There really *is* a schism. We are soon going to have to admit that and take sides.

[Stinky The Clown]

It is becoming increasingly clear that "the left" and the current powers that run the Democratic party are at odds. It isn't a minor policy disagreement. It is fundamental and profound. It is as intractable as the silliness we see every day right here on DU in what passes for "conversation".

He doesn't like him and the reverse is also true. No love lost. No respect given.

It can no longer be euphemised as two sides of the same coin working for a common goal. There are two completely different coins and two very different goals.

This schism is rapidly approaching the unsolvable.

The cries are left and lefter, but the fault line lies considerably farther to the right.

"With us or against us" may well become a prescient cry.






On edit: this is NOT a call for a third party. It is, instead, a discussion of who will prevail in the Democratic Party.

I am a Democrat and I will NOT go away.

[villager]

1. in other words, there is "Democratic" and "Underground" as two separate poles?

n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barack2theFuture]

3. careful of the precipice you are dancing precariously near, Stinky.

and more power to you!

[Pirate Smile]

4. Well, that would be really stupid and counterproductive. I don't think most people would be that

dumb when considering the alternative of Republicans in power. Less then two years since Bush has been gone, less then four years since Republicans lost control of Congress - I can't believe people's memories are so short that they would be OK with going back to that.

[havocmom]

86. The sole alternative to neoDems is not Republicans. Real DEMs exist still

We need to get good mainstream view DEMs elected and sack the DINOs

[glitch]

93. Thank you! :) nt

[havocmom]

96. Hey glitch!

How ya doin? Call me (pm)

[TBF]

112. People have learned about 3rd parties and few want to go that route.

This administration is going to be faced with protests if things get much worse though. When people have nothing left to lose (or rather everything has been stolen from them) they will be in the streets. Then the smug "would you rather have repubs" is going to lose it's luster.

[davidinalameda]

5. It is as intractable as the silliness we see every day right here on DU in what passes for "conversa

I think that sums your post up very nicely

[RandomThoughts]

6. It has never been with us or against us in my view.

I think the comment, if they are not against you they are for you is far more inclusive.

[TBF]

113. It has always been "with or against us" -

in terms of class warfare. Gap between rich and poor. That is really the only stat you need to look at to understand what is going on in this country. Or in this administration. Or on this message board.

[tomp]

126. that is correct. the sole purpose of our two party system....

....is to negotiate exactly how much of our total wealth the rich can have right NOW.

the goal of getting as much as possible at any one time is constant. and they are extremely good at it.

they are always trying to determine how much can they take before people flood into the streets and start rebelling.

and we are getting damn close to finding out.

but it's kind of like how the rich feel about cheating on their taxes: if you're not
getting audited now and then, you're not being aggressive enough.

this is where someone like fdr steps in and has to give back a bit. then the game continues and they resume trying
to take it all away again. obama is not fdr. obama is still trying to take more away. if the masses get out of hand, he may be given the fdr role.

only time will tell.

[BzaDem]

7. Nah. Next time Republicans start to govern, people will realize they had no idea how good we had it.

It's just a matter of time.

When the window of possibility becomes whether we should accept hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to various government agencies and entitlements or allow the government to be shut down, it will focus the mind in a way that will hit home in an up close and personal way.

[LWolf]

46. You are counting on Republicans to win your battles for you? nt

[havocmom]

87. 'terra! terra!' has been replaced with 'Republicans! Republicans!'

But it is still just a lame attempt to knee jerk people into complying with an agenda by way of a false premise.

Pailn and McCain are NOT the alternative to Obama and other corporate kissing neoDems. We can work for Dem candidates with more traditional DEM values and agendas.

[chrisa]

8. There is a schism, but I don't think it's that bad.

Many of the "lefter" crowd, as you put it, are still supporters of Obama. His poll numbers are still very strong, especially in the Democratic party. I don't think we should pick sides - that would cause in-fighting, and make the party attack itself from within.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. The lie within the polls

And make no mistake, polling is VERY scientific and the questions asked are very scientific. Pollsters have agendas in common with those who commission them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[geek tragedy]

23. No, the lie is that the anti-Democrat, anti-Obama left

has any ability to do anything on their own.

