Well, your theory explains the behavior of some Democrats.  Being bought and paid for by powerful regressive industries explains the behavior of others.

Michael chalks up to irrationality, but I don’t think that’s sufficient.

There’s also incompetence and blown opportunities and the corruption/cronyism that’s endemic to a two-party system that values lobbyist’s voices above those of ordinary citizens.

But yes, the baked in liberal aversion to indulging in the bad behaviours of conservatives is the major stumbling block for the less insane corporate party. What Dem politicians don’t understand is that one doesn’t have to be a bully to be a fighter, that having a Mighty Wurlitzer doesn’t mean one has to use it to spread BS and FUD, that being steadfast does not always mean being vicious and ruthless. All of that indicates to me that they’ve forgotten the history of fighting liberalism.

For a start they could read this short Steve Gilliard piece.

The problem, of course, is in the endless attempts to be generous and giving to conservatives, we allow the truly vulnerable, the people who really need generosity, to go wanting.

From the top down, we need to remember who we’re fighting for.  If we act like good liberals and play nicely (like the right expects us to), then the vulnerable people we claim to be for suffer.

During the debate on HCR, I kept screaming at my TV: “Goddammit, don’t give away any more of the store!  People need this to live!”  But not sure where else to go with that anger besides letters and emails, campaigning for my local liberals/Dems, and giving as much money as I can.  I’m starting to understand the anarchist’s desire for direct action.

There might be something to the expression “Don’t argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”.

To continue with the fight metaphor. The judge and referee in these events are the media and they don’t care if the blows landed are clean and accurate. They only care that there’s lots of blood and the audience gets excited. The end result is everyone looks gross and the right wing get off on being gross.

That being said I think being generous to conservatives is a cover for doing something you might get called on if you were to just do it. Another way of looking at it is that in real life its perfectly normal to be generous in conversation and allow someone the space to articulate their position. The republicans take advantage of that natural inclination because they aren’t interested in conversation.

Yeah, exactly what libdevil said.  You can’t be a national politician in this country without corporate funding and, while the Democrats are supposed to be the party that reins in the excesses of unbridled captialism, they just can’t seem to muster up the will to, you know, piss of anyone who *might* be funding a Democrat somewhere.  It’s a total bind that favors the party of top-down class war and it’s exactly why Republicans (and, face it, most Democrats) will never really get behind any kind of serious campaign finance reform.  And against that background, most Democrats just aren’t even used to the idea of actually putting up a fight against people who are obviously full of shit.

Democrats need to embrace righteous indignation. They need to start shouting down the bigots and the lunatics, stand by their convictions and argue forcefully for why they are right, why the GOP is wrong and why this or that program or policy will work. We applaud the rare few like Al Franken and Barney Frank when they do this but it needs to become the norm, not the exception.

The problem is, they’re too friendly. They want to treat these life and death decisions like it’s a quiet chat at a cocktail party rather than a policy debate in the halls of governance.

They also need to curse more. Cursing will help.

Depends on your definition of Liberal. I think most “Dems” in Congress share policy outlooks with Republicans in Congress. There aren’t many who are legitimate Liberals or Progressives, they just find the D after their names to be helpful on election day.

Pharmakos and Rob Roser both are to the point.  There is a BIG difference between liberal and Democrat.  Here in California, Dianne Feinstein calls herself a Democrat, but she’s hardly a liberal.  I’m sure we could all think of our pet conservadems. 

Stand by one’s principles, and be willing to argue long and hard for why they are right.  Yes, the “judges”
(media) are about as honest and balanced as a wooden nickel…  But when you talk to people, even the most conservative low-information voter, and explain the views, it makes more sense to them.

These are all good points and I don’t disagree. But lost in all of this is the fact that it’s a rigged game. The media consistently kowtows to right-wing blowhards and fear-mongers while punching hippies at the slightest provocation. This is why Pam Gellar controls our discourse about a non-mosque that’s not being built at ground zero while it’s completely unacceptable that Amanda Marcotte would go to work for a presidential campaign (not to imply equivalency between the two, but that just buttresses my point). Or, to use the apt abortion example, why people who want to kill doctors who provide legal medical services for women are considered just as legitimate political actors as those who advocate for choice. You can pick your favorite examples. The list really is never-ending. 

In other words, “Matt Drudge rules their world” and “Shape of Earth: views differ.” This will never, ever change. We lose because we’re meant to lose. Feature, not bug.

Lately I’ve been applying Occam’s razor and assuming the democrats endorse the republican policies they don’t fight back against.

The bullying of the more thoughtful and compassionate people starts in pre-school, is fostered throughout childhood and glorified throughout adulthood.  The bullies are now just grown up and wearing suits.

For years I’ve been operating under the assumption that Democrats suffer from a combination of Battered Spouse Syndrome (re: Amanda/Digby) and Stockholm Syndrome (re: libdevil@1). These are not mutually exclusive and in fact probably reinforce each other. The exceptions like Grayson, Franken, and Wellstone prove the rule.

Yeah, exactly what libdevil said.  You can’t be a national politician in this country without corporate funding and, while the Democrats are supposed to be the party that reins in the excesses of unbridled captialism, they just can’t seem to muster up the will to, you know, piss of anyone who *might* be funding a Democrat somewhere.

This is a feature, not a bug.  Assuming that America is a plutocracy rather than a republic, of course.

I just assume that a working majority of people elected as Democrats are by any real standards Republicans. They look, talk and act like Republicans. They take seats that could have real liberals in them, but surprisingly the corporate Dems are better funded than the liberals.

Part of the problem is the fact that the deck is just plain stacked against the advancement of a liberal agenda.  Even moreso now that the nine black rules have given equal First Amendment protection to corporate entities.

The truth for all politicians is that they no longer have a choice about whether or not they will pander to corporate interests; if they push any sort of agenda that would try to significantly disempower corporate influence, the corporations will simply respond by pouring a ton of money into defeating those who dare cross them.  And way more often than not, the tactic of moneybombing decides electoral outcomes.  I could be wrong, but I think every president in my lifetime had a bigger warchest than the candidates they defeated in the elections… I certainly know that was the case for Obama, who had quite a bit more campaign money than John McCain.

It may be incredibly cynical to say so, but the fact is, elections are bought in the United States.  If you are an elected official and you want to keep your job, you cannot piss off the wealthy too much, or they will destroy you.

I have no answer for this problem.  Revolutionary campaign finance reform is obviously the only way out, but genuine sweeping reform won’t get passed, because the Fortune 500 companies won’t ever let that happen.

Not only do the Republicans have home field advantage in this environment, the Republicans are the 1927 New York Yankees, and the Democrats are the Single A Minor League farm team for the Kansas City Royals.

The most recent example I can think of that proves that this is home field for the Republicans is the language that the mainstream media has unquestioningly adopted to describe the Park 51 project… “Ground Zero Mosque”.  I’m not just talking about Fox News, I’m talking about CBS, ABC, NBC, Newsweek, New York Times, all of the supposedly “liberal media”.  All of them have characterized Park 51 as the “Ground Zero Mosque”, despite the fact that it is actually a community center with many other amenities in addition to Mosque, and despite the fact that there are no plans to build this edifice where the WTC once stood in the area frequently referred to as Ground Zero.  Calling it the “Lower Manhattan Islamic Community Center” would be a more accurate way of describing this facility, but “Ground Zero Mosque” is far more sensationalist and buzzworthy.

At the time this project was first announced in 2009, there was no fanfare or outrage; quite the contrary Laura Ingraham interviewed Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Rauf, and offered praise and support for the proposed building.  Around the same time, Glenn Beck was interviewed on Good Morning America along with Imam Rauf, and he praised the Imam for the project.  There was absolutely no controversy at that time.  Nothing has actually changed between then and now, but at some point Pam Geller decided she wanted her 15 minutes.  just like the Pied Piper, she led the wingnuts into an Islamophobic frenzy, and now they’re conflating the idea of building a community center where an ugly Burlington Coat Factory now sits with an attempt to invite Osama bin Laden to personally conquer the United States and subject all of us to Sharia Law.  And the saddest part is that her strategy of normalizing Islamophobic hate is actually working.

We have gone crazy.

I think Outlander is right.

I think Dems have been cowed by a fairly rational belief that even if they do risk putting the target on their backs as right-wing bitch-fest target number 1, they won’t be heard. Every day on C-SPAN, there is a liberal congresscritter roasting a right-wing lie or even standing up for basic principles, etc…

But then, said words don’t make it on the news, the insane blathering of the right-wingnuts does. Called on to comment are a bunch of right-wing talking heads, but truth-speaking left-wingers are never called up. Sure, a Steve Gilliard or even the head of a Union might speak truth to power, but are there any on the Pundit Circles? Very occasionally, someone can get in to play but the numbers are way off. Grayson is probably the most brash truth-speaker for the liberals full of “headline” quotes for the talking heads to twitter about.

How often is he in the news? On the talk shows? Compared to McCain or Boehner or Graham?

And the media at least for the time-being signifies the tone of the debate, it’s overall structure. Even the blogs move with the media to comment about the latest stupid. As such it’s nearly impossible to jump-start liberal stuff in the same way as conservatives can. Liberals have to do it the old slow way, getting ideas up through the grapevine with grassroots activism and education eventually letting the idea reach enough ears to get a conservative slur name and a manufactured crisis about.

I think Democrats in office have given up hope that their rebuttals will be allowed to air or that their comments will even make it on the air. Look at Obama, he’s been trying to set his own debate and talk about certain issues for 2 years straight. Do you know what that debate or those issues are? Does anyone? At least widely and at depth? Cause it’s not in the news, it’s not in the soundbites, it’s not in the ancillary discussions and it rarely even gets into the blogosphere.

