When Republicans controlled the Senate with only 50 votes they got everything they wanted.

[rainy]

"Ahh, those Republicans just will not allow the Dems to do anything, even with a large majority. When the Republicans controlled the Senate with 50 votes and Vice President Cheney's tie breaker, they got everything they wanted, never needing even a majority of 51." From Luv News this morning.

I understand that the difference now is that the bills cant even get to a vote because of the filibuster. But why did the Democrats not use this more if they really believed that the laws were not good for America?

How can the Republicans get away with this? I know the media would rip the Democrats if they blocked so much legislation but they never say a word about the Republicans doing this.

[hobbit709]

1. Lack of spine

[Festivito]

43. Lack of media rock throwing, rather than lack of D spine.

The media that has more Rs on when Rs are in power because Rs are in power.
Then, they have more Rs on when Ds are in office because the voice of those not in charge needs to be heard.

The US media are killing US.

EDIT ADD:
When Rs threatened filibuster, the media howled about obstructionist Ds.
When Rs did filibuster, and when Rs filibustered more in a year than all the filibusters since this country began...

No problem for the Rs from the media. Not a bit.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. My theory: Maybe some Dems did want to use the filibuster but Leadership

advised strongly against it. They were hoping to gain majorities in both Houses the next election and knew if they used the filibuster, they'd lose with Republicans claiming they were obstructionist.

The problem has been for a while and still is that Republicans are allowed to control the message. I haven't known of effective defensive responses and redirection of the issues. Example: If Republicans filibuster and obstruct, that's "democracy". If Democrats do it, they are contrarian and hold up needed money to Americans.

Double standard hypocrisy but to be fair, the Leadership allows it.

[defendandprotect]

10. No -- too much corporate money and corporate influence ....

[DCKit]

23. Too many corporate Dems. n/t

[Mister Ed]

45. Bingo! n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. The only fault in that theory...

...each caucus elects its own leadership.

If the bulk of democrats in the senate during the GOP-controlled days were unhappy with being told to shut-up and stand-down they could have replaced that leadership.

They chose not to do so.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. clueless in opposition, hapless in power.

A large segment of our party leadership - for example many of our senators and representatives - do not support Democratic Party platforms, ideals, or goals. They support the bipartisan Plutocracy Agenda that has governed this republic since 1980.

This is the 500lb gorilla in the room. We dance around it, fight about it, and have no good ideas about what to do about it, but there it is.

We came very close to the whole thing collapsing, the system itself falling apart, in the fall of 2008 and winter of 2009. It really is too bad that didn't happen. As far as I can see, that is the only way real reform will occur.

[rainy]

11. I think you nailed it. Our senators and representatives do not

support Democratic Party Platforms. That is it!!!!!!

[glitch]

21. I believe you are correct. Acknowledging that gorilla and discussing it is the only way

we'll come up with a way to fight it.

Never fear about the collapse, the bandaids holding back that hemorrhage will fail again, sooner rather than later.

[raouldukelives]

32. + 1 nt

[HughMoran]

4. Dems aren't ass holes

Now that the Republicans have abused this privilege to no end, you can be sure the Democrats will do the same in the future.

Republicans are party of NO ass holes - let's not bemoan the fact that Democrats weren't ass holes first.

[Autumn]

62. Now that's funny

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: The republicans abuse every privilege, and the Democrats let them get away with it and often go along with it. Keeping the powder dry and all that.

[NewJeffCT]

5. Social Security wasn't privatized

that was one of Bush's big things after the 2004 election - he toured the country promoting it for months and it went nowhere.

However, if Jim DeMint can have a blanket hold on every fucking piece of legislation, I keep thinking why didn't Democrats do that for Bush's most egregrious legislation? Sure Russ Feingold voted against the Patriot Act - but, why not a blanket hold? It was a big deal when Dodd put a hold on a bill back in 2006 or 2007 (Telecommunications liability for wiretapping?), I think. However, he eventually relented after the leadership asked him to.

[defendandprotect]

12. Mainly because there was such an uproar from the public ....

which doesn't seem yet to understand Obama's "Cat Food Commission" -- !!

[OHdem10]

20. SS and Medicare were used to pay other bills. Colas became

smaller and smaller. Medicare covered less and less.