There are simply too few of you to make a difference on your own. In order to get ANYTHING done, you need us pro-Democrat, pro-Obama liberals to get it done.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. You talking to me directly?

Are you telling me what i am? Are you calling me anti-Democrat? That's a direct question. I want a direct answer. No weaseling.

[geek tragedy]

43. If you consider yourself at war with the Democratic party,

to the point where you think that either your 12% or the other 88% has to go . . .

[cleanhippie]

56. "I am a Democrat and I will NOT go away." Stinky's direct quote in the OP.

At war with the Democratic Party? Where did you get that from?

[geek tragedy]

60. Stinky wants a civil war within the party.

One his side would lose, big time.

[LostinVA]

79. Such hubris makes for a very long fall

[sendero]

111. Right now..

.. maybe. In a couple of years when more Republican governance has failed completely, not so much.

[saracat]

104. I would be very curious as to how much exposure you have to the "actual Democratic Party"

and not just aparatchnicks either. You don't seem really well informed. I can tell you this the Progressive Caucus is the largest growing group within the Party itself.If you have ever attended any State Conventions, or National Conventions within the last several years you might know that.

[Goldstein1984]

105. That need goes two ways

I don't know if it's 12%, less, or more, but it's enough to decide an election.

I can vote democratically without voting Democrat.

In a system of representative government, why would I vote for any party or candidate that didn't represent my views?

Sucking less than the other party isn't good enough.

[Hannah Bell]

108. the "anti-obama left" is your delusion.

[Raster]

9. I am a Progressive Democrat, and I will not go away!

This was my party before it was a DLC corporate cesspool.
I will NOT go away!

[Hepburn]

16. +1,000...n/t

[sufrommich]

11. Polls show that the vast majority of Democrats support the

President. There does not seem to be any real evidence of a schism in the party.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. The lie within the polls:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[sufrommich]

22. That doesn't prove a lie. That's you making the argument

that people who self describe themselves as liberals aren't really liberals because you say so.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. Willful obtustitudinousness is still obtusitudinousness

Same to the poster below

[geek tragedy]

24. No, that's you refusing to recognize data that tells you what you don't want to hear.

In other words, cherry picking--a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.

[U4ikLefty]

98. With that vast majority he doesn't need the "professional left"

now does he?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. We already know who will prevail in the Democratic Party. They already have

at least in the Seanate where they can dilute and get rid of anything with substance the House sends them.

And who do they lash out at any opportune moment? The Blue Dogs? Ha! They cater to and coddle and bribe the most disloyal of the Dems while they dis their liberal voters and reps. What type of candidate do the DCCC and the DSCC run and support in the primaries?

You are right that the schism is becoming unsolvable.

[Hepburn]

13. I am now ULTRA far left...and IMO the Democratic Party has left me -- I did not leave them.

I am ULTRA because I believe in feeding and housing people, giving them medical/dental care whenever warranted without cost if they cannot afford the same (including abortion on demand), free education to anyone who qualifies, anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen PERIOD, marriage is a fundamental right and all persons are entitled to marry the person of his/her choice (same sex, opposite sex, black, white, whatever), and that immigrants are welcome -- if here illegally, fix it and don't deport them, and on and on...in support of doing what is right, fair and equal.

Some seem to think I am some kind of a socialist because I believe in and support human beings over corporations, the wealthy and traditional WASP bullshit.

IMO, the Democratic Party has moved far, far to the right and left me standing where it should be. As far as I am concerned there are two major parties: One is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far right to an ignorant extreme and the other one is only one step from being in the same fucking place.

