California Democratic Party May Dump Its Progressive Caucus for Proposing a Primary Chlnge to Obama

[davidswanson]

On July 30th the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution proposing that a primary challenge be offered to Obama next year. The Progressive Caucus's certification expired at the same time, and while other caucuses were routinely recertified that day by the state party, the Progressive Caucus (I'm told by its chair, Karen Bernal) would not have been, had a vote been held. So the recertification was tabled, and the Progressive Caucus is in limbo. It no longer exists, but it may yet continue existing.

I asked Karen Bernal about the resolution and the response to it on Sunday. Here's that audio: mp3.
http://warisacrime.org/downloads/karenbernal.mp3

Here's the resolution:

RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of a POSSIBLE 2012 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CHALLENGE
Passed July 30, 2011
Anaheim, CA


WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama’s negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, we are challenged by President Obama in the following ways:


• His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
• His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
• His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
• His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
• His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
• His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
• His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
• The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
• His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
• His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
• His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
• His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.


WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the Eugene McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy anti-war challenge to President Lyndon Johnson. The challenge followed President Johnson’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America. Similarly, we recognize the danger and betrayal that the current “Grand Bargain” represents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s signature gift to all Americans, Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.


WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama’s ability to govern and not limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.


THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama.
0digg

[villager]

1. Now *there's* a typical DLC way of dealing with questions and issues raised!

Party uber alles!

[Demeter]

2. That's Cowardice

The Party is no more

[pnwmom]

241. No, it's practical party politics. A primary challenge will help the Rethugs.

And the party wants to win.

[asthmaticeog]

243. Seems hard to imagine a primary helping the GOP nearly as much as Obama does all on his own.

[pnwmom]

247. History shows that primary challenges weaken the incumbent

in his match against the other party in the general election.

[Plucketeer]

269. Whatever the destination....

I'm not a lemming. I'd rather die principled, than loyal to false idols.

[Taverner]

244. +100

[Xithras]

255. No, it's political suicide for the CDP

The membership of the Progressive Caucus (dozens in the legislature, along with HUNDREDS of elected leaders across the state) wields enough votes to decide any issue before the legislature, and many local issues. Without their support, the Democrats lose...every single time. There aren't enough "swing Republicans" in the state house to counter them. More importantly, the Progressive Caucus has ALWAYS been keenly aware of their power, has demonstrated a willingness to punish the rest of the party for getting in their way, and has absolutely no problem sitting a few votes out, and letting the Republicans win a few fights to flex their muscles. They would rather have the party lose, than have the party advance an agenda they don't support (slash and burn politics at its finest).

They're playing chicken with a train.

[MrMickeysMom]

259. That's not cowardice, it's progressiveness

In the attempt to return the part back to what it may have once been.

Many, many moons ago, kimosabbi...

[True Blue Democrat]

3. Then the Progressive Caucus should take the preemptive strike and declare the CDP

a dead entity because it's crawled with DLC/Third Way jerks that have no business being a Democrat.

If Jerry Brown wants to stay with the CDP and not join the Progressive Caucus, then it's his choice.

I now view those who do not align with CA's Progressive Caucus views a threat to our attempts to build a society that the capitalists do not want.

[kath]

63. +1000.

It's way past time to get the fucking DINO assholes out of the party nationwide.
And that includes the Trojan Horse in the WH.

[txlibdem]

159. Well said. And welcome to DU!

[femrap]

211. Geez, to think

that CA Progressive Dems are being treated like sh*t, I know that the entire country is doomed. CA typically leads the way. I have been unhappy w/ some of Brown's behavior...ie, dumping funding for elder day care. That's just damn cruel. I thought he was better than that.

[truedelphi]

222. Both Obama and Jerry Brown use the same tactic: they use platitudes that

Offer the thinking public a large "space" in which the voters can project whatever subject and promises regarding that subject that they most want and need.

Both men are conservative. However Jerry Brown often makes better appointments than Obama does.

[tcaudilllg]

226. agreed.

[ClarkUSA]

4. I'll bet Republicans wish they could do that to their Teabagger Caucus.

[amborin]

29. equating Progressives with Teabaggers? Wow!

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. Oh yes.

I've been told I am no better than a Teabagger. Right here on good old DU.

[myrna minx]

42. It's the blue dog, third way, DLC vision for the Democratic Party.

[ClarkUSA]

64. No, I'm equating the delusional purists in the Democratic Party with those in the GOP

I've been a proud liberal all my life and these idiots in CA don't speak for me or the large majority of liberals who form President Obama's base.

[XemaSab]

70. Thanks

n/t

[Ken Burch]

87. You can't deny that the Progressive Caucus is right on all the bullet points, though.

n/t.

[myrna minx]

93. The "third wayers" get to call themselves "liberals" all the while

demanding more job killing "free trade" agreements, calling for "reforms" cough *cuts* cough to the social safety nets to hand over to ~ big business insurance mandates and more war! Yay! At the same time they get to ridicule those of us who see the shock doctrine in play as pony puking glitter clutching ultra leftist commie nazi purists. It's the blue dog third way or no way, I guess.

[tgal]

184. There is NOTHING Liberal about any of them

Nothing, they can post it all over faceless message boards all they want it won't make it true.

What I have seen here is that they got theirs and don't want anyone to screw it up for them, much like the TeaThugs.

They ridicule AND bully. Very TeaThuglican.


tgal

[Rex]

104. Of course not, the truth has made 'centrist/moderates' bitter pill swallowers.

You can see two very practical and common examples of it right here in this thread. I think it is the same hate for truth you see out of a certain other group that hates truth too.

[txlibdem]

167. Whose "truth" are you referring to???

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

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

[MessiahRp]

89. Well as long as everyone agrees with you then, I guess that's all that matters.

Anyone inside the party that disagrees and wants to use the democratic process to press for change (isn't that what you hacks bitch about all the time, changing the party from within instead of voting third party?) well then they're the enemy, a delusional purist or one of many other shithead names you can come up with.

Glad you're so anti-democracy. Considering if you really think 83% of the liberals (you do tout that number a lot don't you?) are REALLY behind Obama, this shouldn't be a threat at all.... unless you're worried that the 83% number is absolute bullshit.

Rp

[amborin]

183. and expunging progressives really is anti-democracy

the essence of democracy is factionalism....once that's quashed, no more democracy....all that's left is a variant of fascism/totalitarianism, where the "official" party line is the only message tolerated

[myrna minx]

97. Do you see labor in this way? Do you agree with the WH that WI labor struggles are a"distraction" ?

Do you view those marching in WI as "purists"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/politics/04staff.h...
White House Reined in DNC Staff in Wisconsin (which had been supporting the protests, etc)

Less Drama in White House After Staff Changes


......Similarly, the White House mostly has sought to stay out of the fray in Madison, Wis., and other state capitals where Republican governors are battling public employee unions and Democratic lawmakers over collective bargaining rights.
When West Wing officials discovered that the Democratic National Committee had mobilized Mr. Obama’s national network to support the protests, they angrily reined in the staff at the party headquarters.

Administration officials said they saw the events beyond Washington as distractions from the optimistic “win the future” message that Mr. Obama introduced in his State of the Union address, in which he exhorted the country to increase spending for some programs even as it cuts others so that America can “out-innovate and out-educate” its global rivals....

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

[FedUp_Queer]

99. Let's get this clear.

A liberal would not be for indefinite detention. A liberal would not be for more war. A liberal would not propose to cut services to the poor and middle class to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. A liberal would not support someone who supported those things. As such you are no liberal. You are, however, a partisan loyalist akin to the GOPers who supported Bush at all costs.

[Enthusiast]

173. I agree..nt

[mochajava666]

233. Well said

[Ken Burch]

106. If you're ok with drone bombers in Afghnanistan(or even still fighting there at all)

You're now on the right. Face it.

[demwing]

170. Don't shout it, SHOW it...Refute the Progressive Caucus

Point by point, and SHOW that they are delusional

[Enthusiast]

172. Like these delusional purists?

[Gormy Cuss]

197. The delusional purists in the party are those who want to shut down

any opposition to the president or his policies.

[2banon]

208. "those idiots in CA" .... thanks for shedding so much light on who we are... here in California.n/t

[gtar100]

216. What in their bullet points that define their reasons for their decision to you disagree with?

Your objections make me question the meaning of the word "liberal" here.

[Politicub]

219. +1 - The stakes are too high for purity tests

I don't consider the progressive caucus idiots, though. I'm not familiar enough with them to know what their agenda is. But what I do know is that I'm 100% behind President Obama's reelection bid. Everything else is just noise.

[JDPriestly]

231. What do you like about Obama's government?

All the Wall Street suits he hired as aides?
His plan to destroy Social Security by doing away with the employer's contribution to the payroll tax?
His failure to use leverage to get the Republicans to cooperate with him?
His failure to stand up to BP and get good compensation for the victims of their spill?
The failure of his Justice Department to try anyone for the deaths of the 8 workers who died in the BP spill?
The failure of Obama to do anything to stop the risky conduct by Wall Street?
The failure of Obama to even permit discussion of a public option?
Obama's continuation of our imperial policy?
Obama's use of drones without having to account to Congress?
Obama's bombing of Libya?
Obama's proposals of new trade agreements?
Obama's failure to get his energy policies through Congress?
Obama's failure to support progressive candidates when they run?
Obama's insults at progressives?
Obama's ending the policy of the big tent?