[treestar]

28. Right after 911 it would have been politically impossible

If the Democrats had done that. They were probably wise not to. That's another thing the OP sentiment fails to account for. The Rs rode 911 to get all they wanted for as much as they could get out of it. They used it for everything, related or not. The public of that time was all for it.

And the Dems would not have done that had they been in power on 911. For that, they get called "spineless." For not abusing the situation as Repukes do, we get our leaders called "spineless."

[sabrina 1]

63. He failed because the PEOPLE rose up against

what he was proposing, along with the Democratic Party and huge organizations like AARP who fought hard against him. He was supposed to go to all 50 states, but ended his tour after visiting just a few. It was his first real failure. It became apparent that Republicans would be unable to mess with SS, so they left it until a Democrat was in power. Every single Democrat I know was calling and writing their Reps furiously at that time and it became a huge issue.

Now, many Democrats are remaining silent on the cutting of benefits, for political reasons, and where is AARP? I guess they figured that the push-back Bush got from Democrats wouldn't be so strong if a Democratic administration were to be the ones to mess with SS.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. it's easy when you're facing this throng:

[BrklynLiberal]

9. LOLOLOL!!!!

[treestar]

30. Getting sick of that meme

What is it they are "afraid" of?

[jgraz]

37. We're all sick of it. Maybe it's time the Democrats stopped reinforcing the idea.

I can't believe anyone can ask "what is it they're afraid of" after the colossal failure on the tax cut vote. And now, they're actively blocking recess appointments be THEIR OWN PRESIDENT. How pathetic can they get?

[treestar]

47. What are they afraid of?

People keep calling them cowards. That means they must be afraid of something. They voted to block these appointments because they are afraid of what? What terrible thing would happen to them if they voted as you think they should? I would like to know what they are facing before branding them cowards.

Constantly this board has posts calling them cowards. I would like to know just what it is they should not be so afraid of.

[jgraz]

51. Once again, I can't believe I have to explain this

They're afraid of losing their seats. Why isn't that crushingly obvious to you?

Not only are they afraid of losing their seats, but they're afraid that, should they lost their seats, there won't be a cushy lobbying or banking job waiting for them. After all, sticking up for progressive values is not the best way to land those lucrative post-Congress bribes business positions.

[treestar]

54. So you are admitting they would not be re-elected if they voted as they should?

who would be elected in their stead? You're agreeing then that the voters would not like it if they voted the "brave" way. Thus you admitting the voters don't even want what you claim is the brave way. What are the voters afraid of?

I see you are frustrated your "talking point" does not stand on its own and requires back up. You expect us just to fall in lock step because you used the word "coward." Just like Republicans when we opposed the war.

[jgraz]

56. Sigh... I said nothing of the kind.

Being afraid of something is not the same as being certain of something. Seriously, can you at least try to understand what I'm writing?

[treestar]

58. You're saying they vote a certain way because they are "afraid"

of not being reelected. Yet being reelected would have something to do with what the voters in their state or district want, or at least the majority. So basically it seems to be that a legislator should be "brave" and ignore his/her constituents desires, and then let someone else win the next election. Another "coward" presumably.

[jgraz]

60. So now you're saying that undermining the President is a good thing?

For two years, you've been blaming the Blue Dogs for every failure of Obama's. Now you say that the Blue Dogs were RIGHT to stall every piece of legislation and every nominee they could? That making Obama fail was OK because that's how you win elections?

Except that's NOT how you win elections, because most of those Blue Dogs are going to LOSE. And, in the process, they're going to hand the Speaker's gavel to John Boehner.

That's quite the effective political strategy you have there. :eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Pretty pathetic, isn't it?

[JerseygirlCT]

8. We need to change the rules with the new session

And then, whenever needed, we need to call their bluff and let them filibuster. But make them actually DO it. Stand there, and say no - preferably on television for the country to see.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[The Uncola]

15. Wish I had a graphic of ..

.. a sack with a pair in it. I'd loan them to Harry Reid & Co.

[OHdem10]

16. Could it be the Democratic Party has two wings. The Conservative

(Blue Dogs, DLC, Centrists) run the Democratic Party.
Their views are often closer to the Republicans than
Democrats. You cannot get the two wings in the
Democratic Party to pull together and push one
philosphy much less stand together and push back
against Republicans.