Instead all we hear is his supposed “silence” on this or that manufactured crisis or a bunch of stenographers angry that he won’t chase their dogs and reducing 2-hour speeches into whatever touches on the talking points of the day.

So yeah, I think Dems haven’t “lost their fight”, I think they assume (correctly, mind) that the fight wouldn’t even be aired. They’d just walk into the rooms the next morning with bloody knuckles and a broken nose and everyone would be talking about “the cowardice of Dems, why don’t they show any fight”.

I’m in agreement with Murrow Fan. The right’s advantage is simple: its easier to destroy than it is to create.

Grayson is probably the most brash truth-speaker for the liberals full of “headline” quotes for the talking heads to twitter about.

Alan Grayson was exactly who I was thinking of as well.  Anthony Weiner impresses me quite a bit as well.  But your larger point, that unapologetic progressives don’t get an equal amount of airtime, is spot on.  Olbermann and Maddow only provide 2 hours of airtime a night; compare that to the 24-7 rightwing propaganda on Fox, and it isn’t even close.  And even if you throw Ed Schultz in on the progressive side, those 3 hours of progressives on MSNBC are usually cancelled out for 3 hours every morning by Doucheborough (to his credit, Morning Joke has been scathingly critical of Newt Gingrich for his cheerleading of the irrational Islamophobic ranting against Park 51).

Really, there’s a simpler explanation: people tend to do what they want.

Let me repeat that, because while it’s terribly simple it’s also overlooked far too much: people tend to do what they want.

Whenever you see someone doing something, chances are decent that it’s because they want to do it (or they want whatever they think the act will ultimately give them, even if they aren’t fond of the means).

Even more important: whenever you see someone doing the same things over and over, chances are really, really good that it’s what they want to do.

Corollary: whenever someone repeatedly *doesn’t* do something, it’s because they *don’t* want to do it.

This isn’t universally true, of course. Sometimes we really are prevented from doing what we want; sometimes we really are forced to do what we don’t want.

But “people generally do what they want and don’t do what they don’t want” has to be the starting point, to be adjusted only in the face of strong evidence. For example, if someone keeps trying hard to do something yet fails, it’s reasonable to conclude that they want to do it but can’t. If someone keeps trying hard to avoid something yet fails, it’s reasonable to conclude that they don’t want to do it.

Apply this to Republicans: ever notice how they failed for decades to ban abortion, despite winning lots of elections? Yeah, it’s because a lot of them didn’t want to ban it badly enough. It was more useful as a wedge issue and a motivation for conservative Christians. Some did want it badly and worked hard on it; many others didn’t and their actions didn’t match their rhetoric.

Apply this to Democrats, now. If you see a Democrat constantly giving in to conservative forces conservative interests, and conservative Republican demands, why is that? Are they stupid? Incompetent? Afraid? Maybe, but start by assuming that it’s because they really want whatever it is they are giving in to - or at least that they like it better than whatever rhetoric they spout in their speeches. If you never see them pushing hard against conservatives - and by “pushing” I’m referring to unambiguous actions, not rhetoric - then your starting assumption is pretty safe.

Surprised that Democrats might be supporting conservative policies? It’s not necessarily all that shocking. The socio-economic similarities between Republicans and Democrats in government are pretty strong. They are in a similar economic class so have similar economic interests. If they are giving any thoughts to jobs after politics, most will be looking for jobs from the similar corporations and institutions. In a few years, when they are out of politics, are they going to get a job from you? No. You won’t help them send their kids to college. You won’t help them get that second house. You won’t help make their retirement comfortable. When it comes to deciding between your interests and the interests of those who can and will provide those things, what do you really expect to happen? Some can resist the temptation to vote their long-term economic interests, but many can’t.

Why be surprised when they have similar views on reinforcing the status quo when it comes to power and wealth? And as wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that’s fewer people to seek support and favor from, thus a greater tendency for convergence in those whom both Republicans and Democrats need to please in order to achieve economic security for themselves and their families. A growing number of Democrats voting an anti-progressive line is almost predictable.

It’s easy to just focus on what politicians say instead of what they do, but stop that. Actions come first and are most important. Actions tell you what a person values most and believes most.

It’s also easy to pour into a politician all the things you want to be true - just so long as their rhetoric is vague enough, you can read into those words what you want to hear. That’s even *worse* than focusing on words rather actions.

I don’t pay much attention to speeches and debates - they’re nearly worthless. I don’t want to hear a politician condemn DADT, I want to see them sponsor a bill repealing it. I don’t want to hear a politician criticizing banks, I want to see them sponsor a bill regulating them more strictly. When politicians don’t do such things, it’s because they don’t value or believe what they said as much as they do the status quo.

Go to a tea-party rally and then… see G20 protests or Obama inauguration.

Yes, these three events are exactly comparable. *eyeroll*

To those arguing “feature, not bug” I have felt so for a long time now. It is why I self-identify as an anarchist - NobleExperiments: Come to the dark side! - and am perfectly happy to do so. Though it is quite obvious to everyone else that I am truly insane because of that.
As far as the Bully Culture goes; we are. Plain and simple, we have been so for over one hundred years, I reckon. The Bullies in grade school and high school are merely a part of the unwritten set of rules on how we socialize young people in this country. So that maladjusted bureaucrats, politicians and law inforcement are the norm in American society. This makes me feel “Icky” in the accepted jargon.
For example, I read somewhere IIRC that a bully was tormenting some other kid for being a boy and wearing a pink shirt. The next day, the other boys wore pink to protest the bully’s behavior.  The antagonizer was flummoxed by this, and actually broke down sobbing. One of the reasons was because he was sure that he was acting as a gatekeeper for the rules of the road, as it were.
Damn… do I sound pessimistic. I need a drink now.
Sláinte!

CHRIS2 is an idiot.

There is also the increasing reliance of Democratic office holders on big money donors, who often support Republican positions.

I agree that a large part of the problem is that political campaigns are expensive in America and require a lot of corporate funding. Unfortunately changing this requires a Constitutional Amendment since the First Amendment is pretty explicit on the “Congress shall pass no law” part. Since corporations are officially legal persons than its not possible to restrict their speech rights. Until this changes, very few politicians can afford to go against the vested interests.

  Another thing that is often forgotten is that Constitution is not designed to create a system where the majority rules, its supposed to create a system where the losers of an election and other political minorities can substantially participate in government, more so than say the Opposition can in a Parliamentary system. Even Bush II needed at least some Democratic support for his programs. When faced with unity Democratic opposition, i.e. Social Security reform, he fell.

  See: http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/06/democratic-frustration.html

When you combine these factors, you get a political environment that is rather inhospitable to liberalism and liberal legislation that has to be compromised from the start. This is why I think that it was wise to not consider single-payer at the start of HCR and to abandon the public option. These were the sacrifices that had to be paid in order not to get the vested interests, the health insurance companies, to wage a really big propaganda campaign against HCR just like they did when Clinton attempted it. The result was that HCR passed even though it was unsatisfactory to many liberals because it was conservative.

  The other problem is that it takes more time to explain the liberal position while the conservative position is often reducible to a sound bite.

  See: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77170/the-democrats-branding-problem

  The simplest HCR solution would have of course been Medicare for All but even this would require an explanation on why we need Medicare for All and the failings of the current system even though both of these should be fairly obvious. Conservatives could just say, “ZOMG! Socialized medicine is teh evil.” Many people would unfortunately listen to them because they would be turned off by the wonkiness of the arguments in favor of socialized medicine.

This is incredibly hard to fight back against when your toolbox won’t allow you to access any of these.  And liberals can’t really just devolve into mean-spirited lying bullies, because it’s illiberal.  In fact, it’s so illiberal that it creates a double standard, where those who do cross the line are held accountable in a way that conservatives just aren’t.  No one gets upset when conservatives are villains—-they’re supposed to be!  T

The double standard isn’t created by liberals having standards, it’s created by the media, because they promote conservative dishonesty, out of agreement with their goals.

Nothing says that conservatives are just ‘supposed to be’ scummy liars, except for media outlets making excuses for that behavior.

Yeah, I’ve been telling people for years that I’m not a whingeing lefty, I’m a jumping up and down on your throat in combat boots lefty. 

I think we all need to don some combat boots and do some metaphorical throat stomping.

I love the ‘tea partiers are so much cleaner than lefties’. Because there’s some sort of moral superiority in making less litter when you can’t even muster up a tenth of the numbers that events like G20 protests or the Obama inauguration bring out.

@28: I’m way past the metaphorical stage.

Amanda,

I think it’s simpler than you’ve put forward.  If Democratic politicians and political operatives fight back, they take the brunt of the assault.  If they don’t, we rank-and-file Democrats do.  Until we stop rewarding ‘professional’ Democrats (to use a phrase) for their bad behavior, they have no incentive to change.  Most elected Democratic officials keep getting re-elected and most Democratic operatives keep their consultant/think-tank jobs.  Why would they rock the boat?

Especially when they have to think about their next career move.

I think part of the problem is the Big Tent that the Democratic Party has become.

The Republicans have gone so far over the bend that a lot of Democrats are actually quite conservative just not moonbat crazy.

If the GOP hadn’t gone over the cliff then people like Lieberman, Nelson, Sestak and Lincoln would probably be comfortable being Republican.

How can a party that includes both Joe Sestak and Barney Frank ever speak with one voice?

We really need three parties. The GOP can be the Right. The Democrats can be the middle. We just need a party to represent the left. Unfortunately that won’t happen anytime soon.

My biggest problem with Ralph Nader is not that he handed the White House to Bush (Gore did that by running a lame campaign and loosing his home state of Tennessee). No my biggest problem with Nader is that he destroyed the Green Party’s chance of emerging as a national party. Prior to Nader the Greens had been making slow and study progress in getting candidates elected from the bottom up. Nader tried to Shoot the Moon and torpedoed the Green Party’s chance of ever gaining relevance.

