And this is how the Democratic party gets pulled ever further rightward.

[MadHound]

Yesterday, a moderate Republican named Charlie Crist decided to become a Democrat. The simple fact of the matter is that the Republican party has moved so far to the right that Crist can no longer hope to win any sort of party nomination(of course it doesn't help that he endorsed Obama).

So Crist decided to become a Democrat, like so many other moderate Republicans. A man who has run as anti-gay marriage, anti-public education, hard on crime, expand the death penalty, lower tax rates and endorsed by the NRA is bringing his views with him into the Democratic party, and will probably go ahead and run on those views as he seeks office. Thus, the party gets dragged to the right.

This has happened time and again, to the point where the Democratic party has been remade into an image of 'Pug lite. Rather than demanding that people remake themselves as true Democrats, the party constantly remakes itself to fit the notions of these moderate 'Pugs.

How are we, as individuals, supposed to support somebody like Crist? Is this what has become of the party, putting winning above principle and position, thus accepting anybody and any position just so long as we "win"?

Sorry, but Crist and others like him are taking the easy way, the coward's way out. Rather than doing the dirty work of taking their Republican party back, the dirty work of fighting the extremists that have invaded the Republican party, instead of doing the honorable thing, they take the coward's way out and jump ship to the Democratic party, and thus drag it further to the right. How far you ask? Far enough to the right that the policy positions of both the 2008 and 2012 Democratic party platform align quite closely with most of the planks of the Eisenhower era Republicans.

Oh boy, now we're my father's Republican party

So with the center right and extreme right wing positions covered by the Democratic and Republican respectively, where does that leave the left? For right now, and in fact for about twenty years now, pretty much out in the cold. Hanging on to hopes of some sort of great leftward resurgence within the party, or voting for the lesser of two evils, or simply out of force of habit, the left in this country has continued to vote Democratic, though it has seared the soul of many a liberal to vote for what is essentially a continuation of Nixonian, Reaganesque or even Bushboy's policies.

In the end, politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and with a huge political and power vacuum on the left, somebody, or some group is going to fill that void. When that happens, those constant, reliable votes on the left that the Democratic party has relied upon, even take for granted for the past thirty years will be gone, vanished, and take the Democratic power base along with them, leaving the Democratic party floundering as a centerist party. To paraphrase Jim Hightower, the only thing in the middle in this country are dead armadillos and dead political parties.

If the party doesn't what to become irrelevant and go the way of the Whigs, then it needs to return to its roots. It needs to support solidly liberal political positions. It needs to move back to the left. And it needs to tell moderate 'Pugs like Crist to go clean up their own party instead of polluting ours. Swing hard to the left, and guess what, such a leftward move could actually, over time, pull the Republican party back to the left, out of the hands of extremists, and make it, once again, the party of Eisenhower.

Wow, two distinct parties again, what a concept.

[CanonRay]

1. I agree completely

and the way to beat it, is to run somebody progressive against Crist in the primary. Let Liberal values stand up against right wing nonsense. That way we drag the party back left again.

[elehhhhna]

92. THANK YOU, and goodluck

telling the DNC that




we're being played by a poor political theatre version of badcop/worsecop

[Le Taz Hot]

183. Badcop/worsecop

Excellent! I'm stealing that.

[elehhhhna]

187. do!

I did. off the du!

[Union Scribe]

2. If you wanna get sick

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021945405

You see, once they have a D at the end of their name, everything is magically okay.

[Baitball Blogger]

41. The reason people are optimistic on this website, is because they might get their posts

locked if they say anything that even remotely is actionable. I'm shocked that this thread has made it this far.

[SugarShack]

53. Charlie gutted our paper ballot laws in fla when he gave us a paper trail...

Examples:

Changed our recount after 100 yrs. from 1% to 1/2 %.

We only audit 1-2% of our precincts, thus verifying only 46-47% of our vote. NOT even half! We don't know if Florida's results are accurate.

Now the worst of the new laws:

The state of Florida still certifies the ELECTRONIC TOTALS, JUST LIKE THE TOTALS FROM THE TOUCHSCREENS. Our paper ballot is stored away under Crist's law, for recount purposes ONLY!

Now...I do hope Charlie gets bit in the arse by his own laws!!

[zbdent]

60. ain't buying into it, just because a person switches from R to D ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021946008#post21

[alphafemale]

3. sigh....yeah the country is going more conservative.....DOOOOMMMM!!!!

That' s why gay marriage and marijuana progressive issues were overwhelmingly defearated in several sta...wait.

[MadHound]

6. Funny how RW libertarians support both gay marriage and pot legalization,

Meanwhile, the Democratic party is actively cutting the social safety net and dismantling the New Deal. Again, both are positions that are supported by the RW.

[jsr]

11. No kidding.

Not to mention all the warmongering and Big Brother crap.

[Iggy]

30. Errrr, So I'm to believe Washington and Colorado

are going to be allowed to openly sell pot to buyers in state sanctioned/controlled shops-- this is going to be allowed by the federal government who recently went after shops selling medicinal pot in CA, closing them down?

HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAHHHH!!!

that's a good one!! got any other funny stuff this morning??

