Republicans. It's just so stupid, i can't get my head around it. It's so immature and uninformed to believe that things are so easy and can be done so quickly. Our system intends to create obstructionism. The Senate is designed for one Senator's rights to amend and debate to prevail over efficiency and getting things done.

[Jennicut]

39. Even as a naive 18 year old in 1994 I knew it would turn the Dems more conservative

Staying home will do Dems no good.

[Grand Taurean]

71. I was younger than 18 at the time

and I knew that any liberal legislation was DOA.

[jgraz]

44. You remember poorly

NAFTA, DADT and the HillaryCare fiasco *pre-dated* the 94 losses. The base stayed home because they realized they'd elected another faux-Democrat.

NOTHING will teach the current crop of Democrats "a lesson". They aren't interested in learning. The real question is: when are *we* going to learn our lesson?

[anonymous171]

45. Repukes took congress because the dems were moving right

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. I'm not sure it was the fact that the dems were moving right

that the Repukes took Congress in 1994. There were a variety of factors that led to them taking Congress but I don't remember THAT being one of them (or at least a major one). The main factors, as I recall, were:

1.)Repukes hadn't controlled both houses of Congress for several decades- people didn't know exactly what they would be getting but they wanted some kind of change and the Republicans- under Newt's *leadership*- seized on this.
2.)HEAVY, WIDESPREAD anti-government (anti-liberal) sentiment, particularly following Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. that the Repukes latched on to and played up as much as possible.
3.)EXTREME animosity towards the Clintons that the Repukes and Rush had been stoking ever since the 1992 election.
4.)Enaction of gun control measures (i.e. Brady Bill, assault weapons ban) that brought out hard-core gun control opponents and the NRA against the Democrats.
5.)Southern re-alignment of the Republican Party (and some Democratic party-switching)
6.)Lots of scandals involving Democrats that year (kind of like what happened in 2006 to many Republicans)
7.)VERY energized Republican Party/conservative activists/religious right

While turnout among Democrats/progressives might have been lower as a result of some of Clinton's policies/failures during his first two years, turnout is traditionally lower during midterm elections and the corporate media (even sans Faux News) made sure that the Democrats were as demoralized as possible (and I see it may be happening again this year).

[anonymous171]

56. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA in 93, which made the paranoid right go into a frenzy

And demoralized the left (as you pointed out.) The 1994 midterm was a referendum on Clinton by both the left and right. NAFTA was a major turn to the right. While it may not have been the only factor, it certainly magnified all the others and definitely helped the republicans get into power.

[jgraz]

65. Along with DADT and HillaryCare.

The progressive base was already lukewarm on Clinton. He spent his first two years in office confirming every fear we had about him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. I don't know about NAFTA sending the paranoid right go into a frenzy

There was a lot of Democratic/progressive opposition to NAFTA and Clinton got most of his support for that initiative from the Republicans in Congress I'll give you that but I don't think that particular initiatvie played a big part in demoralizing the left. I think it was a combination of things-Clinton's first two years in office were pretty rough but I never felt that it was for a lack of trying. In fact, I believe that Clinton aggressively attempted to do a lot of things that a lot of people here at DU are criticizing Obama for not doing more of during the first year in office- though I think Obama taking a more subtle and less confrontational approach on some of the same issues is probably going to be more productive in the long-term. In regards to the 1994 election in general, I believe that, for the reasons I outlined above, a massive Republican victory was probably inevitable or at least sold to the country by the Republicans and their allies in the corporate media as such- which probably played the biggest role in demoralizing Democrats that year. I would also say that, frankly, most Democrats did a miserable job of standing up for themselves and/or Clinton during those first two years in office, which also certainly didn't help matters much. Clinton capped an astonishing recovery, however, during the rest of his Presidency as he continually frustrated and thwarted the Republicans- even though his own sexual peccadilloes brought him down (somewhat) towards the end. The Republican's pushing of the Monica Lewinsky-BJ-Impeachment effort, however, exposed the rank hypocrisy of the "family values" crowd and ultimately helped bring a lot of them- Newt Gingrich being one of them- down as well.

[ShortnFiery]

73. Clinton didn't even threaten a VETO. NT

[Cosmocat]

63. EXCELLENT POST!

Spot on ...

People want to frame things historically to make a point to support something in current time, and in a lot of cases, like this, it has not real particular connection ...