@Colorado Dave: I dunno. Some of the “Blue Dog” Dems here in Georgia are a hair’s breadth from moonbat crazy. And YES, indeed, Nader was not the reason for Gore’s loss. A poor campaign and some SCOTUS higgarty-piggarty thrown in as well.
I was actually thinking about voting green in the aught-eight campaigns.

also

The problem is that liberals often conflate softness and endless forgiveness with justice.

The problem is that the liberals who do this are the only liberals who are allowed to hold any position of ostensible power or influence, whereas the liberals who do not do this are savaged by republican and democratic attackers.

Alan Greyson is doing pretty well.

Chris2:  The wealthy organizers of the TBagger “rallies” arrange for the cleanup.

The problem is that liberals often conflate softness and endless forgiveness with justice.

No, no no!  Just the opposite:  It is conservative-wingers-Fox scum who equate Justice, fairness, trust, forgiveness, empathy, kindness, with “weakness”.

Losers and weaklings are “nice”.  Nice Guys finish LAST.  and so on.

I remember Jello Biafra saying something about how Democrats spend so much of their time selling out to achieve power that by the time they get there they don’t even know what they believe anymore.  Of course, many of them are enthusiastic participants in the process, never held any strong beliefs anyway, and see power as an end in itself.

Colorado Dave at 32: I think you Bart Stupak, not Joe Sestak. Bart Stupak is the the Michigan Rep, who made HCR unnecessarily difficult because of his anti-abortion beliefs. Joe Sestak is a Pennsylvania Representative that won in the primary against Arlene Specter by promising to very faithful to Obama’s policies. Sestak and Barney Frank are probably more in agreement than not. Whether Bart Stupak would be more comfortable in non-bat shit Republican Party is debatable since besides his anti-abortion beliefs, he otherwise just votes the Democratic Party line, including the pro-position on LBGT rights. But yes I agree with you that one of the problems is that the Democratic Party is the non-Republican Party more than anything else.

  I’m going to have to strongly but politely disagree with the poster that are complaining the Democratic Party is in the boat with the Republican Party. A lot of the complaining is based on disappointment with many of the bills passed by the Democratic Party, that HCR and the Financial Bill weren’t liberal/progressive enough. I look at it differently. Universal healthcare has been a goal of American liberals and progressives since Theodore Roosevelt first advocated for a National Health Service in 1912. It took nearly 100 years for HCR to pass in the United States. Every previous attempt has failed and LBJ only got Medicare/Medicaid passed because he was only trying to provide universal healthcare for two groups that the insurance companies did not want, senior citizens and the poor. Even then it still took him five years as a Senator, Vice-President, and President to get it passed. We could keep trying and failing to pass good, and I’m not even talking about perfect but merely good, or we can actually pass legislation.

  Remember that each attempt at universal healthcare has gotten less liberal since the Truman administration. Truman attempted single-payer and it got killed in Committee. LBJ was only able to get single-payer for the two groups that the insurance companies didn’t want. Nixon proposed that employers had to insure their workers plus mandates for the self-employed/un-employed, serious price controls, and that the federal government create a government owned health insurance company for those that wanted it. The Clinton plan required that every American citizen and green card holder purchase health insurance, imposed serious price controls, and made it free for those under certain income levels (basically the Nixon plan minus the government insurance company). Most of us know the details of the ACA. If the ACA act did not pass than it is most likely that, the next attempt would be more conservative and not more liberal. To me the fact that any HCR passed at all is a bit of a minor miracle. If it failed, the next stab would more likely than not be more conservative. A mandate to buy health insurance with no subsidies or even less regulation of the insurance companies.

  The other problem, like Colorado Dave mentioned at 32, is that the Democratic Party contains many more factions than the Republican Party. Liberals and progressives are only part of the Democratic Party while conservatives are effectively the Republican Party. This means that Democratic legislation needs to satisfy multiple different groups to pass and has to overcome the opposition of the vested interests. The result is often a bill that achieves a liberal or progressive goal but still leaves most liberals unsatisfied or angry because it doesn’t achieve the goal in the way liberals wanted it. So the goal of universal healthcare was achieved but not by single-payer and with no public option, what liberals and progressives really wanted.

    Despite this, there is still a difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Democratic Party consists of politicians that generally recognize that there are problems facing America and that these problems must be remedied. Generally, Democratic politicians try to remedy these problems even if its in a way that many liberals do not approve of or are unsatisfied with. The Republicans can’t even recognize a problem even when its really obvious. Most were in denial that the healthcare reform system sucked and was causing too much damage even when you think about it in the coldest, most impersonal terms possible let alone on a moral level. Likewise, the Republicans couldn’t even think that the financial system needed reform, John Boehner infamously referred to the finance bill as trying “to kill an ant with an A-bomb.”

From the Dems I’ve talked to, it’s a Learned Helplessness response with respect to the hostile media.

Remember, the supposedly fearful Dems have absolutely no problem turning on the invective against lefties who stray too far from the reservation.

The other part of the Democratic and Republicans are all the same complaint that gets to me is that those making the complaint never do anything about it. If we liberals and progressives really feel under-served by the Democratic Party, than we should take steps to remedy it besides abstaining from elections. A technique that we have used since 1968 without much effect.

The Democrats are influenced by two things I believe.

The first is class. And I don’t mean this in a mean-spirited way, but most politicians DO come from upper class or upper-middle class backgrounds, and as such, they probably give the concerns of that class much more weight than they deserve.

The second, is simply a matter of debating style. The Democrats use the soft-sell. Their goal is to try and convince the other side to either agree with them or to some sort of compromise where each side gets something. The Republicans are all about winning the fight at any cost.

The second way works a whole lot better in terms of convincing people that your point of view has merit. Maybe it shouldn’t, but that’s a whole another story.

I don’t the problem is us liberals. For sure a lot of us could get more aggressive and less eager to crucify our own. But the main problem I see is that independents press and right wingers KNOW we are fair and will not stoop to what they will. So they have no fear of us liberals or of a liberal administration. But they truly fear a Republican administration, with reason I might add. Joe Wilson, Pat Tillman, Dan Rather, Helen Thomas and many others paid dearly for challenging Bush. Who has paid even 1% of that challenging Obama or Clinton ?

There truly is a double standard because it is a well known fact that Republicans will do anything they want and Democrats will stop at the law and at the ethics of decency.

How to counter it I don’t know, but the reason no one attacks Bachmann is because they will be crucified, as was Van Jones for attacking Beck or NACP for attacking tea party racism or the WH for attacking Fox.

When you are fighting against the insane, few people want to help you, lest they get into the madmen bad side.

I think learned helplessness combines nicely with adverse selection. Imagine being a serious progressive and having to be in the same room three days a week with John Boehner and not be allowed to say anything harsher than “My distinguished colleague appears to have misspoken.”

This is where the wingnut welfare system, funded by all those billionaire psychopaths, shows its real strength. That welfare system allows firebreathing crazies to get piles of money (unlike the don’t rock-the-boat funding of most democrats), and gives them a place to rest between bouts, unlike the many democratic candidates who have to hold down real jobs.

As an atheist I say we take a huge pile of Bibles (since they’re so easy to come by-hotels anyone) and create a huge freakin pile right next to the Koranic one and set alight! Perhaps showing a huge projection screen of all the atrocities Christians have done (Spanish Inquisition, witch burning, conquistadors, Bosnia, ect) along with verses from their Bible which show violence. I would love to expose their hypocrisy like that.

From the Dems I’ve talked to, it’s a Learned Helplessness response with respect to the hostile media.

Which is so frustrating. There’s a desperate desire to be suck-ups and to ingratiate themselves with the arbiters of who is “serious.”  Or part of it is temperamental: Obama definitely has a reconciliator’s temperament. I really don’t see why they don’t have the instinct to basically needle and mock Sen. McConnell on a regular basis or identify the bullies rather than trying to get on the bullies’ “good side.” So many Democratic politicians sound like they want to apologize for themselves rather than pick a fight. They keep forgetting that the Republicans are picking fights with them every day. The least they could do is finish a fight, rather than trying to find the “middle ground” between them and whatever the Republicans attacked them for.

Oh, woops, wrong forum. Sorry about the off topic post above! I wish I could delete it!

Punditus at 40: Well, what is your solution then? Do you want politicians that write lovely pieces of legislation that have no chance of passing or politicians that pass legislation that can pass and at least start solving some of the problems facing the country?

  America isn’t a parliamentary system. Every bill proposed by a President, will be modified by Congress. Sometimes it gets more conservative, other times more liberal, and often both. Every bill is a product of compromise because of the various faction that exist in Congress. Thats how the American system operates.

I’ve always been of the opinion that Democrats and Liberals needed a way better media strategy. I think one of the biggest advantages we have is being able to expose their hypocrisy and extremism.  I think we also need to move the publics perception away from the idea that they are family oriented and patriotic. I also think one of the biggest demographics for Democrats is young adults, but they have to nurture that without depending too much on superficial trend factors. I think Michael Moore said it best when he was on the Rachel Maddow show that when the Democrats come in they seem passive, defential and eventually become push overs. The Republicans when they are elected take over like a dictatorship and screw everything over in the process. Why cant we come in like an iron fist and lay the law down?

One thing I suspect, but cannot prove, is that the Democrats have a constituency within them that selects for more milque-toasty less aggressive candidates in the primary. Certainly there’s a constituency nostalgic for Adlai Stevenson, “too good to win” types, and people with Broder fantasies. If you don’t like the republican “tone,” you might be drawn to people who are the opposite of that, even if those candidates turn out to be less effectual in the long run.