[uncle ray]

96. yet the feds have been letting hundreds of dispensaries operate in CO.

keep yuckin it up.


if the feds are not going to intervene in the hundreds of huge commercial grow ops this state currently has, i'm not too concerned about them coming after individual users.

Colorado's cannabis industry, its cannabis users, and the public in general have recognized that there will never be "free weed", in the Libertarian Utopic sense. unlike CA's poor medical law and their attempt to legalize it, CO drafted an amendment that set the stage for a well regulated trade that allows profit, based on a successful existing business model. if you are going to be in the pot trade in this state, it will take a huge investment to cover fees and security. you have to let the gov't watch your business's every move, and many of your personal ones too. how many other industries have cameras that the authorities can look in on at anytime? the crooks are being squeezed out of the trade.

you can laugh, joke, piss or moan about it, but things really are being handled different here. after amendment 64 passed i've heard many people proclaim how lucky we are here in Colorado. there was no luck involved, it was due to the efforts of Colorado's pot entrepreneurs and users in setting up a legitimate trade.

[Iggy]

110. You're Forgetting a Biggie...

if the state sanctioned shops in Colorado are selling pot with low THC level, say seven percent as will be the case in Washington-- that potency is much less than street pot currently available-- and the state shops are selling it for $400 per ounce, what user is going BUY this?

what is to prevent users from staying with their current "illegal" sources for high potency pot?? obviously not "the law", since they've been breaking the law for some time now.

[gateley]

156. At least the SPD has been instructed to issue only verbal warnings if someone is smoking

outdoors (against the law -- same with booze) -- and they won't be checking THC levels. That IS a step forward!

[Iggy]

157. I Want to Be Positive About This...

but it's difficult.

State sanctioned, low potency, highly expensive pot is not going to work.

The cops are simply awaiting orders. I can easily see them saying: "give me your joint, I have to test the potency to see if you bought your pot from a state shop". if you did, you're free to keep smoking, if you did not, you're under arrest.

This is a nightmare in the making.

[gateley]

158. It has the potential of becoming a nightmare, but we may tweak this and work through

the bugs. It's not cost effective for the city/State to go after pot smokers -- I believe they have incentive to try to make this work.

It's a good first step, and we'll learn from our mistakes. Hopefully.

[arely staircase]

37. +1

and the country voted to raise taxes on the rich.

[truebluegreen]

49. That's NOT what the OP said!

If anything, the COUNTRY is becoming more progressive. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has fallen off the right-hand Edge of the World, and the refugees are dragging the Democratic Party in the same direction, away from their base.

Why else would both Obama and Very Serious Senators be talking about "shared sacrifice?" Did we share in the prosperity? Did we cause the meltdown? Why the F should we have to pay for it? And in what way is allowing Republicans fleeing the whackadoodles into OUR tent and influencing OUR positions going to help the situation?

If ever there was a recipe for cynicism and disengagement by progressives, that's it. Sorry to say, but when the dems abandoned labor, and anti-war, and anti-poverty, and other principles, WHAT HAPPENED? Look at what has happened in the last 20 years (looking at YOU, Big Dog), not to mention in 2010.

I don't WANT Charlie Crist in my party, UNLESS he has had an epiphany and now realizes that darn near all the things he has advocated for in his political career were wrong, and detrimental for the country.

So, has he turned into a Liberal Lion, or has he just turned his coat?

[MADem]

56. Who knows? Maybe he did have that "epiphany?"

We'll see if he gets an amicable divorce and starts living his life out loud.

[truebluegreen]

72. OK, that's fair

but if it's just for the purpose of getting back into power somehow....

[MADem]

79. I'd rather have a crappy "Dem" governor in FL than any GOP one.

FL wasn't quite so angst-laden this time around, but we know it's a place where "shit happens."

We have a better chance in 2016 with a Dem at the gubernatorial helm--any Dem at all. So here's hoping, assuming he wins the primary, that he can shift Scott off that job and grab it. I think he has the most name recognition and depth of support--and he might bring along a lot of his supporters who were nominal Republicans, as well.

We know how this quid pro quo works....he delivers the state, and he gets an ambassadorial post or a non-critical (i.e. Not Top Tier) cabinet position if he wants it. I would love to not have to fret quite so intensely about FL for a change. It's always a crap shoot down there, anything that can be done to minimize the drama, I'm for it.

[SunSeeker]

114. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Maybe he had an "epiphany?" I don't care. At most, let him be an ordinary voter. Instead,

the leaders in the Democratic Party will welcome him and put him in a leadership position within the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

85. Well, here's how I see it--he has the same rights as any other citizen in this nation.

If the voters don't want him as a Dem, he won't be selected as the nominee, he won't be elected, and the good people of Florida will quite likely have to put up with Scott for yet another term. And the good people of AMERICA will have to "sweat Florida" in four years' time, because the gubernatorial infrastructure will work against us at every fucking turn. More voter suppression, fewer polling places, more voter purges...yeah, that'll help us win that electoral prize, NOT.

The guy has name recognition. He could be helpful to our goal of securing FL in 2016, if he makes it through the primary and defeats Scott. That's my priority.

