Democrats in Distress - and their Suicide Queen (vanity, about Pelosi and the Democrats in general)

My Pointed Head | 11/08/02 | xm177e2

[blam]

Spot on analysis, thanks.

[aristeides]

Why is the Democratic Party--specifically, the members of the House of Representatives--taking such a stupid position? Why are they committing political suicide? I think the answer is George W. Bush. His enemies have gone insane with rage against him, a rage that is just not shared by the general public. Democrats will have to acknowlege this, and come back to reality, unless they want to suffer more and worse defeats.

That rage is palpable in the calls of the leftists to C-SPAN. It seems to be a given. They never really explain it.

[aristeides]

In the 2000 presidential election, Pelosi's district went 77% for Gore, 15% for Bush, 8% for Nader.

[aristeides]

Actually, the Dems did once have at least one black in a position of leadership. Ron Brown. As chairman of the DNC, he was in the position McAwful now holds. Look what happened to him.

[Southack]

Florida Teachers Union Mortgages HQ For McBride TV Ads

[Perceptive]

So, tell me, who finally won in Alabama? I didn't keep up with politics too much in the last few weeks. You guys had quite a scare, didn't you?

[FairWitness]

Democrats are now at a fork in the road, and must pick which way to go.

"When you reach a fork in the road, take it." (Yogi Berra)
This is what I hope and expect the Democrats to do - to rush off in all (leftward) directions.

[Southack]

"Pelosi, however, has demonstrated a penchant for petty squabbling. Earlier this year, her PAC donated $10,000 to Rep. Lynn Rivers of Michigan, who was forced by redistricting into a tough primary against fellow Democrat John Dingell [who is Black]. Leadership figures traditionally don't take sides during these match-ups, but Pelosi nonetheless saw fit to boost a fellow feminist (who lost). Pelosi may have sincerely (but wrongly) felt that Rivers was more essential to House Democrats. Her electioneering, however, came with a price tag: Dingell cut back his fundraising activities for colleagues."

I'm sensing a trend here (regarding Pelosi versus the Black Caucus)...

[aristeides]

I suppose there is something to be said for leftists being open about their beliefs. But then, why did you guys support the deeply dishonest and corrupt Clinton (and end up being fanatical, last-ditch defenders of him)? And why have you leftists in the RAT Party been so contemptuous and abusive towards Nader and the Greens? Seems to me honesty would suggest that you join them.

[Southack]

You have got to check out Posts #57 and #68 regarding Pelosi's historical attacks on Blacks.

[aristeides]

So Jimmy Breslin has had the guts to name the true guilty party for the Dems' debacle, Clinton? Is Breslin the only one? The silence is deafening.

[Starboard]

Thanks for the insightful analysis.

Agree with your conclusion that Bush's enemies have gone insane with rage against him. I work with a couple of diehard liberals who are still raging over the 2000 election and detest everything Bush does. Its good to have passion, but you can never win with an entirely emotion driven strategy.

[Mamzelle]

re: mortgaging teacher's union HQ to give to candidates)))

Amazing. I'd like to know its non-profit status. Most orgs like these are not permitted to endorse candidates.

[bain_sidhe]

Progressive Caucus was created by the DSA

No, I don't think so - at least, not from the sites I saw. The Progressive Caucus has been around for a long time. The site from the google cache (plus a couple of others I looked at) seems to indicate that the DSA more or less lobbies the Progressive Caucus on their issues. Kind of like NOW lobbying the Women's Caucus (ok, not exactly, because the WC includes ALL women, not just the feminist women, in Congress). Or the Libertarians lobbying the Conservative Caucus.

I don't doubt that Pelosi agrees with many of the positions of the DSA, though. But Progressives are NOT the same as Socialists. Similar, in that progrogressives want to "socialize" certain specific "universally needed" services like health care and education. But Socialists want to socialize ALL businesses, and as far as I know, progressives don't -- just ones that provide critical services to all (or at least, most) citizens.

On a personal note, I'm kind of surprised to see I can still get in here! I did try to register once before (several months ago) and my account was shut off before my I could even post. Could be because I used the screen name "EvilDUer" huh? Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm not here to argue my beliefs, I just wanted to answer your post. I realize this is a board for conservatives to have their own "space" - a haven where you can let your hair down without being "assaulted" by arguments from the other side. After all, there are plenty of places you can read the other side's opinions. Of course I might just be projecting... I don't really know how you all feel about it, I'm just guessing it's the same way we feel at DU.