In short, milquetoast voters deserve representation, too. And unfortunately, they get it. Good and hard.

Lee says, Colorado Dave at 32: I think you Bart Stupak, not Joe Sestak. Bart Stupak is the the Michigan Rep, who made HCR unnecessarily difficult because of his anti-abortion beliefs. Joe Sestak is a Pennsylvania Representative that won in the primary against Arlene Specter by promising to very faithful to Obama’s policies.

Mea Culpa.

You are correct I meant Stupak and not Sestak. Thanks for correcting me.

Interesting post you make. You are correct that each attempt at health care reform has gotten more conservative. And I agree something is better than nothing. As time goes on it will likely be improved.

I am, however, upset that Obama didn’t even make an attempt to: push for, justify or promote the Public Option. It’s like they caved before even being confronted.

The other part of the Democratic and Republicans are all the same complaint that gets to me is that those making the complaint never do anything about it. If we liberals and progressives really feel under-served by the Democratic Party, than we should take steps to remedy it besides abstaining from elections. A technique that we have used since 1968 without much effect.

Well, my strategy is the Republican one: we get a bunch of billionaires to create a network of think tanks, send free money to any liberals who start up a campus publication, get ourselves a media conglomerate, and ensure that even the more conservative members of the party don’t publicly criticize the liberal base. Also, it would be nice to have a compliant media willing to repeat everything we say as fact and dismiss the other side as “too extreme.” It should be pretty easy. All we have to do is keep voting!

(seriously, Lee, people don’t vote because they’re apathetic. Insofar as non-voters are disenfranchised liberals, they’re disenfranchised because they lack patrons, as the far-right republicans had. You have a bit of a hippie-punching instinct, yourself)

Good grief, NE Elizabeth, did you just step out of a time machine from early 2009?

Colorado Dave at 51: To me the public option was (A) always the icing on the cake of HCR and not the entire cake and (B) created to be sacrificed to the health insurance companies so they won’t kill the entire reform through a massive and probably effective propaganda war. Clinton’s healthcare reform was popular before Harry & Louise were released.

  Tyro at 52: Perhaps, I have a bit of a hippie-punching instinct in as much as identify more with the old school liberals like LBJ and FDR than the hippies. Its also that I believe that people who have the right to vote but do not are fools. I am a believer in mandatory voting. I also think that there should be a constitutional amendment that practically shuts down the United States on election day to make this possible.

  What I guess, I’m really frustrated is that so many of my fellow liberals and progressives seem to miss the forest from the trees when it comes to American politics. As I mentioned above, universal healthcare was a liberal goal since 1912. Obama was the first President to actually get a HCR bill that affects all Americans rather than just a subset passed. This was a miracle in itself. The response from most of the liberal base was “OMG, Obama you sell out. You didn’t deliver us Medicare for All, therefore the HCR that passed isn’t real.” These statements are made with no knowledge of the history of attempts at universal healthcare in the United States or how the American political system works, that it is not a parliamentary system designed for majority rule. So the result is that liberals never seem happy even when delivered with a law that at least starts us on the right path. Meanwhile, when the Republicans deliver even a slight victory to their base, the base is immediately happy and votes accordingly.

  The Democratic Party despite the obstructionism of the Republicans and the cowardice of the Blue-Dogs, have managed to accomplish a lot. HCR, the Finance Bill, expanding hate crime legislation to include members of the LBGT community, Lilly Ledbetter, the Stimulus and more. A lot of the response is “OMG, you guys are the same as the Republicans because the legislation isn’t perfect I tell you, perfect. So I’m going to sit home and not vote.” Liberals and progressives do this every time the Democrats were in power since 1968. Result, massive failure of liberalism politically. Its time for a new strategy.

  Yeah, I agreed with Robert Gibbs. I was on vacation at the time, so I didn’t post to the thread.

I don’t buy the corporate argument at all. Otherwise how could you explain the reactions to the Burlington Coat Factory mosque? There is only one thing that will not get you dirty looks at the cocktail parties in Northern Virginia. They hate liberals and want to be seen as centrists - High Broderism - and that is enabled by the media.

What big money is backing anti-choicers or homephobes? 70% of the public supports repeal of DADT and we can’t even make a wedge issue out of it. Learned Helplessness, or the belief that we are a conservative country and anything liberal must be done in secret (Obama has done plenty of good things, but he surrenders on all the big stuff). They are ashamed to be liberals. I don’t know how to change it.

Tyro, I do agree with your milque-toast constituency comment thoug. I kind of have a preference towards the milque-toasty myself, its one of the reasons why my favorite British PM was Clement Atlee, but I recognize that many politicians of this disposition are not effective.

{In addition to} Fox, the dominant broadcast MSM is run by vicious <strike>liberals</strike> Neocons of the most ignorant and dishonest stripe. But even so, I would welcome a nationally televised debate between Obama and Limbaugh (or Beck or Breitbart). :: Fixed::
Brietbart would indubitably win, because he’s a lying Immoral Nutty-McFlakington

But even so, I would welcme a nationally televised debate between Obama and Limbaugh (or Beck or Breitbart).

I would, too, because every time Limbaugh steps out from the shelter of the right wing, he gets his ass handed to him.  How’d that NFL commentator gig work out for him?

His worshippers would make the usual excuses for him as he slinks back to being King of the Shitpile for the hundredth time, but the only people who like him are his listeners.  Hell, he’s less popular with the general public than George W. Bush is.

I say Bring. It. On.

@ #60 Cris.

The democrats do tend to see the country as center-right… err right-center? here.

Only Kucinich was anywhere close to me. the one “Crazy” vegan dem was on my side. see, like I said, I’m crazy.

Yeah, I agreed with Robert Gibbs. I was on vacation at the time, so I didn’t post to the thread.

Insulting your base is never a good strategy, particularly if combined with a whiny sanctimony about how you can’t just not vote. Why vote for a bunch of hateful motherfuckers who are just going to insult you to the press?

No, Brietbart lied about a civil servant, and unmasked his despicable racist crap flinging to the world. 

Olbermann? Olbermann? we don’t need no stinkin’ Olbermann!
Obviously Elizabeth doesn’t know about our secret weapon, The Super-Maddow!!!!
MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Oh, shit, did I say that out loud?

The Dems don’t have to lie when the truth is damning enough. If they drummed the ridiculous Terror Babies conspiracy theory in the media, and actually condemned the bigotry and dishonesty of it, or any of Breitbart’s creative scandals, or the batshit crap that comes out of Sharon Angel, they’d have more than enough material to bury the Republicans under.
The corporate donor argument makes sense when it comes to HRC and energy policy, but it doesn’t explain the waffling on reproductive rights or Shirley Sherrod or the Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory. Excessive niceness doesn’t explain any of that either.

@53 “...leftist assassins like Katie Couric…

ROFL! Asking policy questions of somebody running to be second in command of the world’s largest economy is NO FAIR! :(

Lee @ 55,

My problem is that the Democrats didn’t even try to pas a public option. It was obviously a poker chip and as a result it was off the table immediately and the bill was weakened further than it needed to be.

Let’s go back to early 2009. The Democrats had just been handed a huge mandate at the polls. They had large majorities in both the Senate and the House as well a hugely popular president in the White House. Right out of the gate they started compromising and not with the Blue Dogs but with the Republicans. While the huge span from Stupak to Frank is an obstacle Democratic weakness is a bigger one. Republicans take a one vote victory and turn it into a MANDATE! Democrats take a huge landslide and turn it into a coalition government.

Have they accomplished a lot? Yes by all means. Could they have accomplished more? Certainly. There was, first of all, no need to water down the stimulus package. It could have been large enough to actually improve the economy and not just stop the collapse. Likewise, had they made a stronger opening move, HCR would have been better.

Interesting that you admire LBJ. What do you think he would have done with a Lieberman or a Stupak? Just roll over because he was a push over? I don’t think so.

Amanda is right, they wimped out.

“Interesting that you admire LBJ. What do you think he would have done with a Lieberman or a Stupak? Just roll over because he was a push over? I don’t think so.”

Lieberman would have woken up with a horse’s ass in his bed…

(Never mind, I just realized that Lieberman wakes up with a horse’s ass in his bed every morning…)

Regardless, Holy Joe would be on his knees begging to vote for anything Johnson wanted, as long as he could keep one committee chairmanship…

Tyro at 65: Its debatable whether liberals are the Democratic base. I see liberals and progressives as being part of the Democratic base but not the entire base. Conservatives are the Republican party in the way that liberals are not for the Democrats.

  Also, I can sympathize with the frustration of the Obama administration. Administration: “We have just passed the first healthcare bill that applies to all Ameircans”  Alleged Democratic base: “This is a sell-out bill, every bill you pass is either a sell-out bill or too small. I’m staying home and not voting in the mid-terms because I didn’t get my pony, you corporate whores.” Its almost as if the Democratic Party is in a loose-loose situation with their base. If they fail to pass legislation than the base feels demotivated because the Democrats failed to pass anything but if the Democratic Party passes something than the base is demotivated because the legislation is never good enough or because there is always something else to be passed.

  Contrast Bush administration: “We have cut taxes for all Americans, well really just for the rich. Taxes for everybody else were slightly cut.” Alleged Republican base: “We love you, we’ll vote Republican forever.” The response is never “the tax cuts were too small” or “well you didn’t make homosexuality a death penalty worthy felony. We aren’t voting, you secret liberal.”

  If you were a politician, wouldn’t you be frustrated if your alleged base was literally NEVER happy with ANYTHING you accomplish

  alcoolworld at 64: Denis Kucinich has written and sponsored some lovely legislation that never gets passed. Lets follow in his tradition and continue to sponsor lovely legislation that never gets passed.