I believe in the big tent, I believe in redemption, I believe in wisdom coming with years for many people, and I believe that people can, and often do, change (Senator Byrd is a quite notable example).

You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine--we'll not be agreeing on this issue, apparently.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

100. Are you kidding? Are you a serious thinker? He has MORE rights than ordinary citizens.

He doesn't just have "the same rights as any other citizen".

Incidentally, it is not our choice as to whether he will or will have a big "D" after his name. The Party leaders have already cut whatever deal that they and he wanted.

What I want is an adherence to traditional Democratic Party values.

I reject the idea that his track record of being a top Republican with Republican Party principles should be disregarded once he says that he wants to have a big "D" after his name. I reject the idea that any Republican leader, even including Dick Cheney for example, should be welcomed with their Republican principles into the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

111. Look, you are interested in hot-breathed hectoring, I'm not.

He DOES have the same rights as any other citizen.

And we don't get to vote on who gets to be a Democrat. We never did. Why do you think we should start now, because you don't like this guy?

Shit--did you sleep through civics class?

He could have just as easily become a Democrat by doing what many do--going down to his town hall and changing his registration. The fact that he did it at a party is because he's come to an accord with leadership that will benefit EVERYONE, not because he needed to kiss a ring or get permission. This guy has a network in FL, that he can mobilize to our benefit. He's agreeing to do that in exchange for a little support. That works just fine for me.

What you want is "Your way or the highway." Purity to YOUR "go down in flames in FL" values--or else.

Too bad for you--you don't get to be The Decider.

I say Welcome, Charlie Crist--please secure FL for our candidate in 2016.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

119. Wrong. You are claiming that I want to do something that exists only in your imagination.

What I want to do, and am doing, is making it clear that I am not endorsing this guy.

At no time did I ever claim or otherwise indicate that we should take a "vote on who gets to be a Democrat." Obviously, you know that.

But now you apply your "Purity" insult (plus your insult re "Shit--did you sleep through civics class?&quot because I am making it known that I do not endorse this guy. I have also made my reasoning clear. I have seen nothing to indicate that his conversion from "R" to "D" also includes a conversion from Republican Party principles to Democratic Party principles.

How often do you post your "purity" insult?

Has it ever worked for you?

[Oilwellian]

130. Don't you know?

Defending right wingers on DU3 is as popular now as apple pie! The Democratic Party has welcomed so many Republicans to the fold, we now have Republican policies! Isn't that just the coolest thing?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

133. Quite frankly, I find it odd. Are all such defenders victims of the Stockholm syndrome?

Is there lead in the water?

[MADem]

140. There you go again--all snark, zero substance.

Come back when you have something to say.

[fascisthunter]

175. you should stop projecting

[MADem]

139. Oh please. I'm a Ted Kennedy/Elizabeth Warren Democrat.

But I am not stupid. Winning beats losing.

If you're between the ages of 18 and 44, you'd be shaking the sand out of your combat boots had McCain been elected--if you were still alive. We'd probably be "enjoying" WW3 and the nation would be on a wartime footing with a draft churning out cannon fodder.

Elections have consequences, and if Charlie in The Closet Crist can help us win Florida in four years' time, he's WELCOME, as far as I'm concerned. If a DINO governor can win us the state, I'll take it. The guy in the job now ain't gonna help us--he works for the other team.

[MADem]

137. I'm sure he'll cry into his pillow every night that he didn't get your endorsement.

Why are you telling me -- like it's news to me--that you don't endorse the guy?

I figured that out with your first rude and snarky post. Fine. Don't endorse him!

You're the first person I've thrown the purity remark at--it's not an insult, mind you (you're the expert on those, with your "serious thinker" shit-fling right out of the box) , it's simply how you present your poorly crafted argument. "My way or the Highway!" I guess Charlie is telling you to hit the road, there, dude. You don't get to make the decision as to who joins the party. That is what they taught us in civics class, in case you're still unclear.

I don't think many registered Democrats in Florida share your version or vision of "Democratic Party principles." I think they're more conservative than Dems in my state, or in many other states. Unlike you, though, I'll be happy to welcome those voters under the big tent--even if they don't share all "MY" views-- if it means we take the state in 2016.

You wanna throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you're POV is not controlling. One more time, you are not "the decider." Good thing--we'd be looking at President RMoney and a GOP Senate with your attitude.

I'll put up with the imperfect and incomplete and I won't demand the "purity" that you are indeed demanding--it's plain to anyone who pays even scant attention that things are better under Democratic leadership, even the leadership of less than optimal Democrats, than they were under GOP rule.

A compromising and pragmatic approach is often needed in order to appeal to a wide swathe of the electorate. Obama understands this, so do most of the party's leaders. I'm betting Cristie "gets it" too. It's immature to not acknowledge this, and to be rude to people who do. Politics is messy, like life, and you can't always get what "you" want.

[sabrina 1]

118. If he had the same rights as ordinary citizens we would have found a true Progressive Democrat

to run in Florida a long time ago. He has way more rights obviously, than any Democrat there who might have had the thought to run for that office.