Just what is it that you like about Obama that makes you think it will outweigh any of these direct political affronts to Progressives in the party?

Can Obama win an election without the support of the Progressives?

Probably not.

[libmom74]

245. Well at least your honest

about what you stand for "President Obama's base". See most of us that are fed up are part of the democratic party's base, and we base our loyalty on principles rather than an individual.

[ClarkUSA]

260. President Obama's base = huge majority of Democratic base

FYI, African-Americans are the most loyal demographic in the Democratic base.

I base my loyalty on party principles and the individual, as all Obama supporters do.

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

282. "Obama is a conservative republican." Is that why Congressional Republicans always support him?

Your premise is so ridiculous that I didn't bother to read the rest.

[libmom74]

294. I'm not sure why

you are bringing race into it, African Americans are just as likely as any other demographic to have variation within their political beliefs, and if any community should be angered with Obama it should be African Americans, the recession and Obama's weak response and endless caving to Republicans has hit the African American community harder than any other.

[Name removed]

258. Deleted message

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

[LooseWilly]

287. I assume you're using the term "liberal" in the economic sense?...

The way Marx used it?... (which was pejoratively)

Because... if you're trying to use the term in any other way— then you're using it wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

78. They sure sound like it when they propose to challenge Obama

without having anyone to do it.

[amborin]

185. by this logic....Obama has proposed many things....without doing them

and, according to the excuses, without having anyone to do them

[LoZoccolo]

206. Those undone things aren't spoken of in such a way that

they weaken confidence in what is done. The analogy doesn't really do anything.

[amborin]

212. "weaken confidence in what is done" ??? but nothing has been done; no promises kept....

so using your analogy, Obama is like them

[LoZoccolo]

218. That's not true. n/t

[A Simple Game]

157. I wish they were equal to the Tea Party in influence.

Fact is they could and should be as strong and influential as the Tea Party.

For the most part there are more of them.

[Recursion]

191. Then recruit more progressive voters

Everybody keeps saying there's this silent progressive majority out there; find them and you'll have all the influence you want.

[Bjorn Against]

221. We have progressive voters, what we need is progressive candidates

That is a real challenge when we have the DLC and blue dogs selling out the party for corporate cash.

[Recursion]

239. Kucinich and Gravel both ran in 2008. What were these progressives waiting for?

Seriously, where were you guys when those two were limping along in the primaries? If this progressive majority can't bother to show up to primaries when you have two exemplary candidates in the field, why should the party listen to you?

[Bjorn Against]

249. It takes a LOT of money to run plus favorable media

When we have so much corporate money involved in the elections process, plus a media bankrolled by major corporations it is very difficult to get a progressive candidate with the resources it takes to challenge the billions of corporate dollars.

[Capn Sunshine]

237. Progressives? no. These guys? Yes

I'm a member of that caucus, and I object strongly to the characterization, which is inaccurate, and the idea, which is insane.

I love a lot of you, but down this road lies madness.

[gateley]

248. Well they're both thorns in the Big Boys' sides, although the baggers

are a lot more powerful than the Progressives, sadly. THEIR guys are afraid of the baggers, OUR guys blow off the Progressives as though they don't exist.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I stand with the Progressive Caucus.

Shame on the California Democratic Party.

The Progressive Caucus has raised many serious, valid points, and suppressing them is strictly un-American.

[Lorien]

28. + 1 nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. Good for you! n/t

[MissDeeds]

69. I do too

Progressives are an important part of the Democratic Party and their voices - and concerns - need to be heard.

[Capn Sunshine]

124. I'm a member of the Progressive Caucus

and this is the stupidest fucking idea to be put forward in some time.

[gateley]

250. Why? Not interested in arguing, just sincerely interested in

why this isn't a good idea. At this point, I haven't made up my mind.

Ideally, it would be great to get a real progressive, pragmatically, it just may make everything worse if they were to attempt it. So I'm interested in your take on it. Thanks.

[Art_from_Ark]

142. +1

[Aleric]

165. I didn't leave the democratic party

... the democratic party left me.

[kath]

187. +1000

[truedelphi]

223. Sad to say, that remark pretty much

Sums it up.

[WillyT]

242. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[ejbr]

213. +1 n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Recommended, even though it didn't show. Yet.

[NorthCarolina]

7. K and Rec'd back to zero.

nt

[rurallib]

9. mine too - the unreccers are out in force.

[rurallib]

8. sounds like something a conservative party would do.

wonder if there will be ramifications across the country?

[loyalsister]

21. Conservatives are smart enough to know it's a bad idea

They don't weaken their candidates in the name of purity.

[russspeakeasy]

55. They aren't smart, just well disciplined...

[sabrina 1]

56. 'Purity'? That overused word thought up by some DLC think tank

years ago to suppress progressive voices as they took over the party. Along with 'ponies' 'martyrs' 'magic wand' etc. I wish people would find their own words to express themselves, rather than repeat bought and paid for silly words conjured up some not-so-bright, rich elitist political operative whose mission is to slam Democratic principles.

Having said that, can you point to any of the issues outlined by the Progressive Caucus that are in your opinion issues not worth fighting for? For want a better word 'purist'? To me they appear to be actual Democratic principles.

[loyalsister]

166. Okay

entrenched
rigid
absolutist
Democratic fundamentalist
Despotic

Both parties have them.

[sabrina 1]

217. yes, but my question was about the principles expressed by the

Progressive Caucus which are mainstream Democratic principles. Are you saying that the Democratic Party has abandoned those principles and now views them as:

entrenched
rigid
absolutist
Democratic fundamentalist
Despotic

That would confirm what many people have observed and would be a disaster if it is true, for the next election. Certainly people will not vote for candidates who view the Democratic Party Platform in such a thoroughly negative way.

Otoh, maybe I am misunderstanding you.

[loyalsister]

225. I am a liberal Democrat

I do believe that those principles are worth fighting for. It is the "how" that is in question.
I do not believe is that sabotaging our candidates will help us defend or accomplish anything progressive.

My point is that no matter what you call it, all or none stances in regarding how we get there do not help.

[sabrina 1]

229. When candidates abandon those principles, and do not believe

they are worth fighting for, then they, the candidates are not worth fighting for. People who claim to be Democrats but who, once elected, pursue rightwing policies, are not Democrats. If I want to vote for Republican ideas I have another Party I can join.

What you are proposing is the acceptance of the abandonment of the Democratic Party's platform and still calling it the Democratic Party. That makes zero sense. Why would I support forever war, torture, not holding war criminals accountable, destroying the New Deal Social programs, not going after Wall St. criminals etc. etc. and remain in the Democratic Party? Anyone who turns a blind eye to the shift to the right of this party, is condoning those positions, and as I said, we already have a Party that does that. Let such people go join the party that best suits their ideology. The Progressive Caucus IS the Democratic Party and to oppose them means supporting the other Party.

[Ken Burch]

90. Obama can't BE a strong candidate in 2012.

He'd be weak in that election even if he were renominated without a challenge.

[loyalsister]

171. Let me guess

political consultant? Campaign manager?
This is the thing that brought MO Matt Blunt, and lost some democratic senate districts a few months later.
The only people who have the image of Obama described here are people whose involvement in politics is based on either joy or anger.
People who have extensive practical experience know that as a rule, primaries weaken incumbents. Aside from that, primaries in single districts are entirely different from a national primary.

[Bluesbreaker]

121. Were you asleep during the GOP primaries?

The Tea Party knocked off many incumbent establishment Republicans. They moved the whole party to the right, witness the debt-ceiling debacle.

Progressives must challenge the Neo-liberal, third way, Blue Dog Democrats if we hope to save the party and defend the principles in the Democratic Party Platform.

[loyalsister]

161. You're dreaming

The blue dogs represent actual people. Believing that the people who moved the party right over these years are going to suddenly have a change of heart and go miles leftward is fantasy.

[saras]

293. They do - the Tea Party, who are actual people (perhaps not) like the rest of us

There is a huge gap between the policies which Americans support and the candidates they vote for.

Various opinions are...
Cynics: it's what it is, and all you can do is adapt
Blue dogs: the American people need to stop being naive about their values and move them to match those of the people they elect
Progressives: the Democratic party needs to stop being cynical about Americans' values and move to match those of the people who elect them.

[A Simple Game]

162. A bad idea, really? The Tea Party caucus of the Republican Party

threaten to and do primary Republicans all the time.

Seems to work for them.

[loyalsister]

169. Right

Electing people who have no idea what they're doing "works." Aside from that, has no one noticed that they are undoing the republicans by holding them hostage?
That a bunch of nutcases won in radically right leaning districts has not bearing about what a range of voters would do in a national election.

[EFerrari]

10. How undemocratic of them. K&R

[girl gone mad]

11. k & r

We are ready for the fight.

[MrScorpio]

12. I'm sure that the GOP is enjoying all of this unnecessary infighting nt

[onpatrol98]

59. Yeah...you know they are...

It's almost like we have a political death wish. I think the next election is ours to lose. If we primary the current sitting and still popular president, I think it will create a rift in the party.

[FedUp_Queer]

103. Popular? With whom?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/08/cnn-pol... /

[JohnnyRingo]

127. I'm voting for Obama. I'm certain of it.

That splits the party right there, and there are many, many more like me.