Because of this GWB and Tom Delay were able to pass
far right legislation. They pulled the Democrats
over to the Right. Center was lost and Democrats
now occupy the right. Sometimes they appear clueless.
This is why even the President cannot seem to understand
why we are not thrilled over that Right of Center
Health Bill.

The Democrats have almost reached a point where
they give the Republicans whatever they want.

At one time in this country, Compromise meant
the Right gave up something and the Left gave
up something. Not anymore. The Centrists and
Conservatives in Democratic Party affirm the
RWing philospy and policy.

[Davis_X_Machina]

24. No. It's not possible.

The Official DU Narrative is that Obama, tool of the corporatists, is just counting down the hours till his only term ends when he can cash in on offers to sit on boards, promote his memoirs and grow crazy rich. In the meantime, aided by his army of Rahmbots, he's causing all this epoch-making legislation to die in the Senate because he -- oh, I don't know -- doesn't implement them by executive order, or doesn't use signing statements, or didn't strip Max Baucus of his committee chairs, or didn't replace Harry Reid, or some damn thing.

Don't bother bringing logic here -- it's like bringing a vegan covered dish to an Argentinian pot luck dinner.

[treestar]

29. Not sure, because if that were true the "blue dog" authored HCR

would have been palatable to some Republicans. The Republican/Blue Dog combo could pass things or at least allow them to go to a vote.

The Republicans instead stick with their far right brethren.

[Imajika]

17. They couldn't get everything...

They couldn't get SS privatized, they couldn't get ANWR open for drilling, they couldn't get Miguel Estrada and some other judges through, etc.

Still, it is galling that with 59/60 votes on our side that we struggled so badly to move legislation and had so much else watered down.

But the problem is with our team. We have so many DINO's and conservadems that side with the Republicans. It is much more destructive when your own team is sabotaging you as it gives them the sheen of bipartisanship instead of us. We simply can't count on upwards of 10+ Senators to be with us on important issues unless we negotiate away the real meat of important bills.

[bullimiami]

18. Current day Rs only care about winning. They dont care about consensus or percentages.

These Ds otoh spend a lot of time worrying if everyone is happy.
They just wont use their majority just as they wouldnt use their power as a minority.

Disappointing.

[stray cat]

19. I still have social security and in theory a progressive tax code, separation of church and state

Discretionary spending was not totally eliminated, the estate tax was not permanently revoked

[BzaDem]

70. +1

[Davis_X_Machina]

22. To this day we live with the consequences of...

...the war in Iran. And the immigration reforms of Bush's second term.

And, as already mentioned, the successful privatization of SS, and the replacement of regular Medicare with Medicare Advantage.

The sad fact is the major Bush initiatives that were passed, were passed because they were popular. The war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, NCLB -- all popular when they passed, with large majorities in Congress when they passed. His Supreme Court nominees, ditto.

As Mr. Mencken said: "Democracy is based on the notion that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it -- good and hard."

[ProfessionalLeftist]

25. Too many Dems = invertebrate. n/t

[Cal33]

26. That's because Bush just did what he wanted. He had no

wish to win the approval of the Democrats. Our present leaders in Congress are
actually afraid of the Neocons -- even when the Dems. are in power. In this
respect, Obama is not helping any. Hope he has learned in the first half of
his term, and a change in personnel in his administration might also signal a
change in his style of governing. "Bipartisanship" is possible with normal
people who have differences of opinions, but definitely impossible with psychopaths!

[treestar]

27. Because Democrats do not stick together; you see that on this board

You have people voting against a bill because it's not good enough. Republicans don't do that.

Look how they stick together to prevent us from doing anything. Democrats never do that. They all go their own way and some are purists.

Our flaw is we become discouraged, even in power. They are still fired up when out of power.

IOW, they really want what they say they want. We don't want it all badly enough - we end up staying home because it wasn't quick or easy.

[jgraz]

33. For every Democrat voting against a bill "because it's not good enough"

you have three Blue Dogs voting against it because they're either bought by corporations or afraid of their own shadows.

You need to focus on who the real problem is. (Hint: it's not Russ Feingold or Patty Murray)

[treestar]

38. Prove they are "bought by the corporations"

and what are they allegedly "afraid" of?

You make my point. They don't stick together like the Republicans do, or can. So there is no point in calling them cowards. They aren't cowards, they are doing what they want to do regardless of the party's fortunes or even if the POTUS wants them to do it.