Surely in a country this big, there are SOME Progressive Dems that we could find for many of the powerful positions handed to Republicans by the Dem Leadership. Cabinet positions, eg. You would think there wasn't a single qualified Dem anywhere to be found for, say, a postion on Economics, or to place on the Deficit Commission.

Maybe if Progressive Dems ran as Republicans first the leadership might have more interest in them?

[MADem]

124. That makes NO SENSE. None.

The people in Florida make their own choices--we can't "command" them to see things the way "we" want them to be.

What do his rights have to do with "us" finding a "true Progressive Democrat?"

Sheesh. Many words, zero logic.

If you think you can do a better job, get off your butt, move to Florida, start raising money, and run for governor against Crist and the rest of the hopefuls--let's see how far you get touting uber-progressive ideas to set-in-their-ways elderly people and Democrats who have culturally conservative leanings.

Like it or not, not all states are True Blue. Some are red, some are purple. The smart politician cuts the cloth according to the measure--and that measure is the POV of THEIR electorate--not your opinions about how things should be.

[fascisthunter]

174. go powder your prissy nose upper crust

it's got a brown stain on it. I'm sure the billionaire class appreciates all you do. Noice full breed dog you got there.... how speshuuuuul

[quakerboy]

186. Not the country, the politicians

If you look at the policies pushed by politicians, by and large they do not line up with the actual values held by most of the people.

[leveymg]

4. Here's another problem: Harry Truman Cold Warriors and the Dixiecrat wings

On principle, I welcome ex-GOP into the party, so long as they don't try to take it over (of course, they will). But, the real problem as I see it are that the Democratic Party is dominated by Cold Warriors who still have a complex about being branded soft on communism (or whatever) and behave more aggressively against the perceived threat than even the conservative Republicans. Then, there are the Dixiecrats, people so lazy they never even abandoned the Party but keep dragging it backwards.

The real problem, though, are the "serious people" in Washington, the so-called Wilsonian Internationalist wing that's stampeded America into most of the wars during the past Century. You will find them ensconced at the Saban Center at Brookings, for instance, where they make make a comfortable living planning wars between policy spots at the State Department and NSC under Democratic Presidents.

Take Susan Rice, as an example.

[SylviaD]

52. Excellent post! You "get it"!! bravo! n/t

[NobodyInParticular]

65. "All is Well at the Political Menagerie"

[heaven05]

5. +10000

says it all, no equivocation.

[queentonic]

7. Red State, Blue City

I don't have enough posts to qualify for starting my own thread so if someone who does and would like to make this a separate thread, please do. I feel this information is very important to understanding what is going on in this country. Thanks.

Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America
By Josh Kron
Nov 30 2012, 11:17 AM ET 256

Partisan lines that once fell along regional borders can increasingly be found at the county level. What does that mean for the future of the United States?

Starting before the Civil War era, America's political dividing lines were drawn along state and regional borders. Cities and the then-extensive rural areas shared a worldview North and South of the Mason-Dixon line. While there was always tension within states, they were bound by a common politics. The city of Charleston, for example, was as rabidly anti-North as some inland plantation areas. Economic engines, ways of life, and moral philosophies changed at the 36th parallel, where the North began,

Today, that divide has vanished. The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either -- virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it's about how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy -- or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants.

The voting data suggest that people don't make cities liberal -- cities make people liberal. Here, courtesy of Princeton's Robert Vanderbai, is an electoral map that captures the divisions:

The only major cities that voted Republican in the 2012 presidential election were Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City. With its dominant Mormon population, Mitt Romney was a lock in the Utah capital; Phoenix nearly voted for Obama. After that, the largest urban centers to tilt Republican included Wichita, Lincoln, Neb., and Boise.

The gap is so stark that some of America's bluest cities are located in its reddest states. Every one of Texas' major cities -- Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio -- voted Democratic in 2012, the second consecutive presidential election in which they've done so. Other red-state cities that tipped blue include Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Birmingham, Tucson, Little Rock, and Charleston, S.C. -- ironically, the site of the first battle of the Civil War. In states like Nevada, the only blue districts are often also the only cities, like Reno and Las Vegas.

Because winning a state's electoral votes requires only a simple majority, a single city can change the entire game. Blue cities in swing states that ended up going for Obama last Tuesday include Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, the cities of Florida, and the cities of Ohio.

Though not generally considered a swing state, Michigan (with 16 electoral votes) was virtually carried by the Detroit metropolitan area, spread across three counties, and a scrap of Flint. Almost the entire rest of the state went different shades of red.

This divide between blue city and red countryside has been growing for some time. Since 1984, more and more of America's major cities have voted blue each year, culminating in 2012, when 27 out of the nation's 30 most populous cities voted Democratic. According to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections and The New York Times, the 2012 election marked the fourth time in the last five federal election cycles that voters shifted away from the party of the sitting president. Despite that constant churn, one part of the electoral map has become a crystal clear constant. Cities, year by year, have become drenched in more blue. Everywhere else is that much more red.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/2656

[MadHound]

9. Interesting and thoughtful piece, however,

I suggest that you trim the article back to three paragraphs in order to comply with copyright restrictions on DU.