  Cris, yes this not voting strategy has worked so well for liberals for past several decades. Rolls eyes.

Cris, yes this not voting strategy has worked so well for liberals for past several decades. Rolls eyes.

Lee, you sanctimonious prig, where did you get the idea that liberals have a “not voting” strategy? If anything, the dems start to get pretty pissed when the liberals start voting, as when they nominated McGovern. 

You’re also willfully ignoring the runup to HCR when the congressional dems basically let the republicans take control of the narrative and left pro HCR supporters twist in the wind while chuck grassley complained about death panels.

@73 (&62;) Empty Limbaugh-style mud-slinging at its best.  And it’s the best you’ve got.  The poverty of your arguments is why you’re an international embarrassment, cons.

Lee. I Fucking refuse to vote for assholes that don’t represent me, or my beliefs… I used to vote in the Realpolitik/power politic style. It got me nothing. NADA zip zilch anyway.
I would rather vote for lovely truly dignified legislation that failed than ugly, nasty destructive legeslation that went down in flames anyway

Besides, If somebody votes for sanity, maybe others will too.

John Mckay is in fact politically dyslexic, like so many GOPERS these days… sadly no cure is really available for this horrible affliction

Cris @ 63 If you don’t see what a disaster Speaker of the House John Boehner or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be then you must have been in a coma between 2001 and 2009. Seriously not voting is not an option. Just close your eyes and think of France in 2002 when everyone on the Left (and France has some REAL Leftists) campaigned for and voted for Chirac (probably somewhere to the Left of Lieberman, hey it’s France) in order to prevent Le Pen (an actual National Front Nazi) from winning the runoff.

Have Pelosi and Reid been perfect? No but they are far better than the alternatives.

Lee @ 71 The problem is Obama didn’t even try. We wanted him to govern in the same style that he campaigned. He didn’t move to the middle for the General Election, he moved to the middle after the Inauguration.

One more post before.

  This sums up my views on the matter, nicely and better than I could: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77197/two-critiques-obama-i-dont-understand

  Colorado Dave at 69: Have we watched, the same HCR debate? The public option was kept alive about as long as possible. That being said, if the public option was seriously fought for; the result would be that insurance companies would lead a Harry & Louise style campaign against it. Probably with great success, causing most independents to go against HCR. The result would literally be no HCR. The issue to me is that do we want Democratic politicians to make symbolic gestures to liberals and progressives, that could very well doom legislation but make us feel good or do we want slightly to moderately liberal and progressive legislation to actually pass? 

  I agree with MikeEss, Lieberman and Nelson would be dealt very harshly with by LBJ for failing to go along. Same with Stupak. Rightly so. The problem is what to about women Blue Dogs like Blanche Lincoln. LBJ style tactics would be denounced widely if used against them. Most likely, the best thing would be to bribe them with lots of money.

  Like you said in your first post, the Democratic Party has a very big tent and this makes it hard to act in unity. Its “the everybody whose can’t stand the Republicans” party. This includes a lot of people who identify as conservative.

You know, Lee, I’ve been re-reading over your comments on this thread, and while it’s clear that you really like writing, I have no idea what the fuck your comments have to do with the actual blog post. This isn’t just about specific policy issues, it’s about Democrats basically buckling in the face of constant dishonest Republican rhetorical onslaughts (the Park51 Muslim community center being the most recent case), and a general willingness to basically act like battered wives by a bunch of right-wing abusers. Your answers don’t amount to much more than, “well, you know, it’s important Democrats understand who to get the Republicans to allow them to do stuff when they get all upset.”

Like you said in your first post, the Democratic Party has a very big tent and this makes it hard to act in unity.

That’s true, so let’s get something straight here: the liberals you’re so pissed off at are the ONLY thing standing between you and the right wing: a right wing that basically makes you look like a wimp and causes everyone to lose respect for you. The best thing you can offer is a supposed ability to make sure they don’t beat you too badly.  If you’re not literally begging the liberals to fight for you and telling the liberals that you’ll “have their back” no matter what, they’re going to leave you to the wolves.

My impression, basically, is that you prefer following to leading, and you’re pissed off that liberals don’t “follow.” And the extension to this is that you’re more comfortable being a follower of Republicans while they’re in power, desperate for any crumbs that the Democrats might get thrown, rather than actually wanting to be in a position where you and the Democrats are forced to lead. Service is an admirable thing, but elections and politics are primarily about getting power and using power to serve your interests, not to make you feel better about yourself.

acoolworld @ 76

I have never found a politician who I agree with 100%. We’re usually doing real well if I agree with them on 60% of their policies.

I have however found politicians who I disagree with 100% and they are invariably Republicans.

So, if I have a choice between someone I agree with half the time and someone I disagree with all the time I have no problem taking half a loaf.

Am I upset when they cave on things that are important to me? Hell yes!

Will I cede victory to people who actively push for things diametrically opposed to everything I believe in? Hell No!

Ever hear of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Colorado Dav: Try what? I keep hearing that Obama should have tried but with a vague response on what should have been tried. Great universal healthcare bills have been written and introduced in Congress since the Truman administration. All have gone down in flames with the exception of the Social Security Act of 1965 because it covered too groups that the insurance companies didn’t want. Even then it took five years since Medicare and Medicaid were first introduced in 1960. There will be a public option one day, its part of the Democratic conscious but it will take a lot of time to pass.

Speaking of Europe, one real problem with America is that our conservatives do not take the Bismarckian stance with things like universal healthcare. Our politics would be saner if we had some Bismarckian conservatives. Wonder why this is.

Tyro: Well that was a mature response. BTW, are you saying that the Democratic Party is destined to loose if they run as liberal as possible?

I’m voting Green until the Dems get their shit together.

I think there’s a very simple principle that Democratic politicians easily forget: no one’s going to agree with you on everything, and they won’t blame you for losing a fight or two, but they want you to have their backs when they go in fighting. Once Obama was inaugurated, the HCR process began with telling the base to, “sit down and be quiet while Uncle Baucus talks to crazy Uncle Grassley, and they’ll work something out.” Those agitating for the public option were left to twist in the wind: I don’t think they would have minded losing the fight for the public option so much as the fact that the Democratic establishment handling HCR basically said, “we’re not supporting this.” Where were the media counter-offensives against the right-wing rhetoric? Why wasn’t everyone on the Organizing for America mailing list handed a set of talking points and the locations of upcoming congressional town hall meetings? Why wasn’t the Obama campaigned turned into a nationwide lobbying effort to scare politicians and the media into submission over HCR?

Why hasn’t Park51 been looked upon by the Democrats not as an issue to be defused but an opportunity to bash, bash, bash Republicans over the head with the fact that the party has basically turned itself in to a national hate group motivated by borderline violent bigotry?

Tyro: Well that was a mature response. BTW, are you saying that the Democratic Party is destined to loose if they run as liberal as possible?

I know you love punching the hippies, but if you don’t throw them some love, they’re going to stay home leaving you a permanent minority—your problem is that you’re comfortable in this minority position. You like being the junior partner, the second-cheese, the sidekick. You like being the abused employee who celebrates those small victories when his boss buys donuts for the office. If you want to be in charge, you’re going to have to deal with nurturing the only people who are going to fight for you when it becomes necessary.

Tyro at 80: Many of the commentators seem to believe that Democratic politicians do not challenge Republicans because they agree with them secretly. I disagree with this thesis and have attempted to challenge it, which led to Colorado Dave’s reply, which led to my reply and so on. Typical thread drift.

  BTW, I never voted or supported or defended any Republican politician in my life.

But really, Lee, I haven’t yet figured out what any of your comments have to do with the actual blog post. Nor have you offered an answer. Just an expression of your pent-up resentments about how much you’re angry that the liberals should be happy to be kicked by the Republicans and the Democrats.

Many of the commentators seem to believe that Democratic politicians do not challenge Republicans because they agree with them secretly.

I would not go so far as to say this. I think that the Democrats are simply more comfortable with starting with Republican premises and trying to negotiate something from there. I think by nature they’re trying to avoid and diffuse conflict rather than win conflicts. I think there are cultural issues in the beltway that other people have mentioned: to seem “savvy” and “sophisticated,” it requires a certain temperament which regards Republican ideas as serious. The problem is that you seem to resent the fact that people have a problem with this state of affairs.

God I just did a New York Times Archive search on “Health Care” from January 20, 2009 to June 30, 2009. How depressing to see how weakly the Democrats fought for Health Care.

Here’s areal winner, bolds mine?

Obama Team Makes Early Efforts to Show Willingness to Reach Out to Republicans

By CARL HULSE
Published: January 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama is set to visit a gathering of House Republicans. The incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is in running cellphone contact with his former Congressional adversaries. Some Republicans say they hear more from the Obama team than they ever did from the Bush administration.

As Mr. Obama prepares to move into the White House, he and his top advisers are making a visible effort to engage Congressional Republicans, hoping to show they are serious about Mr. Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship and to try to enact an economic recovery measure with solid support from both sides in the crucial early going.

...

The early indications are mixed; only six Senate Republicans sided with Mr. Obama on releasing the second half of the bailout money, though two members of the leadership hopped on board. House Republicans have been caustic in criticizing an initial Democratic stimulus proposal and intend to submit their own ideas. And Senate Republicans who last year worked with Democrats on a children’s health care measure have been critical of the way Democrats are now handling it.

...

<b> But the positive sentiment did not translate into substantial votes for the money. And leading Senate Republicans who negotiated with Democrats last year over an expansion of children’s health insurance lashed out at Democrats on Thursday, saying they were shifting the bill to the left now that they were in full control.<b>

Read the whole thing it is depressing. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20repubs.html?_r=1&scp=15&sq;=“health+care”&st=nyt

You know from 2001 to 2009 I don’t remember Republicans or Bush reaching out to Democrats? No for eight years we were vilified as un-American traitors for not agreeing with everything the Great Decider decided.

I didn’t vote for bipartisanship, I voted for payback!

john mckay comes to every thread and never has any content

Damn I hate hitting Blaspheme before I hit preview, sorry about that folks.

Lee@48:  Democrats, especially Obama did not even TRY to get a decent HC bill.  He surrendered on Single Payer before the bill was even begun. 

The feeble suggestion by some congressmen that Medicare be expanded to age 55 was QUASHED by the scum Lieberman: same guy who campaigned against Obama but was forgiven by Obama… for what purpose?

It really looks as tho Obama wanted Lieberman to derail any important, liberal aspects of the HC bill.  As though Lieberman was kept around as a convenient villain to do Obama’s dirty work. The bill sucks, and the few good things about it are currently moot, since it won’t take effect for FOUR years. 

WTH!  This wasn’t distasteful sausage-making, it was a gory slaughter-house festival of giveaway-to-Wall Street. AGAIN.

@JohnMcKay: Oh come on. There was a more embarrassing president than Obama less than 2 years ago.

@87 - Is it because he’s a secret Muslim born in Kenya?

I mean, less than 3 years. Anyway.

You know Tyro, I consider myself to be a liberal even though you probably don’t. Just because I disagree with you on the proper strategy for liberals, doesn’t mean I’m not one.

  If you want my thoughts on the main point, I believe that Amanda summed up nicely in paragraphs 3 and 4. Republicans and their conservative foot soldiers believe that the “ends justify the means”, that anything is allowable to advance the conservative cause including freaking dishonest lying like we’ve seen from Breitbart or Sarah Palin’s death panels during HCR. This also explains the entire Fox News network. Anything goes as long as the goal is advanced.

  Why don’t Democratic politicians, call a spade a spade and point out their lies? Several reasons. Generally, most Democratic politicians seem to feel that some level of political civility and politeness is required to have a sane republic and that actively insulting a large part of the American population as liars at best is going to cause potentially dangerous civil strife; just as the current Republican behavior is highly dangerous and is resulting in some very real civil strife. Second, as Amanda noted above, a lot of Democratic politicians are very exposed to the rightist propaganda machine. Anthony Weiner could confront the lion in his or her den because he is in a very safe district. Grayson, to his credit, is not in a safe district, and is attacking the Republicans head on. The results seem inconclusive. He is popular in general but in his district, he could be doing better and should be doing much better than he actual is. Third, liberal positions or even moderate positions take time to formulate and the media won’t often give Democrats the time to fight back. Palin merely has to wimple about death panels and people go crazy or “socialized medicine is teh evil.” Many Americans zone out when exposed to long, wonky defenses and this makes it very hard to counter Republican bumper-sticker lying.

“No one has EVAH embarrassed the United States more, on the international stage or at home, then <strike>the democratic amateur currently</strike> when Bush Jr. was in The White House, having his strings pulled by Darth Cheney and pretending to be a war hero in his padded flightsuit and looking under his desk for WMD.  And, frankly, it’s hard to imagine that anyone could be worse than C-Plus Augustus, at least without breaking the laws of physics.”

There, fixed that for ya…

Many Americans zone out when exposed to long, wonky defenses and this makes it very hard to counter Republican bumper-sticker lying.

The other problem is that many Democrats perfer long, wonky defenses or feel they’re “too good” for bumper-sticker attacks. And/or, like an abused spouse, they frequently consider themselves “successful” when they are able to “manage” Republican outbursts rather than defeat/confront them. People prefer their prisons, and many Democrats prefer and feel comfortable in a world where they are dominated by Republican narratives. They’re MLK’s “white moderates” who have lost the “revolutionary spirit.”

  I consider myself to be a liberal even though you probably don’t.

I mostly do consider you a liberal. In the temperamental, earnest-civics-teacher sense. Just don’t end up as anyone’s campaign manager.

most Democratic politicians seem to feel that some level of political civility and politeness is required to have a sane republic and that actively insulting a large part of the American population as liars at best is going to cause potentially dangerous civil strife

Andrew Breitbart and Orly Tate are only two people. And it’s not an insult if it’s the truth.

Cris at 89: I really believe that there has to be someone, somewhere paying people to troll left-leaning sites to cause strife and prevent discussion. The pay must be considerable. The rightist trolls simply can’t be people with too much time on their hands, they would not be able to afford the electric bills.

  Kwillow: I am being sincere and honest when I ask this and I am not trying to be a hippie-puncher, try what? When Bill Clinton tried to get universal healthcare (and it was a very decent bill with very strict price controls on what the insurance companies could charge); it went down in a propaganda war. When Truman attempted single-payer, the AMA killed it in Committee. It is my personal belief that if the Democrats started with what we would consider a good bill, and I do not consider the ACA a good law (at best its accurate), it would have been slaughtered by the vested interests and it would be a relatively easy slaughter.

I’ll never forget the I’ll never forget the Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the white house heh heh heh bush moment, or massaging merkel or a dozen other Bush moments

Lee, one of the most insightful things I ever heard was from the governor of Montana: basically that people vote because they have a strong opinion about something. And they vote for people who come across as the same way: having a strong opinion about something. If you’re not willing to stand up for what you believe in, then the voter, who is standing up for what he believes in, isn’t going to identify with you.

And elections, after all, are a zero-sum game. Someone wins and someone loses. If you can’t defeat someone who’s willing to do literally anything to destroy you, your candidacy, and your staff, then why would anyone want to vote for you or join your staff? What you end up with is a bunch of submissives hoping to “take what they can get” from the dominant bullies. What you’ve been posting here in the comments section is a set of very long justifications for why Democrats should maintain their servile position in the face of Republican bullying.

  I really believe that there has to be someone, somewhere paying people to troll left-leaning sites to cause strife and prevent discussion. 

if that’s true they are really really ripping off their employers. The pandagon trolls are useless

it went down in a propaganda war.

The problem is that you believe that fighting a propaganda war is immoral and something you’re too virtuous to bother trying to win. You’re more pissed off at the liberals than you are at the right-wingers, who are the truly dangerous ones. You should be begging the liberals to protect you from them, but your attitude is, “sit tight, liberals, and be quiet, so that we can best manage the Republican abuse.”

Tyro at 101: I’ll consider the civics teacher comment a compliment even though it might be back-handed one. .

Also many Democrats are nerds. That should explain why they prefer wonky defenses. Grayson is not a nerd and Weiner and Frank are able to control their nerdiness. That is why they can attack Republicans better.

What we really need is for MSNBC to drop all their conservatives and become a twenty-four hour liberal network. Without the outrageous lying of Fox News.

But yes, the baked in liberal aversion to indulging in the bad behaviours of conservatives is the major stumbling block for the less insane corporate party. What Dem politicians don’t understand is that one doesn’t have to be a bully to be a fighter, that having a Mighty Wurlitzer doesn’t mean one has to use it to spread BS and FUD, that being steadfast does not always mean being vicious and ruthless. All of that indicates to me that they’ve forgotten the history of fighting liberalism.

For a start, they could always point out that they fought fascism once before in the name of Four Freedoms, and America can and should do it again.  Co-opt mythology about WWII for teh benefit of liberalism instead of leaving it by default for the wingnuts.

Actually, I don’t think that propaganda wars are immoral. Its just that liberal causes do not have the money for propaganda wars.

No one has EVAH embarrassed the United States more, on the international stage, then the democratic amateur currently in The White House.  NO ONE.  And yoo shitheels put him there.

Speaking as someone who lives on the international stage (you know, a foreigner to you Americans), please allow me to politely inform you that you are so hysterically full of shit words simply can express how full of ignorant shit you are.

Compared to the previous resident of the White House, the current occupant is incredibly well respected and admired in a wider range of countries.

By the way, it’s “ever” and “you”.  Moron.

Just because the Dems are better than the Repugs -if they really are- doesn’t mean they are working for Good.  They aren’t.  They’re sitting on their asses looking the other way while our country is being deliberately and systematically destroyed. For Money.

They are not “working with the Opponent”, they are accommodating genuine, active Evil.

Right now all you can really say about most of the Democrats in Congress, and Obama, is they are the lesser of two evils. Even that is debatable. Guantanamo is still operating, still tormenting prisoners, still running Kangaroo Military Trials.  We’re still engaged in at least three Wars of Agression. At least. Our Democrat President claims he can nullify habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, and, oh yeah: he can order American’s assassinated on his whim.

They ARE as bad as the Repugs, just slower and quieter. Repugs are actively Evil, Dems are passively allowing, enabling Evil to have its way. 

I’m voting Green or Independent, or for individual Democrat politicians I think are able and honest.  Obama, Reid, and most of the others are not on the list.  At best they are “doing nothing” while Evil trashes our country. At worst they are aiding and abetting Evil.

@81 Dave.
I certainly DO NOT agree with everything Kucinich proposes or does. He is a Democratic congressman and I am a bit farther left of him.
It is funny to hear you speak of Paradoxical Rhinectomies. I feel that you may be doing so as well. Or maybe let’s not give away the whole Fargin’ kitchen.
The Whole “Don’t throw your vote away” thing is too Papa Bear for me. If I want to throw my vote away* than by all means I’m gonna do it for somebody that doesn’t make me nauseous.  So you can take your vote like me or else crap and stuff it.
I have always hated slav’ry since the day that I was born. And I’m off to join the IRA and I’m off tomorrow morn.
Besides, as it has been pointed out, The things The Dems cave on are freakin rediculous. I mean Firing somebody on the advice of Breitbart?
Mad Hatters one and all!

if that’s true they are really really ripping off their employers. The pandagon trolls are useless

I dunno - Mike Ess and I have you fooled com- um, forget I spoke.