[jgraz]

39. Right after I prove the sky is blue.

Once again, your argument seems to be that you're so out-of-touch that you need even basic things explained to you. Really, you think Mary Landrieu is blocking Obama's budget director as some lofty political statement? Really?

[treestar]

48. What proof have you got of your assertion?

You accused the Democratic Senators of corruption.

[jgraz]

52. Um, because she said so?

On her own website, no less. http://landrieu.senate.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases/09-23-2010-2.cfm


I really have to ask: am I your only source for information?

[treestar]

59. Yeah I have a duty to have read everything you did and have the same

interests - so that you should never have to back up your assertions.

Where does it say she was paid by a corporation for her vote? And if she's corrupt, why does that mean all other Senators for all time are?

You are the one that made the generalized statement that they are "bought by the corporations."

Just because you don't agree with her and the majority of her constituents does not mean they are "bought by the corporations" or that they are "afraid."

[jgraz]

61. No, but you have some responsibility to stay minimally informed

Especially if you're going to jump into discussions and demand that others provide you with information.

[scarletlib]

31. One must also consider that the Democrats were responsible citizens

By that I mean that they realized they were the minority party but that doesn't mean that you absolutely obstruct the majority from governing as is being done now by the Repugs. At least they allowed the Congress to function to get the necessary work done. Now, today, the repugs won't even cooperate on the most mundane of governing issues.

[KharmaTrain]

34. Anyone Remember The "Gang Of 14"?

Those were the so-called "moderates" of both parties...Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe, Collins who played the go-between on most bills and where they went the other followed. That bloc is gone...totally in the GOOP camp now and there's been little, if any, compromise. I've never seen a party vote as lock step as today's GOTB.

The real problem is Harry Reid and how he's been taken time and again by rushpublican leadership and the fractured nature of his own caucus. He let the organization rules that gave McConnell the right to ask for 60 votes on every bill and is scared shit to force them to filibuster. They know a fish and he's made it easy.

While I don't want Senator Reid to lose his seat (Sharron Angle????), I sure would like to see a new leader in the next Congress.

[Tatiana]

35. This is the bottom line: Harry Reid is not a good Majority Leader.

I also hope he keeps his seat. But we need someone like Durbin who has the freedom to twist a few arms and not worry about their own re-election chances.

[jgraz]

36. Harry Reid is not a good Brownie troop leader

I also hope he keeps his seat, but if the Democrats re-elect him as Majority Leader, they have only themselves to blame for their future failures.

[BlueDemKev]

40. Because Republicans Stick Together Like Super-Glue

And the Democrats, being a diversified party, made up of various groups, have never been able to hold together like the GOP can, especially when they're have a majority.

[scentopine]

44. Seems to me democrats are sticking to republicans like glue....

Senate blocks recess appointments with deal between Dems, GOP

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/121775-senate-blocks-recess-appointments

Let me guess why the democrats are doing this - they are afraid Obama might appoint someone too conservative?

Obama fought hard for the likes of Blanche Lincoln and Low Joe Lieberman.

You reap what you sow. If democrats wanted to move left, they would.

Instead they choose to conserve energy by drafting in the republican slip stream.

Say what you want but republicans are still in control of house and senate and some would argue the executive branch as well.

[CTLawGuy]

72. exactly right

and I might add that the use of the filibuster as an everyday political tool is unprecedented in history.

[asdjrocky]

41. Yes, but they had a President in the WH on their side.

This is a whole different... oh, never mind.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. Who got everything they wanted?

The opposite numbers of DUer didn't get most of what they wanted - Roe vs Wade is still standing, and Bush's policies on immigration and taxation weren't nearly far enough right for many Republicans.

[treestar]

50. Yet they don't rip the Republicans on Free Republic or the like

They stay energized even when out of power. It's amazing. Then the same people crying about how the Dems can't get us all we want are the ones to complain that the Republicans can! the "disappointed" crowd. They give up too easily and obviously don't want single payer, etc. as badly as Republicans want abortion made illegal and the social security and medicaid repealed. Not nearly as badly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. I take it you don't spend much time of FR...

That's entirely understandable, but if you did then you'd see just as much griping about the Republicans there as you do about the Dems here, and exactly the same conviction that a left-wing agenda is being forced on the country because the Dems in the senate and congress are more ruthless than the Republicans.