[bain_sidhe]

As I said in the post above, I'm not here to argue my beliefs - I realize this isn't the place for that. But, to answer your question:

But then, why did you guys support the deeply dishonest and corrupt Clinton

I can't speak for all lefties - it might surprise you to know, I considered myself a moderate until I was "radicalized" by the Ken Starr witch hunt - and, of course, the 2000 (s)Election. (Had to get that in. *G*) I supported Clinton because I supported incremental change, not wholesale restructuring. I wanted to move *toward* more (what I view as) fairness in our society, with a bit more power for "the little guy" and a bit less power for "the big (money) guy" and corporations. I have no interest in breaking corporations, or even taxing them to death. I just want them to pay their fair share, and be accountable for their misdeeds. Some corporations under Reagan paid less in taxes than the the people who cleaned their offices did. The rightward tilt of the courts meant that more and more cases were being decided in favor of corporations and/or against individual's rights. (Again, my views. I don't expect you to agree.)

I think the "dishonest" and "corrupt" part is a matter of whose ox is getting gored, to be frank. I feel the same about Bush. As far as "fanatical defenders" - well, I think the whole Ken Starr-impeachment debacle was a cynical effort to overthrow a popular President with whom his attackers disagreed politically (and if not overthrow him, at least to prevent him from enacting any of the policies he advocated). It wasn't about the lying, it wasn't about the blow-job, it wasn't about a failed land deal. It was raw partisanship, and it was wrong. Whatever I thought about Clinton's antics paled beside my anger at the rabid (and ultimately, unjustified) attacks on him.

Nader. Well. What can I say? I believe that if he was truly a progressive, he wouldn't have been out stumping to defeat progressive Democrats, he would have been doing all he could to increase the progressive representation within the Democratic party - you know, the folks that actually have a chance of getting eleceted. I believe his true goal was to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans, because, in his own words, "it has to get worse before it can get better." Faugh. A pox on him!

[aristeides]

*) I supported Clinton because I supported incremental change, not wholesale restructuring. I wanted to move *toward* more (what I view as) fairness in our society, with a bit more power for "the little guy" and a bit less power for "the big (money) guy" and corporations.

You think Clinton and the Clintonistas stand for "the little guy" against big money and big corporations? You sure are naive. I wonder how you'll react when the scales fall from your eyes.

[FITZ]

Perhaps this shift left sets the stage for Hillary to come to the rescue as a "moderate democrat"

But Hillary is one of the far Left ones.

[FITZ]

so we might have some sort of reconciliation... it would be nice to make friends with the enemy

I don't think so ----we should let any moderate democrat (if there are any) join us and the rest of the party should die out. Let them be the party of the Hillarys and Pelosis and Sanchez sisters. They won't ever win much again.

[xm177e2]

Here's more from the DSA web site:

DSA recognizes that some insurgent politicians representing labor, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, and communities of color may choose to run under Democratic auspices, as in the 1988 Jesse Jackson campaign, or operate as Democrats like Senator Paul Wellstone, and the 59 Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, one-half of whom are Black and Latino and all of whom possess strong labor backing and operative social democratic politics.

Electoral tactics are only a means for DSA; the building of a powerful anti-corporate and ultimately socialist movement is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates represent significant social movements DSA locals have and will continue to build such organizations and support such candidates. DSA honored independent socialist Congressperson Bernie Sanders of Vermont at our last convention banquet, and we have always raised significant funds nationally for his electoral campaigns. At the same time, we were pleased to have Democratic Congressperson and Progressive Caucus member Bob Filner of San Diego introduce Sanders at the convention, and note that Progressive Caucus member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) will be honored at our annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington dinner this Spring in Chicago.

If the Progressive Caucus isn't outright socialist, it has very, very close ties to socialists. Its members go to socialist dinners, and one of the directors is an outright socialist. If there was a Republican who had an association like this with fascist or racist groups, there would be no hesitation to call him on it. Nobody would say "well, he isn't a racist, but his friends are" or "he isn't really a fascist, he just wants a little more order in our society."

[joonbug]

Yes Hillary is one of the far left ones, but she is able to keep that under wraps when necessary. She didn't run for the Senate as a far left candidate otherwise she wouldn't have been elected. If (God forbid) she makes it to the White House, she will have run as a moderate/centrist/NewDemocrat/etc and probably on the surface, govern that way, while at the same time appoint judges and bureaucrats to positions of power who are miles to the left.