Thinking that setting up a primary run against Obama that will succeed in anything other than seating a republican in the White House is pure fantasy. I sometimes feel people here share Mitch McConnell's goal of assuring that Barack Obama is a one term president.

Don't expect me to cheer you on or get out of the way. I'll be working on the local campaign.

[FedUp_Queer]

155. Well good for you.

I'm not going to vote for one of two corporatist, pro war, pro national security state, in the pockets of wall street candidates. I'm not a loyalist (my party right or wrong) and the "we can't let 'them' strategy" is not a reason to vote for anyone. Frankly, I'd rather have someone who's going to tell me they're a corporatist shill than a person lie to me about "walking the picket lines" with organized labor while showing a cowardice and lack of leadership the way O(GOP)bama has. My hat's off to you for the kind of cognitive dissonance you seem to have. Answer me this: how will you answer a union worker who asks you why he was silent on Wisconsin, on EFCA or pushing for more NAFTA-like trade deals. I don't think an answer like "he's not as bad as (enter GOP candidate's name here) will convince many.

[truedelphi]

232. The California Democratic Party is not as much about Obama as about

Colluding with the Republicans.

Much of what goes on inside California, in terms of who gets to run as a Democratic candidate, has to do with Diane Feinstein.

If you have her approval, you can run for dog catcher or governor, or whatever.

If you do not have her approval, doesn't matter if the voters like you, you won't be allowed to run on the Democratic platform.

Di Fi chose Bustamente to run against Schwartzennegger after the Davis recall. Bustamenete was a wild card - and did some pretty bizarre things. He announced that he would take no money for his campaign that might force him to promise anything to anyone.

And two days later, he had a photo op in which he accepted 200K from an Indian Tribe that wanted a casino. He lost to Ahnold by a large margin.

Then when the short term ended, and Di Fi might have redeemed herself with a more sensible selection, she chose Phil Angelides over Steve Westley. Westley had name recogition with voters, and had charisma, something needed if you are going to face off against Ahnold.

But Di Fi insisted on getting her way. Then the DLC end of the party offered her support and Phil "The Rodent" ran for the governorship.

Only to have his arse handed to him by Ahnold.

I don't think Di really is much of a Democrat. And I think we would have lost the governorship again in 2010, but Jerry Brown is the one individual who can get his name on a Democratic ticket, whether Di FI does or doesn't like him.

[JohnnyRingo]

279. Thank you for that obviously well informed clarification

While I'm not a California insider, I've made observations of Feinstein's influence and demeanor over the years that back up your explanation of how Golden State politics work. I understand better the gist of the article now, thanks to you.

[LooseWilly]

288. In fairness to Bustamante, he was Davis' Lt. Governor...

And I seem to recall hearing that he had been keeping tabs on the lawsuits against the Enron execs to try to recover some of the monies the state was defrauded of in the wake of the rolling blackouts and other Enron hijinks... (until Ahnold took office, after being bankrolled by some of the same executives, at which point he settled the lawsuit for pennies on the dollar).

And... there were about 20 other candidates in that recall election— including Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, and some stripper/porn star whose name escapes me... among others.

It was a circus. Bustamante was the sane alternative to Ahnold (whose candidacy, alongside the rest of the circus, also seemed surreally circus-y).

As for the rest... well I despise Di-Fi and will no longer vote for her even as a "bone" thrown to those who want a conservative Democrat representing the state... so no criticism of her will encounter any objection from me. Phil Angelides... he was so bland I almost forgot that whole election contest. All that remained afterward was a vague suspicion that Ahnold had somehow managed to win an election against someone...

[truedelphi]

289. But no one I have ever talked to can explain the deal where

Bustamante says "I will accept no large sums of money, quid pro quo, and then a few days later, has the photo op where the Tribe gives him 200K.

I hadn't seen anything that bizarre since Gary Hart told reporters to follow him, and then off he went to his love nest.

You say:

And I seem to recall hearing that he had been keeping tabs on the lawsuits against the Enron execs to try to recover some of the monies the state was defrauded of in the wake of the rolling blackouts and other Enron hijinks... (until Ahnold took office, after being bankrolled by some of the same executives, at which point he settled the lawsuit for pennies on the dollar).

Good information. I did know that Ahnold was backed by big oil. But didn't know about Bustamante planning on getting our money back from Enron. (I think one figure I heard was something like 60 billion dollars was lost by California utility users to Enron.) And I did hold my nose and vote for B against him.

You gotta wonder why Feinstein and Boxer didn't team up and help us get that Enron money back for us.

As you and I damn well know that Di Fi can get whatever she wants. She re-wrote the Senate Ethics laws and protocols, so she can not be touched for her voting for the Iraqi war resolution, and then a short time later, her husband Richard Blum is worth an extra 27 million on account of the Iraq contracts he finangled.

[LoZoccolo]

168. He popular with liberal Democrats. n/t

[Ken Burch]

200. "He popular"?

and "you Jane"?

[LoZoccolo]

204. He is popular with liberal Democrats. n/t

[FedUp_Queer]

280. Actually, he's not.

In fact, Gallup has the "popular president" at 39% approval today...at least according to ABC.

[tavalon]

146. We?

I don't know about you, but as a progressive, I was thrown under the bus in 2009 and not all that late in the year, truthfully. The Democratic party in it's current infested iteration is not a party that represents me. Probably doesn't represent you either. Goldman-Sachs, OTOH.......

[cstanleytech]

61. Bingo. This type of infighting wont help usher in any changes other than getting someone like Palin

into the whitehouse.
If people want help change then they need to start imo atleast focusing more on securing more democrats get into senate and congressional seats because without enough of those to pass laws as well as override a filibuster from the republicans nothing will get done.
Instead people would rather blame obama for being forced to compromise and do things like extending tax breaks to the wealthy to get more unemployment benefits for people out of work.

[Ken Burch]

92. It couldn't be progressive to unite behind Obama right now

To do that would be to give up.

[cstanleytech]

113. Actually it could still be progressive

How? By trying to get good people into elected office to support more and more progressive changes.
Taking it out on Obama isnt the solution as any presidents hands are tied largely by the constitution in such a way that without the support of the house and senate that he cant get anything done as we saw recently with the republicans who nearly destroyed the nations economy and even got the US credit rating lowered with S&P.

[Ken Burch]

114. Even if he has limitations on power, he could still have used the bully pulpit

to challenge the right-wing line and to defend progressive principles. He always refused to do either.

He never rallied the base, never told them "yes, we had to take a half a loaf on this here, but the fight isn't over and we'll fight to get more if you'll help me flip some Senate seats".

And he destroyed his credibility with his useless obsession with "bipartisanship". I think we'd all have to admit that no Democratic president should even bother reaching across the aisle as long as those on the other side just want to cut his hand off.

And there is a lot you can do with executive orders and "signing statements".

[cstanleytech]

115. Perhaps thats because he is letting the republicans dig their own graves

which by their actions recently with refusing a fair bill like Obama wanted.
Not to mention if he uses it now against the republicans so far from the election by the time it comes around people will be blasé over it and give it little to no regard.

[Ken Burch]

116. We tried "letting the Republicans dig their own grave"

with Reagan in '66(in Cali), Reagan in '70(the same) Reagan nationally in '80 and '84, Bush the First in '88, Bush the Second in '00 and '04, and with the Tea Party last year. It NEVER worked. Isn't it time to admit that trying to win be default can NEVER work in the future?

And having Obama give speeches where he actually said it was a good thing to be progressive wouldn't EVER hurt our chances. There's nobody that votes for our party ONLY because our presidential tickets keep acting as if it's immoral to publicly disagree with the hard Right.

[cstanleytech]

118. The problem is timing, if its not done well it wont work

plus we need to be on guard for the republicans dirty tricks like reagan used when he got ahhold of the questions for the debate with carter beforehand and recently in the last 10 years with things like rigged voting booths and also the republicans robocalling the headquarters for democrats to overload the switchboard so they could work and do the their jobs during elections.

[Ken Burch]

122. Of course we need to be on guard about dirty tricks

But nothing I suggested precludes such watchfulness.

My larger point in this exchange we've been having is that our party's leaders, really since 1966, has been fixated on the notion that our ideas have permanently lost the argument and that all the party can really hope for is to be a "junior partner" in what is effectively a center-right "national unity government".

That is the only explanation I can think of for our presidential nominees' continual refusal to defend our core values on the stump and our Democratic presidents, when we have managed to elect some, refusing to try to set the terms of debate but rather allowing the center-right media and the 'pugs to control the discussion instead.

Why, after forty-five years of failure, do our leaders insist on staying with what doesn't work?

Doesn't it strike you that this is a textbook illustration of the definition of insanity?

[cstanleytech]

266. You are forgetting one key thing though.......we didnt have the internet

back then to assist us in coordinating our efforts.

[green917]

117. I'm getting sick of hearing this tripe!

It was the President who suggested cuts to Social Security in the debt ceiling debate...NOT the Republicans, NOT the Democratic Congressional Leadership...but the President! Forced to compromise? He has done precisely what he wanted to do from day 1! When has this White House supported the liberal wing of the party? "Fucking retarded" was what the President's now former Chief of Staff said about our ideas. This White House hasn't gone to bat for the working American people once! Name 1 of the Progressive Caucus of California's questions of the White House's conduct that doesn't deserve to be asked? Just 1!

John Conyers: "We've had it!"

Don't piss on our legs and tell is that it's raining anymore though!