Welcome to DU.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

15. 4 paragraphs.

[RKP5637]

33. I posted it for you. See the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021946086

The pictorial in that article was extremely interesting!

Welcome to DU!!!

[queentonic]

168. Thanks

RKP5637 thanks for your help. I hate being the new kid on the block but eventually I hope to figure it out. DU is one of the friendliest (if not the friendliest website) I've been on. Good-hearted people here. It gives one hope.

[RKP5637]

172. Yep, DU has some wonderful people!!! I spend a fair amount of time here, probably

more than I should, but it's a very exciting, friendly and interesting site. And the depth of some of the knowledge of some of the members is remarkable.

[reACTIONary]

71. The other aspect of this is Blue President / Red House...

... at the state level, a few large blue urban / suburban areas can give the majority to the Democrats, which gives the state to the president and the the senate.

BUT large, compact, urban congressional districts are hard to gerrymander, while sparser suburban / exurban and rural areas can be more easily tinkered with. Thus the Republicans have an advantage during redistricting.

This is why Democrats have a "baked in" advantage in electoral votes, and why Republicans have a "baked in" advantage in congressional districts.

It would be great if House seats could be elected state wide, or if congressional districts could be expanded to allow a larger population to elect several representatives.

[Iggy]

8. Isn't This Just More Inconvenient Proof That

there's not a significant difference between the "two" parties on several major policy issues?

[davidn3600]

17. Both parties are capitalist and pro-war

We don't have a true left-wing party in America.

We have a right-wing party and a center-left party.

I know the social issues have some differences...abortion, gays, religion, etc... But in most other issues, there is no major disagreement. Obama has changed absolutely nothing concerning our foreign policy. And economically the only thing both parties disagree on is how much the upper class should be taxed. But Obama is no socialist. He's a capitalist. The rich have done quite well under his first term. They grew their net worth by an average 15%.

[tomp]

20. far right and center right...

....there is little to no "left" left.

[socialist_n_TN]

51. Agreed. There IS no "center-left" party, even though........

on ISSUES, the majority of the country is center-left. This is a dissonance that won't stand long.

[CrispyQ]

68. '....there is little to no "left" left.'

Ok, that made me laugh & then I cried.

I hope the OP is right about the vacuum & someone filling the void & speaking out for the People, not the corporations. I voted for Obama this year. If Colorado hadn't been a swing state, I would not have.

[leftstreet]

78. +1

[Iggy]

23. BEENGO!!

We don't have a true left-wing party in America.

Exactly. we have a few honest lefties in Congress-- Kucinich, soon to be gone, and Bernie Sanders-- soon to be retired. nobody in congress, and Pres. Obama doesn't take these two seriously anyway.

I guess most here think this is OK. it's not. our system was set up to provide this thing called checks and balances-- to prevent the very sort of narrow, corrupt agenda we see being enacted year after year.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

27. "We don't have a true left-wing party in America." +10000%

Not sure those who really run the country will ever allow another FDR or true liberal movement in this country.

[truebluegreen]

54. And the only reason they allowed an FDR in the first place was

that he ran as a moderate but realized, after election, just how bad the situation was, and then Betrayed His Own Class.

The Horror, The Horror!

And then once he was in, they couldn't get him out. Thank Dog.

But I don't think they will make that mistake again. Nowadays they figure out how to neutralize such leaders, in one way or another, before they make it to the Big Stage. It goes without saying that the Grand Bargainer is not a candidate of that caliber.

[CrispyQ]

73. "But I don't think they will make that mistake again."

Count on it. And they no longer have to assassinate them - they let the bought-off media do it for them. And for non-thinking Americans, it works! Remember the contrived Dean scream & how dutifully they carried water for the Swiftboaters? Or the ridiculous primary debates where only a few (pre-chosen) candidates get any air time. Our media is a huge, huge part of the problem.

So many key institutions corrupted - how do we make our way back?

Love your screen name!!

[truebluegreen]

165. Thank you!

Edited to ask: where in the great state of Colorado?

[CrispyQ]

184. Beautiful Boulder County!

[truebluegreen]

185. !!! My home town!!!

Hope you have a nice wet winter....

[Iggy]

115. Very Well Put

not sure I can add anything more salient.. other than I suppose the Grand Bargainer will be considered a massive success when the repugs finally "cave", and agree to the wealthy class paying a bit more taxes-- and that's all, NO cessation of corporate off-shoring (costing us $100 billion per year) no closing of the numerous loopholes, tax deferrments, etc., that allow Willard to pay 15% tax rate, all while the qualification age for Medicare is raised, probably for SS, too.

Oh, and forget about any serious cuts to our massively bloated defense budget.

[truebluegreen]

166. Thank you,

and I agree with all your additions...imagine what this world and this country would be like if we spent all that money on things that would make people's lives better, and easier?

[Iggy]

180. "Imagine what this world and country would be like if..."

Believe me, I think about this nearly every day-- esp. in the context of history; that other great empires were destoyed by doing stupid things. in our case the stupidity is not fully investing in/improving our infrastructure. we cannot have a first world quality of life/nation built on a a third world infrastructure.