JMHO

[kenny blankenship]

34. The Democratic Party is now collectively to the right of Nixon on the Bill of Rights

And about at par with Ronald Reagan on political economy, and it is following dutifully the Bush Doctrine. (threatening "preemptive" war against Iran for example). It has approved, or if you prefer it has failed to oppose, any war started by George W. Bush when he was President, and is now doubling down on one of them, Afghanistan, and adhering to Bush's SOFA plan of permanent occupation of Iraq with 50,000 troops - a force equal to that spec'ced by Douglas McGregor and Donald Rumsfeld for the initial invasion of Iraq.

I can surrender my pride but not my memory. Not all Democratic elected office holders are guilty of the Republicanization of the party. My Congressman is not, however he is in the minority. When I see so much traditionally Republican policy and rhetoric coming from the Democrats I am forced to conclude that by and large the Democratic Party has adopted Republican principles, and I have nothing to look forward to from them, except Republican outcomes, since they reinforce Republican ideology with their mee-too corporatism, and seem unwilling to act outside of it, even when they have a popular mandate to do so and the national situation urgently demands it.

[Hepburn]

41. Boy, do I hear you!

IMO, FDR is rolling in his grave.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Oh you no, you went THERE again.

The observation that our party leaders are to the right of Nixon on many issues causes heads to explode.

[Huskerchub]

97. ...

[disillusioned73]

120. ;)

[NJmaverick]

14. Still trying to incorrectly spin the pragmatics vs the idealists

into a false left vs the non-left

[geek tragedy]

26. It's the fringe trying to define themselves up into a position

of real power.

The reality is that for anything they want to happen, they need us.

[LostinVA]

80. "The reality is that for anything they want to happen, they need us"

Not true. Because nothing will be done anyway.

[alsame]

15. The goals of the party and those of the people haven't been

the same for quite a while. But now I think we've gone passed the tipping point where corporate interests control the gov't, no matter which party is in power.

Policy and legislation that threatens the status quo has to be watered down enough so as not to offend the corporate power and the MIC while still managing to throw a few crumbs to the people.

And about that 60 vote thing...I would bet that even if the Dems had more than 60 votes there would always be enough defectors to prevent meaningful change.

[killbotfactory]

17. Anyone have a cross I can nail myself to?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

125. Here:

[MineralMan]

19. With a few exceptions, we are ALL Democrats,

and none of us are going away -- at least not voluntarily.

As for the three posters in this thread who have declared their allegiance to the Green Party, I do have to wonder how this site suits their efforts. Almost all of the political discussion here has to do with the Democratic Party, not the Greens. I don't mean to suggest that they not come here, but I can't figure out why they'd want to.

I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party will be the party that represents the values and ideals of the largest segment of the party. That's pretty much what it's always done, and I don't see a clamoring from that segment for any dramatic changes.

[LostinVA]

81. Greens and another third party members are welcomed at DU

And have always traditionally joined with the Dems because they shared a socially progressive platform. Posters are also allowed to say they might vote Green in 2012. They can't advocate for a non-Dem candidate, except for Crist the Republican, but Skinner has said on here that your vote is your business.

And, I don't get this pledging allegiance to a political party. It's so nationalistic and smacks of purity tests.

We all know you want certain posters to STFU.

[MineralMan]

88. Yes, and I wrote:

"I don't mean to suggest that they not come here"

[geek tragedy]

20. You are outnumbered 8:1 in the real world.

Liberal Democrats actually support the administration.

The fringe does not.

The fringe never wins.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Who are you defining as "fringe"

Be very specific or don't mention it at all. Fair enough?

[geek tragedy]

27. The 10-12% of liberal Democrats who feel that the current

administration is their opponent/enemy.

[MineralMan]

28. That seems a good enough definition, although I think the

percentage is lower than that in the general Democratic population.

[geek tragedy]

29. About the same. Conservative Democrats in the South

vote Republican as often as they vote Democrat.

[JonLP24]

40. Wait a minute

I thought that was simply didn't support him.

I didn't know not supporting someone was considered fringe? I guess wanting things like human rights and habaes corpus is "fringe".

[moksha]

49. The Administraion should have seen them as their ally.

They blew it.

[geek tragedy]

51. Those people were never going to be his allies. nt

[moksha]

53. You have it backwards. This administration was never going to

respect them. Even after their tireless work. Through the entire bush debacle and through the campaigns, they held the higher positions and support Obama.