[cstanleytech]

120. Areyou refering to the idea he tossed around to that reporter when asked

about making it more income based? Thats hardly a cut and it clearly wouldnt effect most of the people who collect social security.

[dsc]

164. It eventually would

the only reason SS is as popular as it is, is that fact it is a program which everyone, including the upper middle class, partakes in. The moment it becomes a program that caters to the middle class and lower it will be as popular as welfare.

[cstanleytech]

265. So your telling me a person who is worth say 40 - 60 million is so hard up that

they are gonna whine about getting a reduced SS check? Be still my heart.

[dsc]

285. You can ask that after the tax debate we have just had in this country?

I would think the tea party non sense about taxes should have made perfectly clear just how greedy and uncaring our rich have become.

[Historic NY]

143. +1

I sometimes think thats the goal.. It almost sounds like its a divide & conquer strategy from the other side. Nobody is tying them or anyone to the Democrat Party.

[Ken Burch]

110. They'd be enjoying it more if we were just to concede Obama's renomination by acclimation

the guy can never be popular again.

[mmonk]

149. Voting and participation are matters of conscience.

If they are not, apathy sets in and people stay away.

[Raine]

13. Silencing all progressives, seems to be the new "democratic" way

of doing things. I'm beyond disgusted.

[Bluebear]

32. DU was just the canary in the coal mine

[Major Hogwash]

80. They should break off of the Democratic party and form their own party.

Why drag everyone else down with them?
They're soooo progressive after all!!

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

[MessiahRp]

91. Let's just call a spade a spade.

The third way/DLC/New Democrats should split from the party first. They're Republicans. They should run as such and stop letting party affiliation confuse the less informed voters that are loyal to the party name based on historic defense of a set of principles (you know the principles Obama is going after at every turn?).

They might not be teabaggers but they're Republicans for sure.

Rp

[Major Hogwash]

137. I think it is subtle racism.

The fact is, extremists exist in both parties and the California Coalition of Coocoos are the most extreme in the Democratic party.

They spend more time and money working to legalize smoking pot, smoking crack, no mandatory jail sentences for 3rd time convicted offenders, no death penalty, no prisons, and then make demands that a challenger be found to run against the incumbent President!!

1980 all over again.

But, that's not going to happen this time.
Under the rules of the Democratic party in 2011, no extremist group will be allowed to blackmail the party to make exceptions of the rules.
Under threat of protest, pulling out, not attending the convention, throwing tomatoes, it doesn't matter, the rules are not going to have exceptions this time, no way, no how.

What they used to do in the past is in the past.
Their old tricks are old, and getting older by the day.

Obama is from Chicago, and he is not going to play this shit with some half-wits from California.
That's just the way it is.
The Democratic party is not beholden to one small extremist group.
After watching Grey Davis get recalled, and Ahnold elected, and re-elected, these people don't have a clue what the hell to do to fix the situation in their OWN damned state, let alone in the rest of the country!!

If they want to step off and form their own party, good luck to them.
But, the days of blackmailing the rest of us in the party are over!!

[mmonk]

151. Wonder why they voted for him in 2008 if they were racist?

[Shining Jack]

178. Playing the race card?

How pathetic.

[tgal]

186. Sickening

Fucking sickening.

Expect this crap on a rethug "aboveground" site.

You got yours clearly.

Fucking sick shit in that post.

[mochajava666]

235. I totally agree, but a very typical response.

That post was totally sick fucking shit, alright.

[MessiahRp]

196. So you're saying progressives are extremists for trying to legalize pot...

you then say progressives are smoking crack.

1. I don't see anything wrong with trying to legalize marijuana. The prohibition on it and enforced by Obama harder than any administration ever despite state laws allowing it in some places, is despicable and proof that this Administration has sold out to their lobbyist friends in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Also just because someone advocates for marijuana doesn't mean they use any other drugs and doesn't mean they are crack addicts. Maybe you're incapable of understanding anything outside of WH Approved talking points but Marijuana is not a threat to society nor are its supporters.

2. This has NOTHING to do with racism. You are a desperate fool to use that term at all. This is about actually standing up for the long held tenets of the Democratic Party Platform, which Obama has not. If Bill Clinton had put SS and Medicare on the table, Progressives/Liberals would have been loud and backed away from him as well (even more than they did with DOMA and NAFTA). Lest we forget and Obama supporters ALWAYS do: Progressives and Liberals voted for Obama en masse in 2008. We had high hopes and aspirations for the man based on his lofty rhetoric. Race was never a factor.

3. You and other Obama supporters are so two faced about Democracy. You try to claim its mantle if you win an election but try to deny its process when it works against you.

Obama refuses to listen to the Left or even allow them seats at the table for HCR. Knowing the base is unhappy, he goes out and tells us to hold his feet to the fire. So we do. And his most stringent supporters circle the wagons to defend him and shout down anyone who dare dissent against their President. He can do no wrong in their eyes and even though HE was the one who told us to hold his feet to the fire, you are there to try to douse the fire at every opportunity by working in concert to swarm threads and attack posters who disagree with Obama in derisive ways (Ponies, Delusional purists, emo, et al). Hell even that Chill the Fuck Out picture is offensive because it is targeted to liberals who have had valid reason to complain. Mods here are way too slanted towards Obama's supporters by allowing that sig line image.

Then when Obama has his team attack liberals (Rahm calling us "fucking retards", Robert Gibbs' obviously WH approved comments, Obama himself taking shots at Progressives or "some in his base") and we realize he doesn't want us holding his feet to the fire but rather he wants us to shut the fuck up and be a taken for granted robo-vote on his behalf, many of us get restless. We decide to discuss alternatives. Sometimes that includes third party ideas. His supporters then rail on us for that. I've heard many times about changing the party from within rather than losing the Presidency in 2012. I'll say this: The past few years have proven that The Presidency is not the most important position to have in Washington. Controlling Congress is. Because we can have Obama and his divisive strategies meant to prop up the ultra rich all day long but if Congress isn't ours it doesn't matter what we want passed. Alternately Congress now controls the agenda and this President has proven himself an impotent loser on issue after issue when it comes to his concept of negotiating (aka I'll always give you 98% of what you want BEFORE WE EVEN START).

So we're told to toe the party line and work from within.... we discuss primaries to Obama, which BTW is WORKING FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM... and we're attacked. We talk about resolutions inside the party structure or for state party platforms. The Obama cheerleader infiltrated leadership threatens to expel an entire faction of the party if they even consider it (yeah this will help Obama in 2012).

If you think this all doesn't sound familiar to how Karl Rove worked the RNC and State Republican Parties when Bush was around you're the one on crack. Bush loyalty was demanded, all the way up to his rallies where you had to sign loyalty contracts. Is that what the Democratic Party is now?

Vote for a man over the principles of the party that has guided voters to this party for the past 70 years? Many people vote Democratic not because of Obama. They were here way before him. They vote because the party used to stand up for the working class and the poor. They stand up for a party that defends the social compact made by FDR and LBJ. They stand up for a party that works side by side with Unions (including teacher unions) rather than trying to destroy them at every turn. They don't come here for Obama. If he was gone tomorrow, they would likely still vote for Democrats.

However you and your fellow Obama apologists, the Third Way Team, you don't see it that way. You find us to be an inconvenient nuisance. Here's a word of advice. Know your role. There's FAR more liberals/progressives in the Democratic Party base than third way cretins. Sure the party has a lot of people that don't fit into either camp but generally those people aren't as passionate either. Casual Democratic voters. Not the most likely to volunteer or donate much money.

Liberals however, not third way-ers, are the boots on the ground. The passionate, vibrant heart and soul of the party. The ones who canvass the area and door knock, lit drop, phone bank. The ones that do the dirty work that does as much to elect Obama as his corporate sponsors' money could ever do. As much as you and others think you can ditch us and still win, you'll be in for a rude awakening next November if you try that because Obama will have one hell of a wakeup call when he finds that there are not enough Independents that actually like him to replace all the liberals he spit on along the way.

So either let us try to use the system and change things from within the party or expect a mass exodus next November (and yes, nobody expects a primary challenger to beat Obama but most of us believe he needs to be pushed by the left on his ideas so he can realize how much of the vote he needs to win back and to try to swing him back to the left on some issues. Debates with progressive candidates will make him defend his ideas versus ours and explain why the disdain from his side exists). And I do mean MASS exodus because that's where Obama has many of us (not just on DU) right now.

[Enthusiast]

175. Me too.

[swilton]

14. Let's form a new party around the progressive caucus

[defendandprotect]

25. Great idea ... !!! Let's see how many non-CORPORATE Democrats would follow -- !!!

[cstanleytech]

71. Wouldnt that violate the forum rules? You know the part where it says its a violation to

"Expressing intent to not vote or vote third party, or justifying defeat of any Democratic general election candidate (unless a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative)" ?

[JohnnyRingo]

128. Sounds like a great idea for a new website too.

This will remain Democratic Underground I hope, and we can focus on getting the president re-elected.

Don't let the door hit you.

[on point]

15. I stand with the progressive caucus. Perhaps they should free themselves from DLC shackles...

[slipslidingaway]

16. knr nt

[killbotfactory]

17. A primary challenge which helps the GOP is not progressive. nt

[swilton]

18. A primary challenge would help the Democratic Party

help itself....As of now Obama's policies are almost indistinguishable from the GOP's...

[killbotfactory]

31. that's ridiculous hyperbole

If you think the last two years would have been the same with a republican you have lost all critical perspective.

[swilton]

39. Your tactic of blaming the messenger won't disguise this

administration's pathetic record of undermining the core pillars of its 2008 platform. The country didn't need a Republican in the oval office because the Democratic President was there enacting GOP policies. Furthermore, with a Republican in the WH, maybe the Democratic Party would have put up more resistance than they have with their own candidate's negotiations and comprises with the so-called opposition party.

[cstanleytech]

73. Actually hes been more moderate rather than anything.

Take his supreme court nominee, if he was as much of a republican as you claim he would have put up another far right justice for the court but he did not do that.
He also would have not even bothered to get more unemployment benefits.
I'm not saying hes perfect though, the 2012 tax break extension seem to have been a bad idea in exchange for those unemployment benefits he got and he totally failed at shutting down gitmo and pulling us out right away from Iraq and Afghanistan so ya there are some things we should be upset over with him for doing I just think people are going overboard on how to deal with it.

[Ken Burch]

111. What chance is there of dealing with those things WITHOUT a primary challenge?

After all, if he's coronated, he's going to be even less willing to listen to left opponents, and will hold the arrogant delusion that the party is behind him on all his sellouts.

And the guy has little, if any chance of re-election anyway. We can't re-elect an incumbent who currently has less than 50% support among the public. And his fall campaign couldn't inspire any passion or enthusiasm. It would be as lame as the Dukakis campaign or the fall Carter/Mondale '80 campaign, neither of which ever made people think those tickets were worth voting for.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

180. That's ridiculous hyperbole.

If you think the last two years would have been the same with a republican democrat you have lost all critical perspective.

[Fruittree]

132. Which is, of course, why

Republicans are fighting everything he tries to do...

[pnwmom]

240. No, it would reduce Obama's chances against the Rethug.

Anyone who knows history knows that primary challenges disable the incumbent in the general election. So a primary challenge won't help progressive goals -- it will hurt them, by helping to swing the general election to the Rethug.

[boston bean]

19. That's what happens when the OFA takes over the DNC. nt

[FLAprogressive]

20. I'm surprised they didn't call the Progressive Caucus racist while they were at it.

[davidswanson]

27. it includes blacks who were for this

there's also a black caucus raising hell about obama

the racist charge just looks dumb now and as phony as it always was

[Ken Burch]

102. They'll be calling anti-Obama black progressives "self-loathing" fairly soon now.

n/t.

[Number23]

66. Wow. You're on a roll lately, aren't you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Having attended more than one local meeting

I am not surprised. The Third Way is really hard core about keeping anybody who is not third way quiet.

It is so bad, at least locally, that while I encourage people to take over the party... I don't know if that is possible (locally) any longer.

[Rex]

23. Why are they so mad at our new way of life?

9/11 changed everything and the govt likes the new enhanced powers we gave it much better then before the WTC murders. It is only going to get more rigid and brutal, not less. Govts don't give up powers that they like and are authoritarian in nature. Patriot act, DHS are here to stay and LOVE their powers over The People!

[swilton]

26. We gave the government enhanced powers?

I don't recall being asked about the Patriot Act or the invasion of Afghanistan, prisons in Guantanamo.....

[defendandprotect]

24. So much for the "big tent" ... aaah.... the big CORPORATE tent.....?

[amborin]

30. K&R another blatant kick in the teeth to progressives

[Bette Noir]

33. That's it. We need a Progressive Party.

[shanti]

34. k&r

kind of surprised to see that this resolution is coming out of orange county of all places, though...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

36. Orange County has gotten a lot bluer recently...

[Bluenorthwest]

43. It is of course, relative, but I have to agree.

My home county, family center. It is becoming more a part of the metro area, politically and culturally.

[shanti]

214. that's gratifying to hear!

i grew up there and it was very conservative, but that was many years ago. our family seemed like one of the few dems around.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Do it! Then maybe someone will actually see the need

for a new party and a Primary Challenger.

[Hart2008]

40. Eugene McCarthy's Heir: Who Has The Courage To Challenge Obama In The Party?

Eugene McCarthy's Heir: Who Has The Courage To Challenge Obama In The Party?

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

[Major Hogwash]

82. If he thinks it should be done, then why doesn't he get off of his ass and do it!!!

The "Not Me" contingent sux!!!!!!!!

[Hart2008]

126. Unfortunately Sen. Eugene McCarthy died in 2005 at 89, thus we must find his heir!

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel has stated that he will run if supporters can raise $1 million to start a respectable campaign:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/09/gravel-says-a-million... /
Other names are possible: Howard Dean, Gary Hart, Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, RFK,Jr.

The reality is that challenging a sitting President is like treason against the king of the party. So, the challenge is unlikely to come from a sitting member of Congress or governor. It requires a lot of courage because if the challenger doesn't win, there will be paybacks, e.g. primary challengers, cut off from national party funds, etc.

[Ken Burch]

134. the image of a Democratic president as "king of the party" is truly disturbing.

Any real Democrat should be sickened by that image.

[Hart2008]

230. Those who challenge a Dem president from the left have been killed or jailed.

Eugene V. Debs was convicted of sedition for opposing the draft in 1918.

Huey Long was assassinated in 1935, after challenging FDR from the left.

RFK was assassinated in 1968 when it appeared he would win the Democratic nomination and beat Nixon.

The image of the president as "king of the party" may be disturbing, but it is the political reality. It takes brass balls to challenge the president from with in the party. Eugene McCarthy never received much if any support in the party after his courageous challenge to LBJ in 1968.

[Ken Burch]

275. Yeah, you're right.

n/t.

[Major Hogwash]

140. Howard Dean isn't going to run, and Feingold won't either. They both said so.

Gary Hart?
Naw, that's just monkey business to even suggest Gary Hart.

It doesn't require any courage to stand up and get plastered with facts.
1980 was a great example of when the party couldn't come together because one group started hyping one thing over another.

It doesn't matter if there are paybacks.
Threats will be met headon.
The law of unintended consequences comes into play whenever someone makes a subtle threat of "there will be paybacks".
It just doesn't work that way anymore.

The country is in dire straits and the last thing we need, the very last thing, is our own Democratic version of Michelle Bachmann saying she has all the answers.

It's playing with matches to start making demands a year and a half out.

[The Green Manalishi]

271. Playing with matches

"It's playing with matches to start making demands a year and a half out.."
Well, it's about fucking time we started a fire and started holding President Obama's feet to it.
You would bitch about Bear Gillis playing with matches if we were all freezing to death.
The DLC and the '3rd way', and anyone not opposed to them are no better than Republicans.

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Dump the Third Way/DLC/"New" Democrats:

Give 'em back to the GOP. Let them own their own $h!t.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. That would be the CA where Obama lost the 08 Primary

nt

[PufPuf23]

45. WTF? Are the DNC and California Democratic Party suicidal or maybe un-democratic?

Neoliberal ideology is a root problem and a wornout, corrupt, cynical policy in the USA and World.

POTUS Obama is apparently willing to forfeit States in order to win in 2012 -- not to say that POTUS Obama will lose CA.

Is the DNC and Obama Admninistration trying to sabotage themselves and a possible gain by the Democratic Party in Congress 2012?

All POTUS Obama has to do is follow the Democratic Party Platform, be Candidate Obama in rhetoric and act, and shun neoliberal and GOP appointments and policy. The traditional rank and file Democrats will be at least relieved.

[CakeGrrl]

46. Maybe they saw the flaw in this reasoning:

"we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda."

Sounds nice on paper but will not shake out that way in reality.

Let's say the debate is raised. And what happens if President Obama defends his or the administration's stance on some of these "challenges"? Well, it sounds like the votes will go to the primary challenger if the President doesn't fall in line 100% with what this caucus wants him to do. And exactly HOW does that mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party?

[sabrina 1]

58. It certainly will 'shake out that way'. These principles outlined by

the progressive Coacus resonate with real Democrats, and we have not been hearing them addressed at all for several years now.

The Dem Party is making a huge mistake by alienating those who actually ARE the party.

They need to get out in the real world and see the discontent among those who supported them and put them in power. They ignored it in 2010 and when Ted Kennedy's seat was up for election. And it looks like they are about to do it again.

[MadHound]

47. Fine, if our voices won't be heard,

Our votes certainly will be.

This ongoing marginalization of liberals and progressives can really only have one logical outcome, a split in the party. That might not be a bad thing at all.

[cally]

48. The CDP has been trying to remove many of their caucuses

for the past 6 months. I've heard rumblings of this for a year. It is about how the conventions are run and who has influence within the party. I suspect this was the just the last straw and they decided to act. I knew the progressive caucus was about to lose formal recognition before the decision to support a primary challenger.

[jimmyflint]

49. Get back in line, learn to like the rich and their wars! n/t

[txlibdem]

50. How many millions of Progressives are there? Is it a smart move to push them out

...with so much distrust of government, so much hatred of the waste in how they use our money, so much anger that the crooks who destroyed our economy are today lighting $100 dollar cigars with $1000 dollar bills -- while they sail their $80 million yacht to the French Riviera (or wherever's chic this year).

No investigations, no indictments, not a single one of them in jail. Big banks bailed out to the tune of $16 Trillion when you count the zero interest loans they have unlimited access to.

But the evil homeowner who couldn't keep up with their mortgage is a slacker and a fraud... so it's huntin' season on mortgages. And where was the Obama administration on that subject? Why, cheering on the banks of course. Even when it was revealed that the banks don't have any proof that they actually own that particular mortgage!

This isn't the time to go quietly into the showers, folks! This is the time to hone your skills, harden your hearts and minds, and get ready for what you know is coming!

[Tarheel_Dem]

67. Maybe this will help.

Liberals still in Obama's corner, latest Gallup poll shows

........

"Conservatives love to use liberals as the boogeyman of big government, but the liberal vote has always been a dicey matter. According to most polls, about 20% of voters is a liberal, substantially less than the about 40% who identify themselves as conservative. Thus the battle for independents often determines elections, especially national ones.

Liberals are also notoriously diverse in ideology and are often seen as ineffective in governing — even by friends and allies. As H.L. Mencken noted last century: “The Liberals have many tails, and chase them all.”"

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/03/news/la-pn-obam...

Liberals shooting themselves in the foot again? I'm shocked.

[txlibdem]

158. Thank you Rahm. May I have another.

eom

[amborin]

188. thank you Rahm? choosing Rahm Emanuel was an early clue: Corporate Raider Rahm:

"Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, collected $18 million working less than three years at Wall Street outfit Wasserstein-Perella. I don’t think, after googling the firm, that anyone has adequately explained just what Wasserstein-Perella is. (I was writing about this stuff back in the late 1980s, so I know.) Bruce Wasserstein was one of the top leveraged buyout bandits of the 1980s, when America’s industrial companies were literally asset stripped and ripped apart. The amount of human misery Bruce Wasserstein caused with his "financial engineering" in former industrial towns from Akron to Zanesville is simply beyond imagination, but not exaggeration. After making a few billion ripping apart our country’s industrial base and looting pension funds, Wasserstein became head of Lazard Freres, the secretive but extremely powerful international private banking firm that was long a fiefdom of Felix Rohatyn, the ass-hat who "saved" New York City in the 1970s."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/11/813139/-Taibbi ... ;-I-add-some-history-




http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/rahm-emanuel-wal ...



i had forgotten his role in creating Exelon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04emanuel ...

[txlibdem]

195. I merely referred to Rahm's noted statement about liberals (n/t)

[derby378]

264. By all means, keep punching that hippie

The bitch deserves it for not keeping her big yap shut.

[Tarheel_Dem]

272. Nope. AFAIC "that hippie" can make all the noise she wants.

This is America!

[derby378]

274. Damn straight

[Fearless]

51. If they do I dump the Democratic Party in favor of the Progressive Caucus.

[Raksha]

54. You're not alone. That's my decision also.

[Gman]

52. Good. Dump 'em.

[Raksha]

53. I'm with the California Progressive Caucus,

whether it stays within the CDP or not.

[grahamhgreen]

57. And they call US purists and purgers.

[bvar22]

201. "Centrism" IS a ...

...Faith Based Political Dogma that demands Perfect Allegiance to People & Political Parties,
NOT to Principles or Ideals.

THAT is the worst form of "Purity",
and always leads to Bad Things,
like Loyalty Oaths and pledges to vote for a certain person No Matter What.
You've probably seen some of those here at DU,
and they don't come from "Far left Fringe".

I AM a Purist in that I embrace a set of Political Ideals that in the time of FDR were classical Democratic Party Values:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."-- FDR, 1944

When a policy enacted by our government (Democrat or Republican) advances TOWARD those Values or Ideals,
I SUPPORT it.

When a policy enacted by our government (Democrat or Republican) moves AWAY from those Traditional Democratic Party Values, I fight AGAINST it.

If that provokes some here to attack me as a "Purist",
then "I welcome their hatred." (Thanks, FDR)

I STAND in SOLIDARITY with the Progressive Caucus in California.


Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!



You will know them by their WORKS,


Solidarity!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[grahamhgreen]

278. +1

[haydukelives]

60. remember

"Don't worry about the retards on the left"
still pisses me off.

[Better Believe It]

62. So how are we going to end Wall Street/Corporate control of the Democratic Party and take it over?

I think that project was started a few decades ago.

How's it going?

[txlibdem]

283. Well, voting for the "lesser of two evils" hasn't worked.

Let's give them some hints about what kind of candidate we will follow -- and what kind of backstabber we will *never* trust again.

[DeSwiss]

65. K&R

"When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools." ~William Shakespeare, King Lear

[craigmatic]

68. Without the left the party is only in it for the power. Just like New Labour in the UK.

[MissDeeds]

72. K&R

[Liberty Belle]

74. This is just what the corporatists want, and we should all oppose it, even if you love Obama.

I find this extremely disturbing! It doesn’t matter whether you think Obama is the best candidate or not, you should be dismayed at this effort to undermine the democratic process. If the party succeeds in destroying the progressive caucus because it called for a primary challenger, it’s basically saying that no matter how terrible an incumbent is, we should all line up to support that incumbent and not allow voters to have a choice. Of course that will mean more pro-corporatists winning reelection and moving to the right, since there will be absolutely ZERO incentive for them to do anything else.

While I seriously doubt if any primary challenger would be likely to beat Obama, I believe primary challenges are often healthy, raising issues that would otherwise not be discussed, and keeping candidates in touch with the party’s base. It also means more than one candidate stumping the country spreading the Democratic message and denouncing the Republican policies. Now I don’t like to see very nasty and divisive primaries. But as long as candidates in the same party focus their criticism on the Repubilcans, and merely state the differences in their positions on issues without personally attacked a Democratic opponent or their record, then it can actually be an effective tactic to have multiple candidates in the primary.

Think about it. If a candidate has no primary challenger, but the other side has numerous candidates, who gets all the media attention? Last time, with 8 Dems in the primary they had the limelight. Right now with a pack of nit-wits in the GOP competing against each other they are all over every TV station. What if Obama had a challenger? There would be more coverage of Democratic views.

Again, I’m not saying I support a challenge to this particular President – but I absolutely believe Democrats should have a right to support any Democrat they want in a PRIMARY election with no fear of reprisal by the party, as long as they line up behind whoever the party endorses in the general election. If we do away with that right, we are essentially dooming any candidate who isn’t an incumbent and silencing all dissent. Why bother to even have a primary, if party insiders aren’t allowed to vote their conscience?

That sounds like a Republican tactic to me – line up behind your leaders, do as you’re told, don’t think for yourselves, and don’t dare speak your mind. Their leaders control the nomination process and assure that no serious challengers can get support. Look what that’s done to their party – brought extremist wackos into leadership roles.

Even if you disagree with this primary challenge, isn’t it wrong to get rid progressive caucus? That is, of course, exactly what the pro-corporate wing of the party wants.

[green917]

119. +1,000,000,000

Well said!

[LoZoccolo]

75. I support ditching the caucus; no fucking around with the rest of the Democratic Party

if you want to be a part of that party and share in the power that it grants you.

[LoZoccolo]

77. P.S. It wouldn't be so obvious that this was a symbolic & futile tantrum if

they actually had someone running. This "someone ought to run" stance shows how far from reality the idea really is, and how irresponsible it is to throw it out there.

[Ken Burch]

88. The "Dump Johnson" movement existed for two years before it had a candidate

Would you have described THEM as "a symbolic and futile tantrum".

(it would have been right-wing and defeatist, after the 1966 congressional elections, to want LBJ renominated, remember).

The primary challenge people aren't obligated to provide the candidate. A candidate will emerge if the demand exists.

[bluestate10]

95. And how did that work out for democrats? I back the CalDem Party.

The Progressive Caucus idea is damned foolish.

[Ken Burch]

105. It would have worked out if LBJ had done the decent thing and got the hell out of the way

after he withdrew from the race.

The Tet Offensive disaster would have guaranteed a massive Democratic loss if we'd re-nominated LBJ. He could never have won popular support again after that.

And Carter was doomed to defeat after the Iranians took the embassy.

[truedelphi]

224. And of course if Robert Kennedy had not been killed! n/t

[yarn_chick]

192. I support the actual Democrats. That would be the Progressive caucus in this case. n/t

[Bluebear]

84. Surprise!

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

133. So they should have to settle for being nothing but irrelevant voices in the crowd?

It serves no purpose for the party to try to silence dissent. It only weakens the party to reduce critics to the status of disconnected individuals. It crushes enthusiasm and energy, leaving nothing of value to replace them.

It would be a tragedy for Obama to be nominated without challenge, and it would guarantee that nothing of value could happen if he were re-elected. Clinton's second term proved that.

[Bluebear]

136. No, he wants progressives out of the party as stated.

[Ken Burch]

139. You'd think that a guy who's stated position is that, if progressives have problems

with incumbent Dems they should do primary challenges would then accept that he has no right to attack people who actually SUPPORT the idea of primary challenges.

[LoZoccolo]

163. Without a candidate, their move does nothing but destroy confidence. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

160. I said no such thing until they did this particular thing. n/t

[Bluebear]

246. Exactly. But you said it now.

[LoZoccolo]

268. Right, yes I did. n/t

[Chisox08]

177. I one the other hand support ditching the DINO, DLC, Blue Dog, New Democrats

They can either start their own party or go back to the Republicons where they belong. I'm sick of kinder, gentler, "we are not as bad as real Republicons" Republicons posing as Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

194. Yet when have they ever supported a primary challenge without so much as

a candidate, doing nothing but weakening support for the incumbent without putting anyone better up for a vote?