[Eleanors38]

101. By now, LBJ would be considered "leftist."

[RKP5637]

34. When it comes to issues of $$$$$ I think A = B for the most part. n/t

[arely staircase]

39. and being center left myself

i am a democrat.

[arely staircase]

47. i know, right

when romney called for the rich to pay more in taxes it was official.

[Selatius]

10. We lack Democrats like this:

Had it not been the fact that FDR's voice is on there, you'd have thought it was a speech that was written post-2008 crash, not post-1929 crash.

[JaneyVee]

19. That speech is like poetry, I get goosebumps every time I hear it.

[jtuck004]

21. I wish I had a picture of the people who poured out of the Triangle Shirtwaist

factory in that year before the fire, joined by other workers from other garment factories as they put their arms around each other or held hands and started to march, and all the other laborers, and the schoolkids in rags who marched in the streets before he gave that speech. Because THEY are why he did it. And the reason they did is because people who were like them organized them.

Without those protests and sacrifices we would never have heard that speech, because the power of the capitalists would have never let it happen. They saw that and immediately instituted a plan to stop it, the real fruits of which we see today.

But the greedy bastards need to remember we still have the negatives, and maybe one day you will see a reprint

(some of you may not understand that reference about the negative , especially if you are under 20 and have never known anything but a digital camera, but that's ok. Just ask. <G&gt .

[Iggy]

26. Yep... After Seeing the Incredible Film Lincoln

Lincoln is the most profound film I've seen in twenty years or more-- I highly recommend everyone here see this movie.

Throughout the film, I found myself thinking: we DO NOT have great political leaders like this any longer.

I feel the same regarding FDR.. the recent biography of him is excellent. oh yeah, can't wait to see the new film on him coming out-- Hyde Park 100 I believe is the name-- with Bill Murray (yes, that Bill Murray) playing the lead role

[rhett o rick]

75. I think the difference between today and 100 years ago

is that the wealthy actually have a conspiracy to get all the power. 100 years ago the wealthy got wealth so easy they were complacent about it thinking the golden goose would never die. Then the New Deal and for almost a century they have fought their way back. Now they conspire to own everything important to controlling the country. Some is open conspiracy, like their "think tanks" and also the fact that they all have a common goal of gaining power (wealth) amounts to a conspiracy.

100 years ago it was relatively easy to create wealth (if raping the environment is legitimately considered "creating wealth&quot . In the last 30 years it became easier to steal wealth, esp from the middle class that combined had a huge amount of wealth.

The end game of course will find the middle class sink into poverty and be ready to revolt while the wealthy start eating each other. Eventually there will be no one to steal from.

[Iggy]

113. Slight Quibble...

the notion the wealthy class have not already attained 99.9% of the power.. let's face it, they have, thanks to their enablers/lackey servants in congress.

right now we lose $100 Billion per year in lost tax revenue due to corporations off shoring the business end of their businesses. the notion the deadbeats in congress are finally, honestly going to stop this, or even slow it down-- as a part of the ongoing negotation regarding taxes and revenue-- is a total farce. it's not going to happen.

we'll soon see just who is going to be doing the "shared" sacrifice.

[rhett o rick]

152. I wont quibble about that. nm

[Eleanors38]

102. Juice. As up-to-date as the latest hand-held.

[kenny blankenship]

116. Oh we have them still

It's just that only "Democrats" like this one get the Golden Handshake from Big Money, and they prevent our potential FDRs from reaching high office, or even middling offices.

[Iggy]

181. Correct - Once in a While a Great Leader Stands Up Against

the wealthy class BULLcrap. it's beautiful to see when it happens.

can't wait to see the new movie about FDR coming out; hopefully this will be covered in the movie.

[fredamae]

12. That was my first thought as well!

I'm Not going further to the right---I have complained to the Dem leaders and am Ignored..

[AnotherMcIntosh]

121. Ignored? Lucky you. When I've complained, it seems to have generated more money requests.

[jtuck004]

13. I think you might be incorrect when you suggest

"If the party doesn't what to become irrelevant and go the way of the Whigs."

Actually I suspect they could and will do quite well for themselves, certainly better than the 47 million on food stamps. Those who will go the way of the Whigs would be the people that die thinking there is someone there with them, instead of for them. And they will go earlier, and more tragically than they otherwise would have if there had still been those who would stand with them in the never-ending struggle against the tyrants. Instead of having lunch with them.

But maybe it's just me...

[NorthCarolina]

14. It only works if the voters buy into it with their votes.

Voting your principles over simply voting party, and making sure you vote in the primaries is the way to circumvent a further rightward shift. Oh, and when someone tells you that the Democrats need to run a conservative to match the district, just refer them to the 2012 election results that show, beyond a doubt, that America is NOT a center right nation. Never has been, but to know it you would have to step outside of the corporate news bubble.

[Egalitarian Thug]

104. That's exactly why the voters are not given an option. America, like other nations all over the

world, was moving away from the established oligarchy in the 19th and into the 20th centuries. The republicans were a progressive, populist party that gave us Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt. America had rising Communist and Fascist factions/parties, the people were looking for better ways to do things, and most commonly a better deal.

