Can we get one thing straight?

[Mythsaje]

First of all, I'm not a supporter of Hillary's candidacy for the Democratic nomination. The primary reason for this is that I really, really don't like pro-corporate stances coming from our side of the aisle. I believe that easy capitulation to the insurance companies, the credit card companies, the banks, the "defense" industry, and the pharmaceutical companies are precisely why we're in the mess we're in, economically, militarily, diplomatically, and politically.

But I think there's a difference between "Wrong Way" Dems and Republicans. Wrong Way Democrats are trying to make use of Republican tactics and PARTS of their ideological base, particularly with regards to "supply-side" economics and "free market forces." But we shouldn't mistake one for the other. When we do that, when we ignore the nuances involved, we do ourselves a disservice, and obfuscate the truth of the matter.

Our greatest enemies, politically speaking, are those who are both socially and fiscally "conservative." (Ignoring for the moment that they're not really so much conservative as reactionary). These are the people that oppose gay rights, abortion rights, the separation of church and state, and various elements of freedom of expression as a "matter of principle" AS WELL AS opposing a just and equitable safety net, civil rights protections for minorities, well-maintained infrastructure, and reasonable regulation on business to protect the environment, the consumer, and the employee.

"Wrong Way" Democrats BORROW parts of their ideology, primarily with regards to business interests, but are not signed on with their "family values" agenda that promotes bigotry, fear, and hatred of gays and other minorities. They may USE certain portions of it--such as the immigrant issue, to stoke the fires of people's disenchantment with the Republicans apparent inability to do anything about it, but they do so out for political rather than ideological reasons. Same with focusing on flag burning and/or Grand Theft Auto.

They may find progressive causes annoying because we exert pressure to move them in directions that interfere with their ability to negotiate with corporate backers and their lobbyists, and fling up dirt that make their deals with such entities harder to enact.

We cannot do anything to influence the Republicans. If we've learned anything in the last several years, it's that. They owe us nothing, or so their ideology tells them. They ONLY represent members of their party who share their beliefs.

There is a striking difference between Republicans and Wrong Way Democrats. If we fight hard enough, we CAN reach the Wrong Way Dems--we can force them, even against their will, to stall or oppose certain pro-corporate policies. Even against their will. We can depend on many of them to back a more progressive social agenda simply because it doesn't interfere with corporate interests, which do not find these social agenda issues anywhere near as threatening as do the "family values" crowd.

Wrong Way Dems can be brought around, if we work at it. As soon as it becomes apparent to them that it's not politically expedient to support certain policies, they shift their positions. So, yeah, even the pro-corporate Wrong Way Dems are a far better choice than any kind of Republican.

They're not the same. Just similar in some respects. It's more important that we get rid of the Republicans right now. From there we can pressure the Democrats and work to cull those we cannot pressure.

Some times you have to take baby steps to keep from stumbling. And the one thing that's certain right now is that we can't afford to stumble.

I'll vote for any Dem who's nominated. Because even the worst of them is far better with regards to social issues than any Repug in the race. We can work on the corporate issues as they come up. But when the next Supreme Court pick can make or break the next several years worth of Supreme Court decisions. And for all their faults, I can't see either Clinton or Obama nominating a socially conservative wackadoodle to the bench.

And that's the bottom line. End of story.

[DFW]

1. I don't care.......

...if people trash you for this post, which I happen to agree with completely,
as long as they vote common sense on Election day.

A Democratic, progressively oriented Congress will have even a President Hillary's
ear. They will NOT have a President Giuliani's ear, just his boot in their mouths.

We ignore that one at our peril. We have enough wackadoodles on the Court already.

[leftynyc]

21. If people think Bush

was bad with his executive orders and signing statements, they ain't seen nothing yet. Rudy is a true authoritarian who simply will not care about congress. And those who stay home and pout or write in someone on their ballot will be enabling Rudy's behavior. Vote for whoever you want but there are always consequences. I have no desire to martyr myself on the alter of political purity.

[DFW]

22. We reaped the rewards of that in 2000.

If that is still fine with a number of folks in key states,
we risk reaping the same reward again.

Guard duty? Oh, Rudy!
(Whop bob a loo bop, a lim bam boom)

[leftynyc]

23. That's why I want to scream

about the purists now. It's like they don't remember what petulance got us the last time around. My dad calls them myopic morons (and his brother voted for Nader).

[DFW]

24. You'll get nothing but two part harmony when I scream with you n/t

[redqueen]

2. SCOTUS

That's all that needs to be said.

Vote your conscience in the primaries... vote against the pukes in the GE.

[theredpen]

3. Insightful as always, Mythsaje. K&R n/t

[endarkenment]

4. "Wrong Way Dems can be brought around, if we work at it"

I'm not convinced. Yes of course I will once again go vote for the leftwing of the Corporate War Party in order to put the rightwing of the Corporate War Party out of power. But I will not do so believing that this will make the kind of transformative difference that a real progressive party could make. We will not get universal health insurance, we will not see our insane global imperial military force reduced to a mission of defending our borders and our trade routes in cooperation with international organizations, we will not see an end to Lawn Order idiocy that has brought us into competition with totalitarian states for incarceration rates and execution rates, we will not see universal education through university level as an entitlement as unremarkable as universal education through high school is, we will not see a real effort to deal with the three-sided problem of unregulated global capitalism, catastrophic climate change and peak oil, we will not see legal and social acceptance of our GLBT brothers and sisters as full human beings....

In short, the best we can hope for is that the slide into theocratic fascism will be delayed.

I'm not enthused.

[Mythsaje]

5. Oh, I'm not enthused either.

But the alternative? Too horrible to contemplate.

We can't afford to take a collective sigh of relief after the election, even if a Dem (any Dem) is elected. We all know how big money is influencing our political system to our detriment--we all know the class war is in full swing and how they hold most of the cards.

If we get a wrong way dem in the white house, we're going to have to work that much harder to lobby congress...every minute of every day...and not let up for an instant.

Frankly, it's the only strategy we have.

[immoderate]

6. Good summary of progressive agenda. Thanks.

I'm glad you don't live up to your screen name. :)

--IMM

[endarkenment]

8. endarkenment is what we are in.

it is the opposite of the enlightenment. We are losing our rational minds.

[Truth2Tell]

7. Nice post. K & R n/t

[robinlynne]

9. That sounds nice, but. In reality Dianne Feinstein single-handedly gave us:

FISA (well let's not overlook Pelosi's Part last August), life-time extreme right wing Bush appointed judges, our new Attorney general who said on his second day in office that he would advise Bush to veto any Fisa bill without telecom immunity. Jane Harmon, another Dem just created the "thought crime bill #1955" and got it swept through with no Dem opposition, well 4 votes, if that counts. Those are the terribly dangerous things so called "centrist" Democrats are doing. Clearly enabling the far-right agenda and supporting it and even making it happen. These moves are serious. They are not moderate. They are not centrist. They are not a little bit bad. They (The laws now being passed) ARE the far right agenda. You may think they look nicely packaged as "Democratic", but they are not.
therefore, I have a problem with your theory.
The so-called centrists are not listening to the people AT ALL. They are listening only to money and power.

[magellan]

11. And what if these centrists decide not to support a Dem President's nominee?

Or if a centrist Dem President nominates/appoints a centrist to SCOTUS who could go either way on the issues? Why would they do that, you ask? For the same reason the Dem Party is taking centrists now: votes.

No, I have a problem with the theory too.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. History shows that the Dem Congress will support a Dem President

And every Dem President since Franklin Roosevelt has appointed left of center judges. There is no historical evidence to suggest that any of the Democrats running would appoint justices that are right of center.

As far as Congress goes, getting judges confirmed is entirely about a political victory or a political loss for the White House, not about whether the judge is good for the job or not. Democratic Senators will support a Democratic President's nominee because they want the White House to succeed when it is controlled by their party. Likewise Republicans will do everything in their power to stop a Democratic President's first choice so that the White House doesn't get a political victory.

The reason that Democrats have let Bush get his choices for the Supreme Court is that too many of them are under the impression that we still live in an era where we confirm justices in a bi-partisan manner and so they let Bush appoint his justices under the mistaken impression that the Republican Senators will give the next Democratic President an easier time.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Dianne Feinstein isn't running for President

[eridani]

10. True. If your Congressional rep is Adam Smith--

--be aware that an intensive lobbying campaign from some of his progressive constituents turned him around on the bankruptcy bill.

[Mythsaje]

12. Adam Smith? From Washington State?

As a matter of fact...

[eridani]

13. The very one. Are you on his Progressive Advisory Panel?

Hasn't convened for awhile, but he did listen to us on that awful bill.

[Mythsaje]

14. No, I'm not...

But perhaps I should consider it.

[eridani]

17. When I get another email notice I'll post it under WA events

Or you could drop an email to his assistant Chelsea Orvello and ask to be added.

[Mythsaje]

18. Thanks for the info...I'll seriously consider it. n/t

[The Magistrate]

19. An Excellent Analysis, Sir!

[Mythsaje]

20. Thank you...

My examples are merely rough idea of what I'm talking about, but I think the notion is certainly worth investigating.

[Toots]

25. We did not get so far right overnight and we won't get back overnight either

Hillary will be a whole lot better than any Republican and quite a few current Democrats as well. As long as we do indeed move back to a progressive society I won't be too unhappy which ever Democrat wins the Presidency....I understand those on the far left (from where we currently are) don't stand much of a chance this year but within a couple of Presidential terms the nation may have awakened to the correct path...