[Chisox08]

199. The DLC New Democrats sprung up in the 80's

Since then there has only been 2 Democratic Presidents elected, Clinton and Obama. Both of them sides with the DLC New Democrats. So why would they primary another New Democrat?

[LoZoccolo]

203. In any race. Can you find one? n/t

[Liberty Belle]

76. How to stop this: Email the Chair & Officers! No more donations to the party from us if this occurs!

[e-mail] Chairman John Burton

Also these officers:

Vice Chair: Alex Gallardo Rooker: [e-mail]

Vice Chair Eric Bauman: [e-mail]

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer,Secretary: [e-mail]

Treasurer Hilary Crosby: [e-mail]



Money talks - so please let them know they will lose your support. Say you will instead give your money directly to progressive candidates including those running as primary challengers.

[dflprincess]

79. Apparently the "big tent" we keep hearing about

isn't big enough to include progressives.

[a2liberal]

81. So, how do all the people saying that we should

"work within the party" respond to this? Try to work within the party, and you get kicked out! for not kow-towing to the right-wing line.

[Liberty Belle]

85. Here is how to respond:

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

[Liberty Belle]

83. My letter to John Burton, Chair, CA Democratic Party:

NO MORE DONATIONS OR PARTY SUPPORT FROM ME IF YOU KILL THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS FOR SUPPORTING A PRIMARY CHALLENGE TO OBAMA

I have given money for years to the CDC, been a delegate and central committee member as well. However I will never give another penny if the progressive caucus is thrown out for supporting the concept of a primary challenger in a presidential race. Instead, my donations will go directly to progressive candidates, including primary challengers in some races.

It doesn’t matter if one loves the current candidate or not. One should respect the democratic process, not act like Republicans who control their nomination process and shut out alternative views. That’s exactly what’s created such extremism in their party. (I’ve worked as a political reporter in the past, and have a very good handle on how the GOP works.)

While I don’t believe a challenger is likely to beat Obama, it’s undemocratic to tell party members who to vote for or support in a primary election! If you do that, you may as well admit that the corporations will be running the show. No incumbent will ever feel a need to support the Democratic base. They can kowtow to corporate donors instead.

The times we’re in are unprecedented. Republicans want to dismantle our social safety net. Corporations have been given carte blanche to buy and sell politicians at will. We should be ENCOURAGING ordinary people to run for office, not stifling dissent! This heavy-handed smack-down of progressive voices is intimidating and disgusting.

Primaries are healthy. You CAN and SHOULD urge contenders to focus criticism on Republicans, not each other. But you should NOT tell Democrats who to support in primaries and certainly should not punish those who feel they can’t support an incumbent in a primary (though all party delegates and officers should do so in the general).

I’ve seen races with four or five candidates in which all the Dems were amicable, bashing Republicans and having a legion of candidates out there to spread the Democratic message more widely than a single candidate could do alone. You can disagree on policies, ie one might want to end the war sooner, or take a more strident stand against Tea Party tactics. Diverse views should be allowed within our party, making sure that important issues get discussed that would otherwise be ignored as incumbents shift ever further to the right.

If not, what’s the point of having a primary at all? We might as well just start anointing incumbents like kings.

I predict that if you kill the progressive caucus, which I believe is the largest caucus in the party, you will see Democrats leave the party in droves and maybe even form a new party in California.

How does that help anything, except the corporations who want to control the party?

[Gin Blossom]

123. Great letter - good job. nt

[oldlib]

252. I support a Primary challenge.

This would shed some light as to how much Obama will aid the progressive cause.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

94. Get back to me when they provide an actual challenger worth their salt.

Until then it's just playing games.

[bluestate10]

96. Or assisting republicans. nt

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

112. Not really. It's mediocre at best. Self-marginalization.

The opposite of what we need progressives to do, but there's little you can do to convince them otherwise. They only hurt themselves by acting stupid.

[Ken Burch]

135. It's marginalization to support Obama's renomination

It's not possible to do that and still effectively work for any progressive change. Obama has already made it cleat that he sees progressives as enemies to be crushed-that was the only message any reasonable person could take from the appointments of Geithner, Summers and Rahm.

[joshcryer]

141. Incorrect. It's marginalizing to completely throw a good deal of his constituants under the bus...

...while parroting memes that aren't possible in a democracy without Democratic Control over the House and Senate. This is why so many "progressives" are authoritarian leftists who believe in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" because they know that it's a lot harder to achieve the things they want democratically.

You primary Obama no progressive candidate wins unless you have an extraordinary candidate, therefore it is a extraordinarily weak and marginalizing position to take. It's self-defeating.

(Note: I did say that Matt Damon is one person I could see who could successfully pull off a primary of Obama.)

[JHB]

98. Would it have been possible to get the recertification before passing the resolution?

I don't know the organizational details of the CDP, so I don't know if it was possible, but securing that first would have cut off this avenue of game-playing.

For that matter, exactly what are the consequences of this caucus non-certification?

[Le Taz Hot]

100. Any questions as to why I resigned

my Executive Board Seat in the CDP and subsequently left the Democratic Party after 30+ years of working for and voting for Democrats? Here's your answer . . . shit like this. So, the CPC is being punished for not goose-stepping to the Official Party Line. How many times did I watch this crap go down? Such a big, flipping waste of time, too because all this was was a resolution. It wasn't even scheduled to go to the E-Board for a vote.

[ZombieHorde]

101. Unfortunately, this little game the Democratic Party is playing

may cause many liberals to go third party. If you can't work within a system, you have to work outside of that system.

[Xicano]

108. +1000

[demgrrrll]

125. I know I will be flamed but how is this any different than

the recent Teabagger default escapade.. Gotta burn down that house to rebuild. It is the same Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I am open to reasonable persuasion but I just don't see how 4 or more years of Republican rule with Supreme Court nominations at stake is worth this kind of egotistical posturing. Don't even begin to lecture me about caring about your fellow man unless you, like I devoted an entire 40 year career to doing just that for minimal money because I loved the work and I believed I could make a difference. I was social worker of the year in East St Louis Illinois /State of Illinois. So I really really don't want to hear about how much you care when you are so cavalier about gambling with other peoples lives. But hey, go for it. Someone posted here how he regreted his vote for John Anderson because he was convinced that Jimmy Carter wasn't pure enough. I think we can see in retrospect that Jimmy Carter was a great President. I would hate to see that happen again, but all of you seem to be having so much fun with your torches and pitchforks I rather doubt anything anyone can say would have any effect. Hello President Perry.

[Ken Burch]

129. I won't flame you, but I'll offer a response

First, nothing in the resolution was comparable to the possibility that what the Tea Baggers were doing would push the country into default and actually shut down the government.

Second, it's not as if we HAVE to give Obama a coronation to beat the Republicans in 2012. A strong progressive candidate who spoke of what we stand for as a party with courage and without shame could beat any of those guys. We don't have to settle for campaigning for keeping things as they are(especially since that means giving up on working for progressive change after the election.)

We can ONLY win in the fall if the party's nominee inspires energy and passion. Barack Obama can never inspire either again. He's now solely the candidate of the suites, not the streets.

The country doesn't have a permanent center-right majority, and we don't have to reduce ourselves to nominating somebody who's just not quite as bad.

Lesser-evil campaigns never work anyway.

Finally, I respect YOUR work, but Obama doesn't-you can't be "pro-business" and "pro-free trade" and give a damn about the people of East St. Louis.

[demgrrrll]

130. I'm sorry but I don't think we will come to an agreement about this

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[Ken Burch]

131. Fine. But at least stop saying this is about "egotism"

The concerns progressives have about Obama have nothing to do with anyone's ego. If you want to disagree with us, that's your call...but you're not entitled to disrespect or try to infantilize us.

[Bluebear]

145. I think we can take that as a "no!"

[demgrrrll]

150. It is pure ego I won't back down from that because I don't

believe that anyone who was genuinely concerned about social security and medicare and those less forturnate would ever take that gamble. Here is my assessment of our exchange. I spoke my mind, you responded and it was clear to me that it was not going to be particularly fruitful to continue the discussion so I attempted to end our exchange politely, you mistook that for weakness and decided to get a little snarky. I am responding again hopefully for the last time. Those are my views. My views are not going to change unless I see some compelling argument which to date has not appeared anywhere on DU. What I see are people who are personally disappointed and want to take action based on that disappointment without really considering the long term consequences. That is how I see it.

[Ken Burch]

193. I meant no snark. I simply asked you to avoid taking the discussion

into demonization and infantilization. There's no reason to say it's about ego. If you disagree with the idea of a challenge, it's enough to do so on the merits of the issues involved.

[JDPriestly]

234. Progressives are the conscience of the Party.

What happens when you don't listen to your conscience?

You get into trouble. That is what. And that is what is going to happen to the Democratic Party if they shut out Progressives, their conscience.

[Tx4obama]

138. President Obama has a primary challenger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_us_presidential_elect...

Randall Terry

[Ken Burch]

147. OK...he still doestn't have a sane primary challenger.

What the hell is Terry thinking doing that?

He has to know that there's no constituency for his agenda within this party.

[Tx4obama]

148. I don't k know much at all about Terry. Do you think Obama will actually debate him? n/t

[Ken Burch]

152. Maybe once, for a laugh.

Terry is the "Operation Rescue" guy who used to organize the confrontational wackjobs that torment women at abortion clinics.