Actually, I don’t think that propaganda wars are immoral. Its just that liberal causes do not have the money for propaganda wars.

Well, well! I agree with Lee on this. The GOP have drowned us all in propaganda for 35 or 40 years. It is time to Fight this on Liberal or leftist terms, instead of swallowing the sewage of the 911 mosque, the Neo-Fundy founding fathers, the Swiftboat garbage. This has to be neutralized. and sanitized.

Previous attempts at universal health care may have failed because the country wasn’t experiencing horrific HC situation we have now.  People weren’t going bankrupt, loosing their homes, or choosing to die rather than bankrupt their families due to medical bills, on a regular basis.  They weren’t being denied needed -but expensive- medications, or thrown off gouged half their income to pay for crap health plans. Up till 20 years ago, even people without insurance could manage to pay for a broken leg or appendectomy.  Not any more. Even with overpriced insurance One is screwed by the insurance company. Without it, a person who gets serious ill is ruined, destroyed.

In ‘06 and ‘08 Democrats were put in office to FIX the health care problem. It really WAS a mandate. And they knew it. But Wall Street, their real “base” said NO.

So they arranged for certain convenient Blue Dog villains to derail their efforts, passed a crap bill that Nixon would have been ashamed of and called it solid gold, and crowned their achievement by postponing implementation for FOUR years.

Why couldn’t they at LEAST rescind the anti-trust exemption the Health Insurers have, and allow a little of the vaunted Free Market Competition?

It was a noisy, tawdry carnival show, a really cheesy show that fooled only those who wanted to be fooled again.

Previous attempts at universal health care may have failed because the country wasn’t experiencing horrific HC situation we have now.  People weren’t going bankrupt, loosing their homes, or choosing to die rather than bankrupt their families due to medical bills, on a regular basis.

No, they failed because organised and well-funded organisations were muddying information, putting out their own narratives, and <strike>bribing</strike>influencing politicians.

Those organisations will still be there if any other attempt is made.

It is a gorgeous day. The sky is blue, the trees are full and green. People stroll in the languid sunshine and children frolic in parks. Alcool is strolling along a lane humming to himself. But as he nears a small pocket park of Oak trees, JohnMkKay appears suddenly. He clings to the limbs of the nearest Oak, trembling violently. The clothes he wears are ragged and bloodstained. He froths copiously at the mouth.

JOHNMCKAY: Boof!!! Boof!!!

ALCOOL: Augh!! what the?

JOHNMCKAY: RRRR! (foaming spittle flies from his lips.) BOOF!!! BOOF!!!

ALCOOL: Rabid Dog! OMGOMGOMGOMG (Running in a circle) It’s Rabid, Rabid, Rabid!!! (Flees with great pumping of elbows and knees)

JOHNMCKAY: BOOF!!! BOOOF!!! (Ad Nauseum)

It’s interesting how one can call someone *else* foul-mouthed right before calling them names.

I really believe that there has to be someone, somewhere paying people to troll left-leaning sites to cause strife and prevent discussion.

It’s seriously like 3 people who keep getting banned and coming back to make new accounts.  I’ve been reading this site for at least like 4-5 months and I’ve only seen three differing styles of writing in the trolls here.  The one at #118 used to be known as Knute, for example; you can tell by how obsessed he is with the idea that Amanda is a potty-mouth whose evul dirty words got her fired from the Edwards campaign.  He’s mentioned that more times in the span of a week than I’ve ever seen Amanda or anyone on this site mention it.

There’s also the KKK guy who thinks he’s a glorious revolutionary, and some other crazy guy who I don’t pay enough attention to for me to remember.  Though the only reason I think he’s a different person is that the KKK guy called him a useful idiot or something like that.

I really doubt they’re being paid, though, since you could pay a programmer to write a script that would produce more coherent posts than them.  Or you could just pay people to like, DDOS the site, and then there would be no discussion at all.

So it’s just a couple (less than five, certainly) of idiots who think they’re political masterminds bringing light to the heathen liberals.  And also putting that potty-mouthed woman in her place, because the NERVE of someone, to use bad words!  What is this fucking world coming to, I tell you.

(Also, what is the stick rule?  I’ve been Googling it in every manner I can think of, and searching the archives here, and I have no idea.)

First of all, “Democrats” as a group will never “have their shit together” because there are too many different kinds of them, including a huge swath who are basically to the right of the old liberal Republicans.  The reason they ended up Democrats to begin with is that Republicans have managed to drive out nearly everyone sane.  But they don’t have to be bought-and-paid-for corporate shills.  There really does exist a critical mass of Democrats-who-are-not-liberals on ideological rather than venal grounds.  They’re frustrating to deal with.  The reason why Democrats don’t coalesce behind liberal policies is that that’s not the midpoint of the Democratic ideological spectrum.  And IMHO Obama can’t “try harder” or “fight harder” or “work harder” to push that midpoint to the left because the people he’d be trying to push _truly don’t believe in_ liberal solutions, because they’re not liberals.  They have an ideological line in the sand, it’s to the right of most of us here, and being challenged by Obama probably only hardens their views.

Republicans stick together because if you don’t you’re branded a heretic and you get purged.  They actively demand that everyone agree on everything all the time, and abide virtually no deviation.  So they have a formidable degree of unity _because they are hateful and homogeneous_.  All the people who ever used to believe in “public service,” regardless of whether they’re ideologically liberal or conservative… they’re all Democrats now.  If you’re a Republican politician and you want to pass even an old-school conservative, pro-business-y kind of law, you’re treated as the enemy, like Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski and Lindsay Graham.  Solving problems by finding consensus, even by pulling that consensus way to the right, is anathema.  Republicans want to cut taxes on people like them and inflict pain on people not like them, and at this point that’s what the whole party is based on.

Furthermore, there’s a really perverse feedback loop when it comes to Democrats and the media.  Democrats are cowed by the media, and the media is cowed by conservatives.  Conservative leaders howled about “media bias”—and for some reason that really stung.  So people in the media decided they needed to be very gentle and accommodating to conservative bullshit, lest they get berated by conservatives for their “bias.”  Oh noes!  Angry letters and irate phone messages!  I haz a sad!  So the media cares what conservatives think.  But, at the same time, Democrats care what the media thinks.  I think they see themselves as like umpires:  if they’re doing their jobs effectively, no one notices them; they’re being mature and high-minded and ZZZZZzzzz.  But, oh noes!  A “controversy” has arisen!  Tempers flared!  David Broder is feeling put upon!  I can haz baipartzn?

Also, the media expects anger and ruthlessness from Republicans, but acts shocked and appalled by anger and ruthlessness from Democrats, because, gasp, they’re not supposed to be like that!  It’s just like the old troll argument about how, if you believe in tolerance why are you being so intolerant of my intolerance?

@ 121 Toitle

If a commenter is stupider than a stick, then he (it’s almost always a he) gets banned for breaking the stick rule.

@121: Toitle - I was thinking it was one of those mythical olden-day laws regulating how men can beat their wives, like the rule of thumb.

122: FlipYrWhig - I’ll just vote Green forever then. I want a party that represents the Left. The Dems think we’ll keep voting for them because we have no other options. Gibbs said as much in response to the backlash over his hippie punching. “There’s too much at stake.” Fuck them.

#116: Kwillow - Back then I had 100% medical and dental and maybe a $5 copay. I was bagging groceries.

^clicked ‘Blaspheme’ too soon. I had that through my employer. No deducted from my pay or anything. So yeah, I wasn’t real concerned about healthcare reform then, but couldn’t understand why all the people on TV were screaming at Hillary.

@snobographer

I have never understood why there are so many people on TV screaming at Hillary.  I keep expecting them to go away, but I am starting to worry that she’s become some sort of mythic Adversary to Saint Ronnie and we’ll have to listen to the right propping up their corpses in some bizarre infotainment battle of good vs. evil until we die.

My mother (the TeaBagger) seems to bring up either Bill or Hillary every single time I mention the name of a politician.  I really don’t get it.

Um…I meant, of course, propping up Hillary’s corpse after she dies.  It’s just, barring unforeseen circumstances, most of us will still be around to see that.

There’s also the KKK guy who thinks he’s a glorious revolutionary, and some other crazy guy who I don’t pay enough attention to for me to remember.

PHOENICIAN in a time of ROMANS!! How hard is it to remember that, numbskull?

Or were you thinking of Mike?  Because, you know, Mike’s my sock-puppet.

alcoolworld, more importantly as discussed in the Koch Brothers post, there are many conservative millionaires and billionaires, that have no problem funding rightist think-tanks, lobbying groups, and other propaganda outfits. Some have even managed to turn propaganda outfits into profit generating enterprises. The number of liberal millionaires and billionaires is much smaller. Liberal rich people also seem to prefer to spend their money on philanthropy that actual does something rather than merely spreads the word. This the reason why liberals and progressives have a less than impressive infrastructure and funding when compared with the right and why there is no real liberal alternative to Fox.

  The web has been a blessing for liberals and progressives because setting up a blog is much cheaper than setting up a television network. The problem is that the readership tends to be limited to people who in one way or another agree with the blogger or who just want to troll.