You are just wrong. Sadly and pathetically wrong.

[geek tragedy]

55. Nope. He had to make compromises to get legislation passed, and

that makes him unacceptable to the DU crowd.

[moksha]

57. You are still wrong.

He had a choice. Leadership or capitulation. It wasn't compromise. He and the other Democratic leaders chose to bend to the conservadems over liberal legislation. It is a sign of weakness and a lack of principle.

[maryf]

137. +1

[JoePhilly]

67. I think you've explain the situation very accurately.

Here's what I see:

~40% of Americans on the right OPPOSE Obama at all times, claiming he's going too far.

~40% of Americans generally on the left support Obama, and think he's making good progress against the solid opposition.

~10% of Americans are sheep. This group is uninterested and will tend to go in the direction of those around them.

and then ...

~10 of Americans on the farther left OPPOSE Obama, claiming that he's not doing enough.

Which means you get ~50% OPPOSING Obama, ~40% SUPPORTING, and ~10% that breaks towards the majority.

The result is that the media sees 56% AGAINST Obama, 44% SUPPORT Obama, and so they media claims that "the majority" opposes Obama for GOING TOO FAR.

In the end, the opposition from the left actually helps the GOP.

[SidDithers]

78. +1000...nt

Sid

[cleanhippie]

58. +1000

[LostinVA]

83. "Those People" -- ie liberal Dems and other liberals

[LostinVA]

82. Where does this 11-12% come from?

[tomp]

127. i was happy to be in the 10% who did not support bush after 9/11....

....and i'm just as happy being in the 10-12% who oppose obama since he started "governing" and bringing about "change."

[EFerrari]

44. It's interesting that none of these folks that have posted that number

over and over and that refer to it over and over, none of them, not one respond to the poll I posted which has Democratic approval at 77% and trending down.

[geek tragedy]

54. It's because CONSERVATIVE Democrats disapprove much

more than liberal Democrats do.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/643.pdf

See page 8.

[EFerrari]

65. Well, that bodes ill after this slapdown of the left, doesn't it? n/t

[Huskerchub]

99. Come on Stinkey

don't make 'em say it. If they do they'll look like the bigots they are...I'll say it for them. The fagots and the dykes and the queers and the bisexual-homos and the cross dressers and the transvestites and all the rest or US undesirables. They want US to go away and STFU because we make it uncomfortable for them! Well guess what FUCK THEM I'm staying where I am and I'm going to make it so fucking uncomfortable they are the ones that STFU!

[moksha]

48. THe fringe frame is bullshit.

And, Obama is steadily losing support from the Democrats and from Liberals. No matter how you cut it.

[depakid]

89. Still hung up on that same bogus canard

Whenever I hear someone repeat it, I know who has no credibility and knows nothing about qualitative or quantitative analysis- but is instead a sucker who can be persuaded on most anything....

Congratulations!

[Starry Messenger]

21. They've almost always been at odds.

For instance, the Democratic party rarely mentions its role in the McCarthy era.

[surrealAmerican]

30. The schism you speak of already happened.

The "centrists" of the party won control. We on the left have to work with them or we will not accomplish anything.

[Blue State Blues]

31. As long as elections are about money those who serve monied interests will prevail

accumulating donations will always outweigh serving the party base or those who vote.

What Gibbs said wasn't an accident, not a Freudian slip. It was a message, and a calculated one.


edited to fix typo

[Javaman]

35. Those who control the electronic voting and the money will win.

It's been that way in the past, it will be that way in the future.

Until those two very fundamental things are altered, nothing will change.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. I know which side I am on --

and will act according. My money, my time, and my vote goes to those candidates who share my values and hopes for our country's future.

And those candidates are Liberal/Progressive.

[era veteran]

37. Pragmatism would have given us President Gore

Many get vicious over this very truth. It was a great statement with your throwaway votes for Nader. "In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes." It's that simple folks. Thanks for George Bush you political purists too bad politics itself is NOT PURE! Stupid Wars, Fucked up economy...........................and the rest of 8 years of ripping what was left of The New Deal to shreds. You were lousy tippers to my servers when I hosted a Nader function too a bunch of talkers but not one doer. That is the side of the schism this 56 year old voter stands. Peace Richard

[EFerrari]

45. Pragmatism did give us Gore. The Supreme Court blocked him.

That has nothing to do with purity unless you mean pure corruption.

[kenny blankenship]

62. Pragmatism then dictated making the best of a bad situation, and learning to get along

with our new unelected authorities, in the hopes of winning small victories at the margins.

[EFerrari]

70. I don't think anyone really appreciates how pragmatic

we really are. lol

[era veteran]

69. Nader voters were not pragmatic

I agree with you about the Supreme Court. I wish William O. Douglas had been alive to write the dissenting opinion. He was 'Our Justice' as FDR was 'Our President'. ....... Fuck it, 'To the barricades!'

[Raineyb]

73. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And you've obviously learned NOTHING.

Nader voters were not obligated to vote for Gore. Gore needed to earn those votes. He did not. That's his fault not that of the voters. Despite his poor campaigning he still managed to win only to have the Supreme court hand it to Bush. And even after all that he didn't put up any fight in the Senate despite the fact that there were people willing to dispute the results.

This blaming Nader voters meme is false, it's old and stupid. It absolves the Democratic party of any responsibility for its wins and losses and worse it's a lie.

[LoZoccolo]

75. The rest of us are not obligated to respect Nader voters for their stupid decision. n/t

[Raineyb]

130. And I am not obligated to respect assholes who traffic in lies.

Let me know when you've removed your head from you ass.

[LoZoccolo]

76. P.S. It seems the Nader voters themselves learned a lesson seeing that

they turned back on him in the next two elections.

[era veteran]

103. I don't appreciate stupid learned nothing comment

What chance in hell did he have???? ZERO Stupid is what stuck us with GW Bush, Nader, the vain, could have accomplished the same thing by dropping out before the election. Stupid the fuck indeed. Ralph Wasted Vote destroyed countries destroyed economies too many dead blood on his hands Nader. Dreamers dream and the world sucks because of it. Dare to be Pragmatic! I hope we right this country before I die. I still can't believe the poser Reagan was elected. Yes let learn from history lets marvel at Nader exercising his right to run for POTUS and remember where most of his votes would have gone. As for the lie part: a couple of Wikis, "as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choosing Gore over Bush by a large margin" & "In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all",<56> which would net a 13% (12,665 votes) advantage for Gore over Bush." I have been marching etc. since 1971 and have not given up but I would hope that you might see my point rather than being so judgmental. Schism I guess but why would people on a site intended to support Democrats go against that mission? Start up GU

[Recursion]

116. I never understood that argument. Nader had the exact same chance as everyone else.

Namely, the chance to convince the majority of voters in each of an electoral majority of states.

[Raineyb]

132. You obviously don't appreciate it because you still haven't learn shit.

What chance in hell did he have? He had the same chance anyone else had if you weren't so locked into a mere 2 party system. But even without Nader voters Gore STILL won the god-damned election only to have the Presidency handed to Bush. And the members of the two parties couldn't be bothered to actually fight against such an undemocratic move. One because it benefited them and the other because they're either cowards, hope to benefit from an equally fucked up ruling in the future or deep down don't give a shit about making sure people aren't disenfranchised. So don't give me any shit about what the fuck Nader voters cost Gore. Nader voters didn't cost Gore anything Gore was never entitled to those votes in the first place. Every vote for Nader was a vote that GORE DID NOT EARN.

I am sick and tired of this undeserved sense of entitlement some people in the party have.

Here's a newsflash; people have EVERY right to vote any way they fucking choose (which at the moment also includes the right to not vote at all) To talk as though Nader's run cost Gore shows a fucking huge amount of hubris. This is how democracy works, people have choices on the ballot and the people running try to get voters to vote for them rather than the other people on the ballot. It doesn't matter if there's 2, 3, or 12 god-damned people on the ballot voters can chose whom they want. To imply that someone does not have the right to run because they are not on one of the two "mainstream" parties is undemocratic over-entitled bullshit and then to argue about an election from this undeserved sense of entitlement shows you either don't care about democracy or you're a party sycophant. Either way your argument is not one to be taken seriously at all.

The nerve of you to think that you can dictate who gets to run and whom people should be allowed to vote for!

[era veteran]

133. I think we are obviously at an impasse , you obviously

missed my point. " Independent since 1974 or '75/ "you're a party sycophant." Great word usage, but an unnecessary slur. Good luck

[mod mom]

124. and of course the DLC blocked any attempt to intercede.

and again in '04.

[LAGC]

107. I'm so sick of that "Nader gave us Gore" meme.

You're assuming that if Nader hadn't run, those who voted for him would have voted for Gore instead of just stayed home.

What about the tens of thousands of disenfranchised African American voters who were told they couldn't vote because their names were similar to that of convicted felons? Blacks reliably vote over 90% Democratic.

Or the discrepancy of thousands of Florida voters who voted heavily for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore due to the confusing ballot?

The only reason Nader got so many votes was because Gore was such a corporate puppet. Gore moved so far to the center (picking Lieberman as V.P. didn't help) that he disenfranchised the left, and created a vacuum that Nader filled.

I fear this president is following in Gore's foot-steps.

[era veteran]

136. I am sick of people in denial. Gore better than Bush

Exit polls in Fla said Nader voter would vote largely for Gore, some for Bush and some would stay at home, enough to sway the election. Gore, NOT PERFECT, I agree wholeheartedly but light years better than Bush. This is fact. What/ How would the world be differently now? EOM/ End of flame from me, Good day & good luck

[LoZoccolo]

38. Why don't you just go out there and work for what you want

which the pragmatists and sensible liberals have been doing all along (and is why they get it)? Why do you have to join a "side" first? If you can get people to support what you want, you'll get the electable primary candidates you want, they'll take office, and there you'll have it.

My prediction though is you'll learn enough lessons through the school of hard knocks to become "sensible" and have a strategy for getting all this done, and realize it takes work and compromise.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Oh, and also

you'll see the value in not destroying what you've already worked hard to accomplish even if you want more.

[Huskerchub]

101. excuse me?

I DID go out the and work for what I believed in. I DID go out there and work for my values. I DID go out there and work hard to elect TWO POTUS that LIED TO ME!! They told me I was their friend. They told me they would be a "fierce advocate" for my human rights. They told me that all we need to do was Hope and we would be rewarded. Well I Worked and I Hoped and I Spent money and I Donated money and I Voted and I GOT SHIT ON AND LIED TO!!!! Do You really think that I'm stupid enough to fall for it a 3rd time!! FUCK NO! Maybe when you're told that you don't count, that you are not work standing up for (but please we need your cash and time) then, MAYBE then you'll understand but I doubt it!

[felix_numinous]

42. The status quo

is making a national crisis of corporate takeover LOOK LIKE partisan politics, by magnifying existing differences in the populace. They have done the same thing successfully overseas--these powerful entities do not care about people and will destroy this county if we do not get a clue.

I agree the corporate/status quo/neo cons are the radical right.

They are creating a state of fear and anger so we lose our ability to multitask--which is EXACTLY what we need to do--Democrats absolutely need to stay together for the Fall elections AND we need to stay cognizant of our loss of civil and human rights. Can we do this?

I have a radical idea: that the ROOTS of the 'craziness' on the left and the right are the same--loss of house and home, jobs, healthcare, personal safety--and the very same entity is trying to make them fight each other for the crumbs left to them. There has always been racism, homophobia, and always been artists, free thinkers and atheists, but now for some reason everyone has been whipped into a froth. They have funded the fundamentalist movement for decades, this is a very unnatural phenomenon in America, a cult brainwashed into voting to dismantle their own civil rights, while doing the fighting for them against the left?? What could be better?