[karynnj]

46. No they didn't

Two prime counter examples:

They did not get social security privatized and they did not get to drill in ANWR.

[librechik]

49. This is why I say ditch the filibuster forever, please! DEMS DON'T USE IT

probably because it is cheating at this point. They're a bit too ethical to feel good about this bullying tactic.

[BzaDem]

71. So much of what Bush wanted to do was blocked, and much wasn't even attempted

because of the filibuster.

SS was not privatized, his immigration bill failed, we don't have drilling in ANWR, we did not get rid of the estate tax permanently, the tax cuts are going to expire this year instead of being made permanent, lawsuits against insurance companies are not banned, and many other bills did not pass because they weren't even brought up due to the filibuster. Just keep that in mind.

[librechik]

78. good point--here's the difference

"This example is typical of a more general partisan pattern. When Republicans have been in the majority, the filibustering minority has actually represented the majority of Americans 64 percent of the time. When Democrats have been in the majority, that figure plummets to 3 percent. So the charge that it is somehow hypocritical for Democrats to decry Republican filibusters as affronts to majority rule—if they also stand by their past decisions to filibuster the Republicans—is easily answered. When Democrats have filibustered Republicans in recent years, they have very often represented more Americans than the Republican majority; the same is almost never true in reverse."

Republican filibusters are where a tiny minority which represents a tiny minority block the majority of the American people. They also filibuster quite a bit more while in the minority. This year they have filibustered almost 100% of legislation brought by Democrats. Democrats don't do that.

http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/ (fascinating and useful article)

I know no one is going to get rid of the filibuster. But it needs to be modified in various ways so that a minority can't perpetually block for political reasons.

[B Calm]

53. Only one person to blame here: HARRY REID

[WinkyDink]

57. AKA: Casper Milquetoast, as Daschle was.

[tritsofme]

55. Republicans ran all their big initiatives through Reconciliation

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts being their "signature achievements"

Both were run through Reconciliation, with the latter package passing only with Cheney as the tie breaking vote. So Democrats plainly lacked the votes to stop legislation such as this.

When Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they changed the rules and now a reconciliation bill cannot increase the deficit outside of the ten year budget window. This has made it considerably less useful, and today Democrats lack an easy path to move major legislation through the Senate with 50+1 votes. Democrats are also hamstrung by the statutory PAYGO rules that they reinstated after Republicans let lapse in the last decade.

Democrats did not as you suggest allow Bush and Republicans to get everything they wanted. They tried all decade to make their tax cuts permanent, but always lacked the 60 votes in the Senate. The threat of a Democratic filibuster killed SS privatization in its infancy. Some of the most extreme judges, like Miguel Estrada, were blocked.

[MadHound]

64. No, the difference is that the Dems are unwilling or unable to fight back a filibuster

I guarantee that if the Dems forced a real, live filibuster, and beat the 'Pugs about the head and shoulders on a daily basis with their obstructionism, the 'Pugs would soon give up this faux filibuster tactic of theirs.

All it takes from the Dems is a spine, but sadly, they have lacked that for a long, long time.

[hayu_lol]

66. Repugnants don't have Blue Dogs in their party...

don't have Greens and Indies to contend with.

We do. Couple this with Reid(strong wind blows him over)and we get nothing done.

[BzaDem]

69. And of course, the Senate rules don't actually allow Reid to force such a filibuster

but the myth lives on regardless.

Democrats can talk and talk and talk to block their own bills (which would get about 10 minutes of the media laughing and no further coverage after that). But they cannot force even one Republican to say even one word on the Senate floor, other than "I note the absence of a quorum."

[MadHound]

75. No, that's just wrong

The Senate Majority Leader can force a real, live, filibuster anytime he chooses. Sadly, he has chosen not to force a real, live filibuster and thus chosen not to fight.

<http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A>

Educate yourself.

[BzaDem]

77. Thank you for posting an article that proves my point.

"Educate yourself."

Take your own advice. In fact, I'll give you a slightly weaker suggestion: read the articles you post before making a fool of yourself. Or if they are too long for you, perhaps do a 5 minute Google search to see what the former Senate parliamentarian has to say on the subject.