The right simply found the right combintation to con enough people into swinging their way, the concerted effort to meld christianity and the republican party started to show real dividends for them, as noted, the Brady Bill was used to gin up the gubberment is going to take our guns fear - The trifecta of god, gays and guns (had Clinton enacted don't ask, don't tell at that point, cause that hurt him PLENTY) ...

There were legitimate "scandals" but the right ginned up the house checking things pretty good in addition ...

The anti-government thing is eerily similar to what we are seeing now, what is the common denominator - a newly elected democrat ...

The media started to drop any pretense of journalism and started to blatently tip the scales in the Rs direction ...

Just a LOT of factors coming together at the same time for them ...

One positive factor is BO ... Clinton had a mentality to take on the Rs, while BO has a mentality of letting the BS roll off his shoulders ... I think for that portion, small as it may be, of TRUE independents who are not insane, that BO gets a little bit of credit for being magnanimous toward the Rs ...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

67. Thanks

I don't think 2010 is going to be a 1994 redux because of the overall state of the Republican Party (their lack of *leadership* and funds, as well their increasingly hard to please teabagger "base" who might succeed in primarying more "electable" Repubs) and the fact of the matter is that, despite how much the teabaggers hate him, Barack Obama is simply not as polarizing a figure as President Clinton. Obama also may not be as popular as he was after he was elected and he's had a few stumbles but he won a convincing victory and he is still maintaining a decent approval rating in spite of everything he's been through.
My prediction is that a few seats will flip (mostly to Repubs but a few may go to Dems as well) and Obama will have a reduced majority to work with for the following two years but as long as Dems get to the polls and don't just stay home, we shouldn't have to worry about losing the House or the Senate (again).
Plus, +/-11 months is still quite a long time in political terms, so IMHO all of the predictions of doom and gloom pervasive here on DU at the moment seem a tad premature.

[WonderGrunion]

47. I usually respond to all my replies

But #44 and #45 are on my ignore list. So without knowing what is in your posts, let me just say that you are wrong and I disagree with you totally.

[cliffordu]

50. What would you call a fact like this, one that puts to death the notion that

defeat of the 'centrists' is good for the liberal policy and membership in the activist lefty club?


An Uber fact?

A neo-fact?


Reality??

[WonderGrunion]

51. A truism.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[cliffordu]

52. Thank you.

A truism indeed.

[WinterParkDonkey]

68. 2010 is not 1994

The Republican Party was very disciplined in 1994--I will give them credit for that. They had one message "The Contract for America" and expected everyone who ran as a Republican to toe the party line. "Eye of the Newt" Gingrich expected complete loyalty and anyone who wanted to run for Congress had to kiss his ring so to speak to get election funds.

[WonderGrunion]

69. Bump for the evening shift

Bumpity bump.

[ShortnFiery]

72. If both sides are in bed with Corporations and promote fascism, does it

truly matter IF we vote? Don't get me wrong, I'll suit up and show up to vote for the democrat, even a corporate one, but I sure as hell will not donate money or volunteer for a corporate shill.

[DeadEyeDyck]

74. I agree

the best thing for the dems to do is quit playing mee-tooism. Flip the cards face up and play to win. This bullshit of "running right" and moving left after the election is a long term loosing proposition. That sends a message of confusion. Is anyone ashamed of the principles of socialism? Say it loud that we are proud!

Why is it that we are always apologizing for who we are. Why do we change our name from "liberal" to "progressive"? Isn't that hiding in the shadows? Will the young ones follow when we are cowards? Has any revolution won by crawling on it's knees.

Sorry to rant but you hit a nerve.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

76. That may be what you remember, but it's still wrong.

NAFTA & GATT were both before 1994 and were the biggest reasons for the losses.

[WonderGrunion]

77. Gun control was the biggest reason for the losses

NAFTA and GATT hadn't adversely affected anyone enough by '94 to push an election. It was liberal legislation that lead to an energized right wing and caused the losses in '94 and the election of Shrub in 2000.

[Greyhound]

78. That is your perspective, as is assigning the AWB the label of "liberal legislation",

there was nothing liberal about it, it was a bone for their paranoid North-Eastern contributors, but the resulting publicity and the worst timing imaginable (< 1 month before the election) did contribute to the results. Still, there were many of us that worked for Clinton's first election and were betrayed by his actions. He cut off his coat tails and decimated the volunteer base that Congresspeople needed for their campaigns. Not so different than what we have now, he betrayed his hard-core supporters (the people that actually do the work) and galvanized the opposition.