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE MOST PISSED OFF ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE, If you are not pissed off enough, you have enough to eat, or your personal safety is not threatened. How easy is it to drive the people on the edges of survival nuts???

This situation is by far not black and white, in order to see it we have to somehow not allow ourselves to take their bait. There is a lot of baiting on this board, IMHO, and I have bit and been bit, it is a challenge to keep my cool but I will try


Hey Stinky I like your posts. I am having another one of those days, all fired up. I hope I am making some sense here.

[glitch]

94. You are making excellent sense. nt

[wyldwolf]

47. The schism has always existed

And, as of now, the further left have mainly been on the losing end.

Think about it and ask yourself why.

[Individualist]

50. DLC has already achieved their goal of dividing and destroying the party.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. what was that quote again? Something about the perfect being the enemy of the good?

Can we please get done as much as possible while we are in power before we start cutting each other's throats?


We can turn on each other later, there will always be time for that.

[bigtree]

59. have fun with that 'side-choosing'

You should know that sort of dividing nonsense is worthless to our party or our party's agenda, and mostly serves the unified opposition. Most of our Democrats (a clear majority in support of this presidency) are not as divided as you might believe.

[madinmaryland]

61. Something to ponder, Stinky. You are correct that there is a division

within the democratic party, and maybe even a deep one.

The question that needs to be asked is that whichever side prevails will the other side still vote and support democratic candidates in the election. Generically speaking, I hope that the party will be able to come together.

Realistically, the party is controlled by the leader, President Obama, so I would assume his "vision" will be the side that prevails over the next several years. Then the question becomes will those who are in disagreement with Obama either leave the party and support third party candidates or drop out of the process all together.

[rucky]

63. The schism is 90% about personality and 10% about policy.

It exists because of the internet, and can be bridged (not here) through face-to-face contact and open, respectful dialogue. There are serious limitations to communicating effectively on the 'net - simply because of the sheer volume of information, the anonymity and ease of publishing, and the competition for message. Our interactions are rarely authentic here.

I've been thinking about this alot lately to lead me to this conclusion. I'm also going to become more active in the Coffee Party.

[mmonk]

117. Actually, for some of us, it very much is policy.

I'm anti-privatization and I'm not a Freidmanite or neo-liberal. The fact some of us know their game I think is why we are continually threatened and marginalized.

[tomp]

128. exactly. and furthermore, the internet is a tool to expose them further.

that's why the rich want to control it.

god forbid we should have too much information or be able to conveniently express our views.

[Lucky 13]

119. So the internet did it?

Come on, man. We have some very different ideas about what needs to happen in this country - POLICY wise. We're not logging on just to insult each other.

I wanted an administration that wasn't in bed with Wall Street, Big Banks, and Big Oil.
I wanted an administration focused on saving the environment, not blatantly lying to me about how the biggest eco-disaster in world history has magically vanished.
I wanted a single-payer health care system.
I wanted LESS defense spending and to END the WARS. BOTH OF THEM.
I wanted equal rights to be extended to EVERY American.

Those are my main issues. And I've just been told what they think of my fucking opinion.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Individualist]

66. Snark, divide, repeat.

Fuck DLC!

[K8-EEE]

68. Un-rec

Divided we fall. Enough with the divisions.

[Individualist]

71. "Divided we fall." Too late, DLC has already achieved that goal.

[Desertrose]

72. K&R. nt

[Kahuna]

74. Get over yourself.

[blindpig]

77. Same old story...

Are ya with the people or with the bosses, the question of our epoch.

Our father was a union man some day I'll be one too.
The bosses fired daddy what's our family gonna do?
Come all you good workers good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old union has come in here to dwell.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

My daddy was miner and I'm a miner's son
and I'll stick with the union 'til every battles done.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

They say in Harlan County there are no neutrals there
you'll either be a union man or a thug for J.H. Blair

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

Oh workers can you stand it? Oh tell me how you can
Will you be a lousy scab or will you be a man?