  I’m with PIOTR on this Kwillow at 116. When most other universal healthcare programs were created, the situation wasn’t really as dire as the American one. Maybe only Switzerland and Taiwan were in similar situations. Its just that the opponents were non-existent for the most part, except in the UK. The Labour MP responsible for creating NHS, famously said that he only managed to prevent the British Medical Association from killing NHS by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” According to British posters on other blogs I read, the Labour government completely caved into the demands of dentists and this is the reason why NHS isn’t really that good on dental coverage as it should be. So even after WWII with a Parliament filled with dedicated socialists and a powerless upper house; the BMA and British dentists were nearly able to prevent NHS from coming into existence without getting serious concessions from Clement Atlee’s government. In America, the opponents of universal healthcare operate under even better circumstances. There are always large numbers of conservatives in Congress, the Senate has a lot of power, and there is a large faction of the American people that are bat shit and willing to oppose universal healthcare for nefarious reasons. Others are just susceptible to their propaganda and manipulation, i.e. Harry and Louise.

Atheist, a feminist: Aren’t stupid people usually compared to bricks rather than sticks? This has been true in my experience at least.

Liberal rich people also seem to prefer to spend their money on philanthropy that actual does something rather than merely spreads the word.

Someone here on pandagon pointed out that liberal attitudes towards money and power are like conservative attitudes about sex: something dirty and shameful that should only be used for specific purposes under limited circumstances.

“Or were you thinking of Mike?  Because, you know, Mike’s my sock-puppet.”

...or is Phoenician MY sockpuppet?  Or maybe we’re BOTH sockpuppets of Rugged in Montana?  Or all three of us are sockpuppets of DodgeRam?

OTOH, maybe toitle is somebody’s sockpuppet…?  Maybe we’re all Jesse’s sockpuppets, which would help explain his mysterious periodic disappearances…?

???

Can I be UR sockpuppet?

“Can I be UR sockpuppet?”

...only if I can be yours…

Tyro at 132: I don’t think this is quite right. Its not the liberals money in the way that conservatives hate sex, its that liberals generally prefer that money used for liberal causes be used in the most constructive way possible. Settting up funds to protect the enviornment or help people get an education or even support the arts is viewed as more constructive than setting up think tanks and propaganda outfits since it actually provides help to people that need it. Also, past attempts at setting up liberal equivalents of talk radio haven’t been stunning successes.

  Another reason why Democrats do not do well against Republicans in debate might be a fear that if they use Republican and conservative like tactics, that they will be corrupted and become conservative in their beliefs. It seems a little silly but I do get a notion that a few liberal believe that to speak like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh is to become them.

  Plus, we can’t overestimate that above it-all, we are better people belief. Adopting conservative tactics is often seen as lowering oneself to the level of your enemies, which many view as a sort of conservative victory.

Comments 134, 135 are going to prove that the internet is going to make commercial pop love songs and romantic comedies suck even more.

@ snobographer:

I want a party that represents the Left.

The sad fact is that a left party would never win anything because there aren’t really that many of us.  We’d have some kickass campaigns that might get up to, like, 30% of the vote.  So instead what we have is a D party that at least believes that part of the point of the government is to solve problems, and they fight about whether those problems should be solved in a liberal or conservative way, and an R party that believes the point of the government is to reward rich people and smite enemies foreign and domestic. 

The Republican party went right because their voters organized and kept pushing until they made it clear that they were obviously the biggest faction in their party, starting in municipal elections and school boards and such.  It took a lot of harassment and alienation of people who agreed with them on virtually everything to accomplish that takeover.  I’m not sure liberals or the left will ever be the biggest faction in the Democratic party, and I’m not sure that exerting pressure to try to make it so wouldn’t involve a similar degree of hostility and purgation.

I always liked the idea of Proportional Representation, because I feel as though liberals and the left are tremendously underrepresented in the corridors of power.  There isn’t anyone _nearly_ as far to the left as Bachmann, Gohmert, Steve King, etc. are to the right.  And certainly any number of minority groups are entirely unrepresented.  But it’s hard to make people excited about voting systems.

Plus, we can’t overestimate that above it-all, we are better people belief. Adopting conservative tactics is often seen as lowering oneself to the level of your enemies, which many view as a sort of conservative victory.

Lee, I think we are both on a similar page about the diagnosis. I just regard the diagnosis as a sickness, and you don’t.Politics is not an outlet for making you feel better about yourself.

But then, said words don’t make it on the news, the insane blathering of the right-wingnuts does. Called on to comment are a bunch of right-wing talking heads, but truth-speaking left-wingers are never called up. Sure, a Steve Gilliard or even the head of a Union might speak truth to power, but are there any on the Pundit Circles? Very occasionally, someone can get in to play but the numbers are way off. Grayson is probably the most brash truth-speaker for the liberals full of “headline” quotes for the talking heads to twitter about.

How often is he in the news? On the talk shows? Compared to McCain or Boehner or Graham?

Comment #16: Cerberus

This struck a thought in me.  Why don’t our Democratic politicians go on to local news programs then?  Why in Washington State don’t I see Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell on KOMO or KING TV?  Why aren’t they guests on AM 1090?  Why don’t they bother to get their message out to the very people who WANT to vote for them but feel disenfranchised?

@ Lee:  I think Democrats in general, in terms of temperament, like to explain things and like to make peace.  In a debate, either face-to-face or just asychronous ongoing ideological clashes, Republicans are hostile and Democrats try to calm them down and point out where they’re wrong.  So whenever Republicans are screaming and howling about something, Democratic instinct is to make them feel like their concerns are being heard and that there is surely a way to move forward together. 

In most social and professional interactions, this is a very constructive tendency to have.  In politics, I’m not so sure it is; it sounds appealing but it does seem to result in discussions that take place on Republican terms.  We have the fights that Republicans pick because of this respectful hearing/consensus-building track that goes right to the core of Democratic DNA.  In a primal, elemental way, Republicans are the people who don’t care if you think that they’re dicks, and Democrats are the people who care very much about that.*  I think that goes much deeper down than liberal vs. conservative on any particular issue or policy.

* A lot of people on the left don’t particularly care if you think they’re abrasive or “strident” either.  They’re proud of what they believe in and revel in fighting about and for it.  They don’t like compromise.  They want the Democrats as a group to handle conflict and hostility the way they do, which is to say “Fuck off.”  Those are the people who are most unhappy with the Democratic party in the Obama era.

I can only pray to whatever non-existent deity might watch over our state politics that Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell DO manage to get themselves onto local news. The east side of the state is growing in population and its horribly, solidly red. Clint Didier and Dino Rossi campaign signs litter the landscape- Clint Didier getting his Tea Cracker endorsement from the very Cracker Queen herself, Sarah Palin.

Seriously, it’s frightening to be a liberal on this side of the state. Hell, it’s frightening to be on this side of the state, period.

Tyro, no actually I think its a sickness to, hence my admitration of LBJ. I just do not know how to cure it since the temperment seems to go hand and hand with the beliefs. Many liberals are milque-toast and see it as a key liberal trait. Until most of the base gets beyond this than they are going to keep nominating milque-toast politicians. Liberals need to move beyond that and go for the more vehement rhetoric. I think thats why Grayson, Weiner, and Franklin are popular; they go for the gut like an old machine Democratic pol would.

  Cynikal: Generally, Democratic politicians appear rarely on the news for interviews, because they are trying to do their primary jobs. Since Republicans do not do their jobs, they have a lot of free time. Even Ben Nelson takes his position as Senator seriously.

  The Realist Mom: I doubt Washington is going to go red or even purple any time soon.

  FlipYrWing: I also think that liberals like to aim at people’s better nature and see their policieis as benefiting everybody, including the filthy rich, in the short and long run. Thats why they eschew demonization and other conservative tactics because it looks like we are going after people. Kind of like how Feminists maintain that getting rid of the Patriarchy will help men as well as women.

I aint buying it. Just because you see yourself as a “liberal” doesn’t mean your only choices are either rolling belly up when leaned on or going Rambo on everyone. In my view, precisely because you do value our social interactions and understand that no-one is truly “self-made”, you cannot afford to tolerate the childish, crude temper tamtrums on the right. Precisely because you value reality & the truth, you cannot afford to allow them to get away with their lies and character assassination and fear-mongering. In other words, you should act like an adult, and expect no less of others.

The right wing today resembles nothing less than a bunch of spoiled, intemperate brats who need to be brought to heel and given a time out instead of a pass. They are the ones who are always talking about “spare the rod and spoil the child”. Methinks they need some of their own medicine.

Comments 134, 135 are going to prove that the internet is going to make commercial pop love songs and romantic comedies suck even more.

We iz in ur sockdraw, committing your sin of onan.

(Actually, I recall a recent near-future sf book where the protaganist took his kids to see the movie “The LOLcat Diaries”...)

Lee @ #130:

It’s my understanding that Winston Churchill was driving a lot of the opposition to the NHS as well.  Though he was Leader of the Opposition at the time it was proposed and enacted, he still had quite a bit of political clout in the national dialogue, and did go on to serve as Prime Minister for a second stint in the 1950s.

@138: FlipYrWhig - Jimmy Carter got elected. So did FDR. Four times. Nixon and Eisenhower were more liberal than the mainstream of the Democratic party today. I have a hard time believing all the people who believe in demand-side economics just evaporated into the ether.

I think the problem is that when Republicans accuse Democrats of being out-of-the-mainstream and elitist, Democrats are afraid that they’re right. And they are: being a politician definitionally throws you out of the mainstream and makes you an elite. What Democrats fail to realize, I feel, is that a) being an elite and living a life unusual by the standards most Americans doesn’t mean that you don’t understand and identify with those Americans, and b) that Republicans are even more out of touch and elitist. Their Real ‘Murkan schtick is just that: they aren’t real ‘Murkans themselves, nor do they give a damn about them. At least Democratic politicians care about their constituents.

So Democrats get caught in this “Oh my God! I am a technocrat trying to help those less better off than myself! I do think I know better!” and in a fit of self-negating altruism fail to make the case that, actually, liberals do know better.