[stevenleser]

179. Don't forget this guy running to challenge Obama for the Democratic Primary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRQD7necJw

http://bit.ly/nlrfTs

Oh yeah!

[mdmc]

144. circle d baby!

[Butch350]

153. Will the Possible Challenger be a Corporate CEO.

[tomp]

154. excellent! we must finally realize:

there is no room for progressives inside the democratic party. it is the wrong place for progressives to be.

maybe this will be the first split of progressives from the democratic party and start a chain of defections/decertifications leading to a more effective unity of progressives.

[SharksBreath]

156. I get it. Obama supporters support Obama

Even if.

His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
• His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
• His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
• His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
• His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
• His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
• His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
• The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
• His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
• His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
• His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
• His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.

They didn't even mention the 16 trillion the fed gave away. If you think Geitner and Obama didn't know what was going on your insane.

[Shining Jack]

181. +1 n/t

[tomp]

263. i don't get what you're saying.

i agree with all the points listed against obama. i am not an obama supporter.

i just want progressives to separate from the democratic party because i see the democratic party as an obstacle to progress and a prison for progressives. the democratic party is where progressives go to die. i believe history CLEARLY supports that.

what about that don't you get?

[Stinky The Clown]

174. I stand with the California Progressive Caucus

Assuming the account given is true, I stand with the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party and endorse the replication of this resolution in all fifty state parties.

[GeorgeGist]

176. Obama doesn't need the progressive vote.

Progressives don't need Obama's approval.

[JDPriestly]

236. The Progressive Wing is the conscience of the Democratic Party.

The Democrats without a conscience will not win the next election. Might as well let the Progressives stay in the Party.

[Name removed]

291. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

182. The Democratic Party may purge itself of it's left wing.

Not a surprising, or new, development.

[coalition_unwilling]

189. WARNING to California Democratic Party: If you dump the

Progressive Caucus, I will dump you.

In practical terms that means I will no longer feel myself honor bound to hold my nose on down ballot races and vote Dem but will instead actively seek out 3rd party candidates that advocate the progressive ideology.

[tpsbmam]

190. I stand with the Progressive Caucus and I won't be bullied or shamed into mindlessly

supporting Obama when he's turned into a president I'd fight tooth & nail to get out of office if he were a Republican. I'm having a true moral crisis over voting in 2012. Voting for Obama, which is what I'm sure I'll end up doing, will mean voting for a man who stands for almost everything I've opposed since I was a teenager during Vietnam.

If Obama is primaried by a progressive opponent, I will vote for his opponent. There it is. Sorry, but asking me to do otherwise is asking me to trash my own ethical & moral code, and I won't do it.

[Scurrilous]

198. Great news!

[bvar22]

202. I STAND with the California Progressive Caucus,

and WELCOME this fight.


Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The California Progressive Caucus WILL!!!






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[flamingdem]

205. Good Riddance, we need to be united or it's President Perry nt

[JDPriestly]

238. The percentage of California grass-roots activists who are fed up

with Obama is very, very high.

We probably have more Progressives in California than in any other state in the Union.

Shutting Progressives out of the Party in California could easily mean that Republicans will win the next election.

Stupid move on the part of the DLC. Hubris.

A heartless, conscienceless bunch -- the DLC.

[chowder66]

207. Welcome President Perry or Bachman .....

I stand with both the Progressive and Democratic caucus. But I do not stand with narrow views and infighting. These two need to kiss and make up fast.

[tropicanarose]

209. I agree with all of the things outlined by the Progressive Caucus, but NO WAY would a prog. WIN.

Does anyone think that a primary challenger candidate would actually have a chance of beating Obama?
and if he/she did, wouldn't ripping apart our own party do more harm than good?
It would only serve to strengthen the boring people who talk about "Barry" and "Obamacare"
It isn't going to do us a damn bit of good

[Devil_Fish]

210. Alen Grayson/Al Franken NT

[meow mix]

215. wrote and told them where they can shove thier rightwing values

which is always fun

http://www.cadem.org/contact

[tpsbmam]

220. I sent a little note.....

I stand with the California Progressive Caucus. I will be faced with a tremendous moral dilemma in November 2012 when faced with voting for a man who stands for everything I've opposed throughout my life since my teen years during the Vietnam War.

I agree 100% with the caucus statement and would add that, having said he would protect whistleblowers, Mr. Obama has the worst record of going after whistleblowers of all presidents combined. His promise of transparency has morphed into an administration more bent on secrecy than his predecessor was.

I welcome the opportunity to volunteer for, contribute to and vote for a progressive primary opponent. I understand the Democratic Party resistance to this. I also understand that too many Democrats are part of the problem and no longer stand up for the American people and all of the principles that once made the Democrats a great Party. I do not support those Democrats either.

Like it or not, there is a large segment of voters who are dissatisfied with the ways in which too many Democrats are joining in to violate civil rights, the rights of all Americans to share the fruits of hard work as those are increasingly shuttled to the richest 1% with the policies of the Obama administration and too many of our Democrats, who aid and abet violations of international law and refuse to honor the rule of law by prosecuting those violations, and so much more.

You, the mainstream Democratic Party, need to hear it. We are NOT happy and, yes, we will make ourselves heard. As much as this administration and the Democratic Party have tried to belittle, marginalize and ignore progressives, we WILL be heard and will not continue to be the silent whipping boys for Obama & the Democratic party.

[truedelphi]

228. Thanks for the link, Meow Mix n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

295. They heard from me --

Let them know this California stood with the CPC and that I would be evaluating my future support for CDP candidates on how they handle this.

[mmonk]

227. I guess they have reached a point where why pretend.

This will have the making of a new party though. Democrats are going the way of the Whigs sooner or later.

[John Agar]

251. Like it or not, running a primary opponent is part of the Democratic process.

The idea that anyone should be expelled or "excommunicated" from the party for considering such a move is both anti-democratic and ridiculous.

Ted Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, to name just a few, all of them ran in primaries when there was a Dem incumbent.

Do we hate them now? Are they any less Democrats?

[ProSense]

253. Could this

• His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
• His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
• His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
• His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
• His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
• His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
• His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
• The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
• His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
• His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
• His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
• His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.

...this list be anymore nonsensical?

[bvar22]

267. Perhaps you should show us the "nonsense"...

..in an point by point deconstruction?
Please support your work,
and nonsensical Blue Links don't count.
Thanks!


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[shellgame26]

286. Why don't you just say

sources don't count? Because that's what Prosense's blue links provide... unlike a list of whiny emotional rhetoric backed up with nothing but the force of whiny emotional rhetoric...

[bvar22]

290. Because,

Little Blue Links can go anywhere,
even back to your own posts.
Many people who care about Computer Security won't click on blind Blue Links.

Others have slow internet connections that will disconnect if overloaded.

If someone has solid support for their argument, show it in the body of the post.
If that support is questionable, or a Known Propaganda site, or outright fraudulent,
hide it behind a Little Blue Link to give the illusion of support.

Cheers!

[shellgame26]

296. Are you suggesting

that said blue links have been directed to "known propaganda sites" or have been "fraudulent" or have compromised your "computer security"?

Where is the proof?

Cheers

[Dawgs]

270. Truth is nonsensical now?

[xxqqqzme]

254. That is a resolution passed by the

Progressive Caucus at the CDP Executive Committee Conference. The Caucus knew the resolution would never make it out of the resolutions committee and placed before the whole of the E-Board to vote on it. The Progressive Caucus, while it sounds like a good thing, is not a very effective caucus. I stopped renewing my membership because it was a bunch of people pontificating about HOW things should be w/o ever actually DOING anything. It was tiresome.

[Marnie]

256. Self mutulation doesn't sound like a real healthy attitude

for the "inclusive" party. Especially when it is losing most elections these days.

I mean Obama should have nothing to fear from his own voters. Right?

[inna]

257. OMG. thank you, thank you so much for alerting on this. nt

[polichick]

261. The party makes it more and more clear that it's anything but progressive...

What is its function, other than to fool voters into thinking there are two parties?

[mochajava666]

262. That is so sad. Usually progressives like alternate viewpoints.

It's usually the opposition that can't handle criticism.
When it comes to Obama, I think he doth protest too much...
That response is indicative of a true DINO. I'm afraid that Obama is a hard core DINO, but doesn't have the balls to at least admit it.
The only time he shows anger is toward progressives and whistle blowers. Look at his incompetent attorney general. He make Ed Meese look legitimate. Holder is the worst attorney general in the history of the US. He is a mockery of his office. Mission accomplished by Obama! Heck of a job, Barack.

[RoccoR5955]

273. Bring back the LIBERAL Party!

It was around for quite some time, until Ronnie Rat Raygun, and his cronies poo pooed it.
It's high time that the Liberals in the Democratic Party, and the CONservatives in the RepubliCON Party separated, and became parties on their own. This two party system simply sucks!

[upi402]

276. The party doesn't want to limit Obama's ability to govern ???

I sure as hell do! This man is screwing us at every turn.

Too many betrayals and not even a pretense of fighting for us when it counts.

[blackspade]

284. Way to stifle decent CDP.

I see the voices in the Democratic party are getting fewer by the day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

292. Hey, it's a Big Tent Party.....unless...you're (EEK!) TOO Liberal.

If you are (EEK!) TOO liberal, you get the hook and a lot of reminders to vote for it anyway..and don't forget the donations.