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

Don't scab for the bosses don't listen to their lies
Us poor folks haven't got a chance unless we organize.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

[Odin2005]

84. We must take back the party. It is that simple.

Progressives need to do what Mark Dayton has done and challenge the Corporatists backed by the party apparatchiks in all races from dogcatcher to president. We need a Leftist Insurgency to take back our party and our country.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Jade Fox]

90. It's always been like this......

The moderate Dems trash the 'far left', and them steal their ideas. It's a game called "don't scare people too much with something too different".

It is not worse now, it's typical. I've watched it for nearly 40 years. What's worse now are the times. The Bush years pushed everything so far to the right, the center moved. People are scared. Obama want too much to be liked by everyone. The Right has gone psycho after they proved disastrous leaders when given a blank check by 9/11.

You elect people, then you kick their ass to get them to do what they promised they'd do. That's how it is, in my experience.

[L0oniX]

91. With out the left the Dem party will morph more and more into repukedom.

It's only the far left that keeps the Dems counter balanced from the centrist right. Casting aside the left will only hasten the DLC centrists Dems move to the right. Centrist is not suppose to mean that one is a reach across the aisle right leaning asscarrot.

[Laelth]

92. The schism has been coming for some time.

I don't know that it's immanent now, but I welcome it. I look forward to joining the more liberal of the two parties that are created when the Democratic Party splits. I look forward to being a member of a party that puts my values into practice.

-Laelth

[laughingliberal]

95. K & R nt

[Zorra]

100. The schism lies between those of us that believe we need government

of, by, and for the people, and those that support corporatocracy, either willingly or through ignorance.

[unkachuck]

102. correct as usual, Stinky....

....it's not only the Party, it's the whole damn country....it's divided down the middle and getting angrier by the day as we decline economically....

....whether we want to or not, we all will be forced to take sides....for the 'middle' is rapidly disappearing....

[TBF]

114. That is exactly what many of the high income dems don't understand -

but it will become clearer to them as things get worse unfortunately.

[tomp]

129. they will have the poor right fight the poor left and sweep up the spoils. nt

[NuttyFluffers]

106. well it's not my fight as i am registered RNC, but loyalty to a man or a party is pretty sad.

loyalty to a country and ideals strikes me as more honorable and humane. whether humanity as a group can grasp loyalty to the human species and the planet earth as a whole is a question that has yet to be answered definitively -- there's still hope while our species still exists.

but yeah, my worldview holds that loyalty to idols and icons is pretty bad in comparison to loyalty to people and principles... i'm not crazy, i'm just drawn that way.

[DailyGrind51]

110. The DLC moved the Party to the right of where it had been since FDR.

[LaydeeBug]

115. I'm in the "get rid of Geithner, Emmanuel, Gibbs AND the Pope" crowd.

but would gladly settle for just Geithner. Where does that leave me?

[Vinnie From Indy]

118. If asking a President to honor his campaign promises is a schism

then so be it.

The fact is that it is NOT a difference of opinion or ideology so much as it is the acknowledgement that we have been lied to on a grand scale. That being the case, I would offer that the "schism" is more about a distinction between the willfully ignorant and the rest of us.

[EFerrari]

134. As long as people can tell themselves that this is about someone else, they will.

I agree with you that "something happened" just now and bet we will look back at this summer as one of the last moments of our coalition. Now that this check was signed in public by the White House, the months of attacks on the left here make perfect sense.

[dembotoz]

121. so now what

It is getting harder and harder to get motivated about nov.

I do have a candidate i like and i will work on his campaign

I am a former local party chair.
and i don' feel like i belong anymore.

[druidity33]

122. if we had IRV, third parties would be possible. K&R. nt.

[mod mom]

123. Unfortunately state party establishments hold down progressive candidates

and are selective to who influences the party. Back in '04 I thought we would gain influence, now not so optimistic. I wish I was.

[tomp]

131. presidents do too. nt

[Horse with no Name]

135. I'm on Dr. Dean's team

Anything to the RIGHT of that...well, I'm just not interested anymore!