The "Economic Royalists" fought back, and through their access, power, and collusion established the political lock down that persists today.

[a2liberal]

16. K&R (n/t)

[A Simple Game]

18. You WILL shut up, and you WILL like the candidate we run!

Doesn't matter if they advocate eating poor babies, if there is a D after their name you must be quiet and vote for them. What's that you say, there is a more liberal third party candidate, one whose views match yours almost perfectly? Don't waste your vote, they can't get elected! Well no, they can't get elected if you don't vote for them.

We have met the enemy and he is us. I think I butchered that but you know what I mean.

It really is time to rethink the two party system, it won't change if we don't change it. There are some independents and third party candidates getting into office now.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't change the direction you're going, it just changes the speed of your descent.

[jsr]

22. Yeah, Eat Your Peas

The Republicans control the White House and Senate. Our hands are tied.

[dembotoz]

25. simple game agree with you 100 pecent

[rudycantfail]

69. Good post. n/t

[CrispyQ]

77. Outstanding reply.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't change the direction you're going, it just changes the speed of your descent.

My husband voted Green this year. I voted Dem. We are in a swing state & all the repub rape talk is what I voted against. I did not vote for drone wars. I cannot believe that repubs get to say that they don't want their tax dollars to pay for abortions but I don't get to say that I don't want mine to pay for drone wars.



The answer is here:

It really is time to rethink the two party system, it won't change if we don't change it.

[A Simple Game]

128. I live in New York so it doesn't really matter who I vote for in the Presidential column.

President Obama would win New York no matter who I voted for. I did vote for President Obama, mostly because of Sandy, but it was under the Working Family line, not the Democratic line.

Imagine the message that would be sent to a major candidate if they lost a state on the Democratic, or Republican ticket, but won on a third party ticket.

The problem with candidates is that they know 90% of the people registered as Democrats or Republicans will vote for their parties candidate. They have to give us nothing more than promises to gain our votes.

I have a friend that is religious and until this election voted Republican because of the abortion issue. He has all of the same problems the rest of the working class have. I told him and told him that the he was wasting his time voting Republican, because they would never ban abortion on a national level. I said as soon as they ban abortion, you are a Democrat and the Republicans know it. He finally understood what I was telling him this year and voted for Obama. I think the same is true for myself and single payer health care, I don't think we will ever see it because they fear as soon as we have it, we have no need to vote and will stay home.

[CrispyQ]

144. Harr!

"I said as soon as they ban abortion, you are a Democrat and the Republicans know it."

I'm using that on a friend of mine.

[A Simple Game]

147. I can testify that it worked at least once. n/t

[derby378]

149. Eat your brussels sprouts, you unreconstituted gulag!

If Dianne Feinstein were running in my state, I'm sorry, but I'd leave that race blank. The real campaign happens during the primaries, when everyone's seat on the Hill is up for grabs. We would do well to remember that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

169. +1 Well put.

[JaneyVee]

24. I don't think Pete Shumlin, head of the DGA, will allow him to run on those positions.

And personally, I think Crist despises the GOP so much now he will do a complete 180 on his previously held positions.

[MadHound]

29. That hasn't happened before,

Look at other moderate 'Pugs who made the switch, Specter, Forbes, Panetta, they've all retained their basic policy positions, just relabeled them as Democratic. And Democrats were supposed to fall in line and vote for them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

123. x2

[xchrom]

28. du rec. nt

[bigtree]

31. these folks don't just pull parties just by declaring their allegiance

. . .someone has to vote for them. And, we don't get these rightist candidates in areas where there is a dependable number of voters who are willing to elect Democrats advocating progressive positions. We get candidates like Crist in areas where there are a significant number of conservative-leaning voters. Often it's a choice in the general election between a far-right candidate and a 'moderate' or conservative Democrat.

So, disliking all of that is understandable. But, that doesn't relieve anyone of the burden these voters face when they can't get a progressive to survive the primary. It doesn't relieve anyone of the dilemma of advancing a disaster of a republican candidate by refusing to support a questionable Democrat in the general. Let's not pretend like the republicans don't do much more damage in office, okay?

Very few here like compromised candidates like Crist, but we'd benefit SOMEWHERE from his support of SOMETHING in out Democratic agenda. No chance at all with a republican rival (if he managed to get that far). I can tick off several excellent progressive-minded Democrats who would/could likely challenge him in a primary. Would they win in Fla.? That's the ultimate question. Can they advance to the general and win? Crist gets attention in Fla. because he has that potential. At some point, that's going to be the bottom line. Voters pull parties, much less candidates alone, on their own initiative. Elections pull parties.

[OmahaBlueDog]

32. In Britain, they have the Tories, Labour, and the "Lib Dems"

In their context, the LibDems are really more of a centrist party. That's what really should happen with people like Crist, Michael Bloomberg, Susan Collins and others whom the GOP has left behind. It could also serve as a home for Dems like Joe Manchin, who increasingly have little in common with the party.

I live in a very red state. It's increasingly difficult for Dems to win any statewide elected office here. Ben Nelson had a very mixed (to put it kindly) voting record. Bob Kerrey (whom I admire a great deal) ran on points such as making the Senate non-partisan.