[DailyGrind51]

67. Failure of Rahm and Axelrod to predict the intensity of opposition.

[BzaDem]

68. This is a complete myth. It has absolutely no basis in realty. Bush failed on ANWR, immigration, and

Social Security. The three big priorities that needed 60 votes.

The only partisan major bills he passed were reconciliation bills, which can only raise or lower taxes, or raise or lower spending. That's it. No new programs, no new regulations, nothing else. Just fiddling with taxes and spending.

[quaker bill]

74. Thank you

saved me the trouble of dismantling this BS meme. You are right, they fiddled around with taxes and spending, most of the other major agenda items died on the vine.

[mmonk]

73. Republicans don't have any elected members that identify ideologically

with Democrats. Democrats do not enjoy the same ideological consistency.

[Lyric]

76. It's because we have no coherent message as a party. We stand "against" things, but not FOR anything

Let's say that we all live in Imaginary Rainbow World, where there are two major political parties: the Reds and the Blues. Now, the people who belong to the Red Party tend to be very strongly supportive of the color Red. They want to see Red all over the place--in schools, in parks, in government buildings, on roads, EVERYWHERE. They love Red (and sometimes Orange), and they fight hard for a Red World because the Red leadership has convinced them that the world is SUPPOSED to be mostly Red. They are not quite a majority, but they have a very unified and strong minority.

More people OPPOSE being dominated by Red, and those people have banded together under the umbrella of the Blue Party because they believe that only the Blue Party is large enough to stand up against the Red Party. However, the Blue Party is in crisis because even though there are more overall members of this party, they don't all support the color Blue. The Blue Party is a mixture of people who support the non-Red colors--Blue, Green, Purple, Yellow, and a few Oranges. They all oppose being dominated by Red, but they do NOT agree on anything else. Supporters of each non-Red color bicker with each OTHER as much as they bicker with the Reds. The infighting is intense because no one color holds any serious dominance; there are more Blue supporters overall, but there aren't enough of them to win by themselves.

The fight between the Blue faction and the Purple faction is particularly bitter, because the Purple faction contains a large number of dissatisfied Reds who switched parties--not because they hate Red, but only because they don't want EVERYTHING to be Red. Unfortunately, thanks to the years they spent being subjected to Red propaganda, they also don't like Blue. They want a world that is both Red and Blue. The people who belong to the Green and Yellow factions generally agree with the idea of a majority-Blue world, but they are angry with the Blues for catering to the Purple faction. The Oranges are as likely to vote for Reds as they are for Blues, and usually identify themselves as "colorless".

So the Blues have a choice--either stop catering to the Purple faction, or lose the support of the Greens. Because the Purple faction is larger, historically the Blues have chosen to stand with THEM instead of with the Greens and Yellows who are more in line with the Blue ideology. Until recently, the Blues thought that winning was the most important thing.

But that belief is now being put to the test. The Greens are adamant that the world should not be red at ALL, and they loathe the Purples almost as much as they loathe the Reds. It's gotten to the point where a lot of the Greens are thinking about just staying home, and the even the ever-loyal Yellows are watching the increasing amount of Red under supposedly-Blue leadership and getting upset. The Blues have a choice to make--what should it be?

In my opinion, the Blues need to stop catering to the Purples and consolidate their own ideological base. In the immediate aftermath of such an action, the Purples will be forced to make a choice--do I want to see a world that's mostly Red, or do I want to see a world that's mostly Blue? The ones who are mostly Red will leave and join the Red Party, which is where they should have been all along. The ones who are mostly Blue will stay--not because they OPPOSE Red, but because they SUPPORT Blue. Having a base that is more ideologically-unified will help the Blue Party end the infighting. There will still be disagreements, of course, but overall, the Blue Party as a whole will be fighting FOR something instead of fighting AGAINST something.

People are much more likely to remain loyal to a party that's fighting FOR something, because everyone shares at least a few common positive goals. When your primary goal is "To Not Be Totally Red, Because Red is Wrong", it's damned hard to hang on to your supporters; all you're providing to them is a negative option. Switch that goal to "To Be Mostly Blue, Because Blue is Right", and you'll find your strength again. Be strong enough and firm enough in your commitment to your beliefs, and you might even manage to educate and inspire a few die-hard Reds to switch colors and come on board.

But hey, I'm just a whiny little Green. What do I know?

:hi: