Harm done when Democratic "centrists" empower Republicans

[madfloridian]

The Republicans are basically out of power right now. The problem is that the new group formed by Evan Bayh might change that. They appear to have as one of their main goals the forcing of 60 votes on some agendas such as health care and climate change. They do not think that bills about those topics should be passed by a Democratic majority vote.

This is a group of Democrats who consider the Republican points of view more important than those of our own activists and majority of voters. They with the help of Harry Reid say that if we disagree too much with them we will be hurting the party. They respect Republicans, they do not respect us. Bottom line.

Bayh refuses to give an official name to his group, though unofficially they are Senate Blue Dogs. He and Harry Reid have become angry that voters in the Democratic party have dared to question the purpose of this group. Bayh even refuses to name some of the group, snidely saying they are in the witness protection program.

The effects of their coalition will be felt by our party. Several of them are already opposing the Employee Free Choice Act. Many will oppose any government run insurance plan that would bring real change. They can have an effect on the cap and trade efforts. They want to defend the interests of the insurance companies in health care plans, rather than do what would really bring change.

The Wall Street Journal lays out their agenda...to "protect business interests."

Senate Centrists Press Agenda

Mr. Bayh and his group are well positioned to force changes in the president's budget and on other contentious issues such as health care and climate change. Their stated goal is to rein in deficits and to protect business interests.

Actually that is their goal in a nutshell.

More from the WSJ...almost like the South shall rise again. I wonder what we gained by working so hard to get Democrats elected there. We will never have a true functioning Democratic majority with people like Evan Bayh and his cohorts who are beholden to business and conservative Red State voters. Sad but true.

Mr. Bayh's centrist coalition underscores the fact that many of the party's gains have come from the South, Midwest and Mountain West, and its new lawmakers reflect the conservatism of those regions. Some members of the group, such as Mr. Bayh, are up for re-election next year in conservative states.

Centrist Democrats already have posed problems for some of the Democrats' liberal leaders and lawmakers. They have frustrated hopes of quick action on a measure making it easier for unions to organize, and they forced changes to a House bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages, ensuring that the legislation better reflected the concerns of the financial-services industry.

Here are the members as far as we know now. There are enough of them to squelch any efforts at getting real health care change or real climate change. They are the reason I will no longer donate to candidates or to the congressional committees. Many of them we donated to through DFA or Act Blue et al immediately joined groups like Blue Dogs and New Dems when they were in office.

Bayh and the Blue Dogs

When Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced the formation of his new "centrist" Senate caucus on MSNBC yesterday, he was a little evasive about his group's membership.

For what it's worth, Roll Call had an item about Bayh's endeavor -- it's apparently being called the "Moderate Dems Working Group" -- citing a press release of its membership. Bayh will apparently lead the group, along with Sens. Tom Carper (Del.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.). The rest of the membership includes, Sens. Mark Udall (Colo.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) , Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), and Mark Warner (Va.).

That's 15 people are willing to be identified with the group. Bayh said there are "three or four" other Democrats -- he said they're in the "witness protection program" -- who are affiliated with this, but didn't want their names on the announcement. Ryan Powers noted three Democratic "centrists" who "have been reported as attending Bayh's meetings in recent weeks," but whose names weren't disclosed: Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Klobuchar (Minn.), and Pryor (Ark.).

That brings the total up to 18 -- about a third of the Senate Democratic caucus -- which is anxious, for reasons I'll never fully understand, to water down the popular agenda of a popular president.

Remember when this group was first announced last December? A whole lot was said about their goals. Most realized then that this would empower the Republicans and keep them from becoming politically impotent.

Bayh announces new group

The 110th congress saw the most obstruction in history, literally. The Republican minority in the Senate forced cloture votes well over 100 times, shattering the previous high mark of 61. Now that Democrats are likely within reach of 60 votes on major progressive priorities like establishing a universal health care system and capping CO2 emissions, Senator Bayh is determined to sabotage his party.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is trying to mobilize moderate Democratic Senators to form a group based loosely on the House Blue Dog Coalition.

To suggest that this move is intended to "break the gridlock" is extremely disingenuous. The intended effect is the opposite. Namely, to support do-nothing Republican Senators in their perpetual quest to make sure the Senate is never able to pass any worthwhile legislation. To borrow a phrase from Yossarian, "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

...."Not only does he seem poised to move even further to the right, but he also provides incredible cover for Senate Republicans whose legislative strategy has been reduced to gumming up the works at every opportunity. It will be hard for Senate Democrats to place the blame squarely on obstructionist Republicans if a group of worthless conservative Democrats led by Senator Bayh is helping them get to 40 on major issue after major issue.

I no longer buy the fact that Democrats elected in Red States must be Republican lite. I used to accept it as an excuse, but now I do not. I believe that a true honest progressive can be elected anywhere, even in the reddest of states.

This group will harm the agenda for labor, health care, and the environment. As the WSJ said:

Mr. Bayh and his group are well positioned to force changes in the president's budget and on other contentious issues such as health care and climate change. Their stated goal is to rein in deficits and to protect business interests.

It is to our shame if we let them do it with impunity.

[LWolf]

1. Excellent point, thank you. nt

[HopeOverFear]

2. agreed

[Individualist]

3. K&R

[saigon68]

4. Just think traitor Joementum Limpmann

[corruptmewithpower]

5. The last gasps of a party on the road to extinction.

And blue dog Democrats will fade to non existence soon after. President Obama has had no trouble getting things done in DC. We've won big and will continue to win again and again for the forseeable future.

[mod mom]

6. Bayh is closely connected w Mark Penn and was co-chair of a neocon war group

There should be no questioning why he is acting to undermine Obama. He is not on our side:


But we're not sure that's such a viable idea. That's because in 2003, Bayh was an honorary co-chair of the neocon pro-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- a group he joined along with none other than John McCain and Joe Lieberman, according to a press release from during the run-up to the invasion.

Check this out, from the group's press release on February 14th, 2003 (via Nexis):

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.

The Committee is a neo-con group that was formed to propagandize the country into war. It boasted such illustrious neocon members as Bill Kristol, former CIA director James Woolsey, and even McCain senior foreign policy adviser and Chalabi-bamboozler Randy Scheunemann, whom Josh has been blogging about.

-snip

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/bayh_as_veep_he_cochaired_wing.php

[madfloridian]

9. All done in the name of...

"moderation"

Which is not moderation at all but right wing ideology.

[many a good man]

7. A majority of the minority and a minority of the majority...

screw us over every time!

[Ken Burch]

14. These are the kind of "Democrats"

that overrode Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley and have prevented Taft-Hartley repeal for sixty-two years now.

They're the kind that doomed us to defeat in '68 by forcing the Johnson Vietnam plank on the party at Chicago.

THey're the kind that formed Democrats for Nixon in '72.

They're the kind that backed Reagan's nuclear build-up in the Eighties and funded his bandit army in Nicaragua.

They're the kind that stopped Bill Clinton's healthcare plan.

They're the kind that sometimes did worse(especially the Southern ones before '64).

They're NOT the kind we need.

[madfloridian]

24. The worst was the Dixiecrats.

They were so open about their agenda.

[Ken Burch]

27. I remember.

Their political descandants are now in the GOP(witness Trent Lott, for example)but their memory is still a blot on our party.

[MessiahRp]

35. The worst part is that they fuck the name "Democrat" up for the rest of us...

When they stall on Obama's big plans and he cannot enact the change promised in his Presidential campaign, what do you think the average American citizen that doesn't follow politics will think? "All the parties are the same".

And to be honest, it's hard to argue that point when so much of OUR party's leadership are right-leaners, DLCers or Blue Dogs that are determined to put business over workers.

They follow the GOP playbook to the hilt. They ARE the same. I could care less about them voting with us 60% of the time... most of those votes are procedural votes and when it comes to things that matter they fuck us over.

The Democratic brand continues to take serious hits from these assholes are basically Republicans that use the name Democrat only as a way to get elected (Republican unpopularity or weak incumbencies make it easier to call yourself a D when you're clearly not).

The left half of our party, scratch that, the left 2/3rds of our party (just because some assholes in Washington lean to the right doesn't mean the majority of the base of our party does) should form their own party and brand and seriously challenge this pro-business status quo. Americans are sick of corporate corruption. They are sick of using taxpayer money to feed the wealthy at their expense.

These jerkoffs and the the GOP would be handed their asses if a viable third party was created that took them on.

Rp

[youngharry]

56. Dem Centrists

I can't help but think Obama has a hand in this. I don't want to think it, but look at the names--several were important to Obama and are close to him. Then there is Rham from the DLC. I think this is all bullshit and wouldn't happen if Obama stepped in firmly. Obama is saying one thing while those close to him reward the Corporations.

SOMETHING SMELLS HERE.

[Kermitt Gribble]

8. Harry Reid has been a failure at every aspect of his

"majority Leader" reign. Reid, Bayh, and their group of faux Dems are sickening. There seem to be more 'pukes in Dem clothing popping up all the time - they've infiltrated our party an redirected it's ideals. Time for a third party - what else can we do?


*edit to add: Alway enjoy your posts, madfloridian!

[Inuca]

49. Why is this Reid's fault? n/t

[madfloridian]

10. Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Klobuchar (Minn.), and Pryor (Ark.)

Why are they afraid of letting their membership be known?

I think it is rather cowardly if they don't speak out on being a member of the group.

[dflprincess]

12. There was a time in Minnesota

and it wasn't so long ago, that Klobuchar wouldn't have a prayer of getting anywhere in the DFL. Of course, there was also a time when the Republicans in Minnesota were more liberal than today's Blue Dog Democrats.

I'm sure Klobuchar wants to keep this quiet because most the active members of the DFL tend to be more liberal and she's only going to hurt herself with the party regulars.

[madfloridian]

16. It has been so long in Florida since there was a strong firm line...

between Democrats and Republicans. They sort of blend together now.

[kenfrequed]

32. She was pointlessly sainted

For some peculiar reason she was selected and no one was providing serious opposition to her. I think the DCCC has been involving itself excessively in the selecting of people running for the Senate.

[MessiahRp]

36. The DSCC intervened in her primary...

They pushed Patty Wetterling out and got her to endorse Amy and then Ford Bell who was the most progressive candidate was basically pushed out as well. How can you compete when one primary campaigner has the biggest stars of the party doing fundraisers for them like she was a foregone conclusion? She had all of the big names on her side and it didn't matter what the opponents' message was.

Those big names knew she would be a good lapdog in Washington. Anything they wanted she would go along with... and in return she would get their help and get elected. Seemed very similar to how it plays out in the movie The Distinguished Gentleman.

It's probably why they haven't worked very hard for Franken too. After all, I think some of them are afraid he's going to be a bit of a loose cannon and work against their right wing policy making-enriching the ultra-rich idealism.

Rp

[kenfrequed]

42. Hmm

Well the party heavies didn't have much of a choice this time around in Minnesota. Their Candidate of choice was Ciresi who was doing worse than the progressive standard bearer Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. So they had a choice of making it a fight and sticking up for their candidate (which would have augmented Jack's hand as well) or just giving up and hoping that Franken would lose so they could say Franken is 'too liberal.'

Of course Franken is no Jack, but he is a hell of a lot more progressive than Kloubachar is.

[dflprincess]

58. Actually, they pushed eveyone else out long before the primary

They got Wetterling to drop out and ignored Bell long before we even got to the State endorsing convention in June. They actually started this crap before the caucuses. (The primary, had there been one wouldn't have happened until September).

And, there was a more progressive candidate, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer who ran for endorsement last year against Franken. Franken really seemed to be the one the powers that be leaned toward though that may have had as much to do with how much money he had raised as his positions.

[dflprincess]

45. Ford Bell tried to challenge her

but with the DSCC and the State Party leadership backing her, he didn't have a chance. In fact, long before there was an endorsement the state was pretending there was no one else in the race.

Bell would have made a much better senator.

[Dr.Phool]

22. Don't forget the Nelson twins.

I've got a name for them.

Democratic DLC Douche bags.

Could we send Bill Nelson back into space, and forget about him?

[crikkett]

26. how do you know this?

thanks.

[Canuckistanian]

11. "Moderate Dems", my ass

These Blue Dogs have sped right by the middle and have firmly ensconced themselves in the radical rightist camp.

It's amazing to note that as the country moves toward rejection of failed conservative policies, these fuckwads have run in the opposite direction and are now embracing the same values.

Seems to me like these people are abusing their mandate - if their constituents had wanted Republicans, they'd have voted for Republicans.

[rhett o rick]

13. It all makes sense if you recognize that we are not at war with republiCons but with the wealthy

ruling class. They own people in both parties. They aren't stupid. When the republiCons had power, it was easy for many Democrats to sit back and say, "Nothing we can do". They supported the Iraq war and the Patriot Act and the MCA, and on and on. Now that the voters voted in more Democrats they are in a bind. Now how will they allow the corporatist policies to continue. They can't blame it on the republiCons any more. So the Democrats decide to have a small but power group to kill all progressive legislation. Now Reid can still pretend to be fighting the good fight, it is all the blue dogs fault.

Nothing is going to change until the masses wake up and realize this is a war of haves verses the have-nots. And members of Congress are haves.

[madfloridian]

15. Very true.

Class warfare. with the very rich.

[Tim01]

33. Ok, so you make an excelent point. I think you have it figured out.

Now, what can be done about the problem?

[veganlush]

17. complaining won't change it, either

..we need everyone, not just all dems from indiana and other effected states, (but them especially) to call their congress people everyday and demand that they back away from this silliness, and be who they represented themselves to be when they got elected. Pick up the phone people, a deluge of calls WILL get attention. I called bayh's office friday and unleashed on them. they need a constant flow of calls..

[madfloridian]

23. Deluge of calls...good idea.

:hi:

[bridgit]

18. Well, as a practical matter whom else are they going to "empower" the left calls them traitors...

and DLC...*DLC!!!* scourge of all scourges as Krugman touts repackaged Ayn Rand notions of "comprise is evil" and voila! - the left is on it's own, nothing has really changed, and imo Evan Bayh should be towing our party line and stop smiling like that creepy preacher kid from There Will Be Blood

[madfloridian]

19. Bayh's other "centrist" group...from 2001. Called the Senate New Dems.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

I guess he just goes around forming "centrist" groups. No surprise at all that the groups overlap. No surprise at all.

"About the Senate New Democrat Coalition

Senators Evan Bayh (IN), Bob Graham (FL), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) founded the Senate New Democrat Coalition (SNDC) in the spring of 2000 to provide a unified voice in the U.S. Senate for progressive ideas, mainstream values, and innovative, market-based policy solutions.

No, what they have espoused are NOT "progressive ideas, mainstream values"...not at all. They are corporate values.

In just over a year, the SNDC has quickly become the strongest and most unified Democratic group in the Senate. With long-time leaders like John Breaux (LA), and a strong class of freshman from the class of 2000 -- including Jean Carnahan (MO), Tom Carper (DE), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL) and Debbie Stabenow (MI) -- the SNDC's ranks have expanded to 20 members.

The SNDC's legislative agenda focuses on, among other priorities: free-trade initiatives, policies that foster the new economy, fiscal responsibility and greater investments in national security. Of particular note, the SNDC has been pushing to reform federal education policy and improve public schools by simultaneously expanding choice and competition, demanding greater accountability, and increasing investment. The New Democrat "3R's" bill, sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Bayh and Landrieu, among many others, is aimed at overhauling Washington's role in assisting schools and disadvantaged students. The bill is the foundation of the bipartisan education bill that recently passed both chambers and is supported by President Bush.

As the founders of the New Democrat philosophy, the DLC celebrates the success of the Senate NDC, and is confident that will continue to be a force for modernization in the Democratic Party.

What happened, guys?? What not use this coalition called the Senate New Democrat Coalition instead of forming a new group which you fear to call the Blue Dogs?

The DLC once had a list of all of the Senate New Dems, but they took it down. I did a wiki search and found this:

Senate New Democrat Coalition members

The following Senators belong or belonged to the Senate New Democrat Coalition.<4><5><6>

Current senators

* Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
* Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
* Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
* Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
* Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
* Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
* Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
* John Kerry (MA, from 2000<7>)
* Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
* Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
* Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
* Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
* Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
* Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

Former senators

* Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2009 <8>)
* Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair from 2000-2003; retired from Senate in 2003)
* Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
* Zell Miller (GA, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
* John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
* Jean Carnahan (MO, from 2001; defeated in 2002)
* John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
* Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
* Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
* Chuck Robb (VA, from 2000; defeated in 2000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

National Journal summed up a couple of comments from bloggers:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2772

"Open Left's Matt Stoller isn't surprised by the news: "Steven Benen is not encouraged, but I have a somewhat different attitude. This shows that the 60 vote threshold argument was nonsense, power is concentrated in the hands of conservative Democrats and a few Republicans, and that's how these guys wanted it."

Yglesias reacts with sarcasm: "This seems like a good idea to me. With Republicans out of power, the GOP can't really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there's no reason it couldn't work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years."

[bvar22]

20. The solution is simple, but not easy.

The Left must focus its national resources to fund a challenger in Bayh's Democratic Primary.
There are several Internet Based organizations that can help with the organization and fund raising.
(I don't have the addys on this computer....will try to post them tomorrow.)
Bayh has made himself the logical target for this effort.

Even if the unseating is not successful, it would serve as a warning to those who vote with The Republicans. The sooner we start, the better.

K&R

[madfloridian]

21. Here's one way.

http://accountabilitynowpac.com/

[bvar22]

51. Thanks.

That is one I was looking for.
I will be supporting them.

[dflprincess]

57. Wonderful

thanks for posting that link

[immoderate]

44. Very good! Decapitate the beast.

My own DINO senator, Bill Nelson would never be missed. But taking down Bayh would resonate.

--imm

[Norrin Radd]

25. kr

[certainot]

28. call them LIMBAUGH DEMS- that's the contituency they respond to

or that threatens them into this shit

most are from red states, which are blanketed with the coordinated uncontested repetition from limbaugh and hannity and sons 24/7.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

29. If the people wanted Republicans, they would have VOTED for Republicans

Only they didn't. They voted for DEMOCRATS, not fake Democrats. They all need to be Leibermanned and have strong Real Democratic challengers in their next primary who make the point that these guys might as well be Republicans.

[Dinger]

30. Bye byyh

Shame indeed. What a jerk

[BanzaiBonnie]

31. I'd say, follow the money trail

well, my mother taught me that one.


Who are these folks beholden to?

[fascisthunter]

34. they are tearing the Democratic Label down and Propping Up

a fascist version... one that embraces Wall Street and allows Wall Street to control our government. Weasels...

[SlingBlade]

37. Why do Democrats HATE success so much

I've NEVER seen so much infighting and hostility here on D.U
Not even during the primaries.

WTF
Is there some type of Bush/Repug Love going on here or is it that Dems simply
DO NOT know how to handle power once it is given to them ? :spank:

[madfloridian]

39. This is not about DU. This is about Democrats who enable Republicans

because they want Republican mindsets to win out.

[kenfrequed]

43. Absurd.

We care about the issues. It really is as simple as that.

Decrying hostility or whimpering about infighting is diversionary and does not address issues. If you like the defacto senate blue-dogs than you are arguing dishonestly by not stating where you stand. If you don't believe in them but somehow cannot understand the differences in policy or issue I don not know what I can or should say to you.

[SlingBlade]

48. Well Thank You

I will definitely file that one away for later use :)

[Time for change]

38. Excellent analyis

This is a very disappointing turn of events.

Foguring out what to do about it will be very difficult. Dems who side with Republicans need to be voted out of office in the primaries. If that can't be done because of too much support from the leadership of the Democratic party, then it seems like it's high time for a progressive third party in our country.

[madfloridian]

47. I think that time might have arrived.

for your last option. And that is just too bad.

[TBF]

50. The real "change" that comes out of the election of '08 may well

prove to be new parties. The republican party is destroyed, when Palin & Joe the plumber are your candidates it's basically curtains. But we seem to be seeing a strong force in these blue dog dems, and it is apparent they are anti-worker.

Who will speak for the millions of us in this country who are not in the top 1% that own everything? If the blue dogs take the traditional republican role, then do we see our dem party split?

Very good OP, madfloridian. K&R

[lsewpershad]

40. We should all

remember them come next election cycle

[bertman]

41. Error: you've already recommended that thread. Well, kick, then. What the hell is

Kay Hagan thinking? We just elected her scrawny ass to replace the neo-con porcelain doll queen Liddy Dole and all of a sudden Kay's shitting on our heads. Everybody from North Carolina write, call, or email her and tell Kay Hagan to ACT LIKE A DEMOCRAT NOT a Republican.

Thanks for the link to accountability now pac, Madflo.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Zodiak]

52. Many people on DU have been saying this for years.

Long ago, perhaps 4-5 years back, patterns started to emerge in the voting habits of our Democratic senators when it came to important legislation that would affect all of our lives. The pattern was consistent....a group of about 15 or so Democratic Senators who all belonged to the same group ("New Dems", "DLC Dems", etc.) would trade places and vote against the Democratic party to ensure Bush got whatever he wanted legislatively. Practically any bad legislation you can think of in the last 8 years or so has the votes of at least a few of these Democrats...and many times they were the deciding votes.

These were the Dems who belonged to the "gang of 14" that gave us Bush's radical right-wing judges. They were the ones who voted us into the Iraq war, gave us the Patriot Act, gutted environmental legislation, etc. etc etc.

Meanwhile, out here in internet land, a few people who noticed this pattern took their theses to sites such as this. A debate erupted throughout Democratic and left-leaning circles. On one side of the debate are the people who think it is more valuable to have these kinds of Democrats than not have them, and the other side were those that believed that these Dems caused too much damage to our ability to act as a party to be allowed to continue.

This debate was never resolved completely, but it is clear that when we booted Joe Leiberman from the party, a message was being sent. Even though our leaders didn't hear the message, I think this event encouraged activists in the party to keep fighting.

The elections of Democrats in the last few election cycles has been a war between competing interests, as well. On one side, you have the Howard Dean wing of the party that continues to push for Democrats who embody the traditional principles of the party. On the other wide, you have the well-entrenched power brokers of the party who hold the purse strings. Rahm Emanuel I believe was a prominent leader of the DCCC, which funnels money to the primary candidates of their choice, and of course, Rahm used his power to get rid of progressives and encourage pro-business Democrats (some of whom were recently Republican!). Chuck Schumer is the one in charge of the DSCC, and he uses that power in much the same way as Rahm. Chuck has the added bonus of being footsie with the DLC (but is not a member).

It is my belief that we, as Democrats, are too trusting in our leaders to look out for our interests. In my experience, Democrats in leadership positions will almost always try to steer liberals and progressives out of the party and steer in pro-business colleagues. It is also my belief that the average person, or even the average Democrat for the matter, is not aware of subtle differences between the candidates in the primary, and finally find out what kind of Dem they got when it is too late.

Most people vote for Democrats because they believe them to be Democrats, no matter where the location. I do not think that their reasoning goes much deeper than that, but it needs to. Often the candidate that the campaign subcommittees like the DSCC, DCCC, and perhaps even the DNC endorse are the ones that K street prefers to play with. The average voter's ignorance of their rep's votes and their inability to see beyond party labels beyond Presidential elections is what makes this game so easy to play.

[BlueIdaho]

53. Not only are these assholes turncoats...

they are also traitors to their country in a time of extreme need.

Throw the bums out.

[Zodiak]

54. Yes, I think that we are finally out of excuses to leave them alone

About damned time they got some consequences for their part in what a fucking nightmare this country has become for the middle class.

[Usrename]

55. This is a huge problem.

These are not all centrists or moderates or conservative Democrats, some of them are just plain old fashioned fascists.

They believe that it is basically wrong for people to cooperate with each other in order to form a representative government. They think that the corporatocracy should be in charge. They are fascist in their beliefs, it's just a fluke that they happen to be Democrats. It has nothing to do with political parties.