That said, I've also lived in Florida. I'm not a huge fan of Crist (although he's been generally supportive of the President), but he's far more acceptable than Rick Scott. We can only speculate: would Crist have beaten Rubio if Kendrick Meek had dropped out? Answer: probably not, but in retrospect, it would have been worth a shot. We're now likely stuck with Rubio for the next quarter century.

Would I prefer to see someone else? Yes, but first we need to find someone who can actually run an inspired/inspiring campaign. Bette Castor, for example, would have been a good governor, but she allowed herself to be painted as soft-on-terrorists, and ran an overall lackluster campaign.

My preference would have been that Crist had remained independent, and that we'd have agreed to support his campaign against Scott in the absence of a more viable candidate.

[John2]

48. I don't think

like that. The Republicans recruited Rubio because he is Cuban and just taught him their Doctrine. He will get the Cuban votes and mostly white Republican vote, but he will have a hard time being the Republican standard bearer, because of white supremacists. He'll never drive the car, like Barrack Obama. He is just a token.

Rubio does not represent every Hispanic in Florida. Demographic changes are very important. Crist will have to move with those Demographics, it is not going to move with him. Crist is the one changing, as long as he goes into the communities, that many Republicans avoid. The Republican Party cannot exist, catering to the ideology of one Demographic.

About the Democratic party, the same had happened with their candidates. They placate to certain Demographics in order to win a General Election. That shift is changing though, because, the minority is becoming the majority in this country. Politicians will have to adjust their Policies towards those Demographics, because they want their share of the American Dream. Remember what Hillary Clinton thought about Obama when he first ran. The notion was that he couldn't win because he was Black. She was thinking about white swing voters. You can mo longer just depend on getting white swing voters to win. You need to get votes from every Demographic. The candidate, that can best do that, will win. And there are enough white voters in this country, that have the same aspirations as minorities. Many work and go to school with those minorities too. Whereas, most of those rural areas, have a very large percentage of whites, that hardly ever see Blacks,Hispanics or Asians.

Even that is in danger, because of population growth and immigration. As these areas get crowed with population growth, people tend to move further out. There is 315 million people in this country now but that number is expected to grow towards 400 million by 2050. And the fastest growth are among these many groups. That is why the politicians will have to adjust policies, or they want survive.

[OmahaBlueDog]

64. You seem to think just fine

The Republicans recruited Rubio because he is Cuban and just taught him their Doctrine. He will get the Cuban votes and mostly white Republican vote, but he will have a hard time being the Republican standard bearer, because of white supremacists.

I have to disagree there. The Cuban voters (with whom the Dems have made great strides in recent years) have always tended to vote Republican. This goes back to JFK and the Bay of Pigs, and that two generations found kindred, anti-Castro sentiments in Presidents Nixon and Reagan. That dynamic is changing. In part because many of the Cuban Americans in Miami who decendeed from the early-60s post-Castro immigration wave are third or in some cases fourth generation Americans; we're now two generations removed from Mariel. People can now call Cuba, send oney, visit -- things one couldn't do 30 years ago.

I didn't make that comment because I think everyone agrees with Rubio. I made it because Ileana Ros - Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart are Cuban-American Republicans who aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I think that Rubio, between Cuban-American support in South Florida, and white GOP support elsewhere in the state, can likely stay in office a very long time.

As someone posted elswhere in the thread, "Florida is an odd state." North of I-4, it's essentially Georgia demographically and ideologically. The West Coast has a higher percentage of retired Midwesterners than the East Coast, and is somewhat more conservative than the East Coast. South of I-4, it's one of the most diverse states apart from California.

However, it's made an odd and abrupt right turn in recent years. There has always been white anglo resentment. As long as I can remember, there have been shirts and bumper stickers proclaiming "Will the llast American to leave Miami please bring the flag." Most of the Republicans in the state were at least perceived as moderates (the former Senator Mack, Claude Kirk, Jeb Bush, Crist, Mark Foley, etc). However, after 2001, the state seemed to begin a Texas-like rightward tiilt, culminating in 2010, with the elections of Rick Scott, Allen West, and Marco Rubio. Fortunately, the pendulum seems to sort of be swinging back.

He'll never drive the car, like Barrack Obama. He is just a token.

I'm betting people thought that about Bobby Jindal in good ol' boy dominated Louisiana.

Politicians will have to adjust their Policies towards those Demographics, because they want their share of the American Dream. Remember what Hillary Clinton thought about Obama when he first ran. The notion was that he couldn't win because he was Black. She was thinking about white swing voters. You can mo longer just depend on getting white swing voters to win. You need to get votes from every Demographic. The candidate, that can best do that, will win. And there are enough white voters in this country, that have the same aspirations as minorities. Many work and go to school with those minorities too. Whereas, most of those rural areas, have a very large percentage of whites, that hardly ever see Blacks,Hispanics or Asians.

All true. No disagreement on these points.

[John2]

93. Well,

I actually agree with you more than you think. The younger generations of Cubans don't march in lock step with older generations of Cubans. They are more American than Cuban. So we have no disagreement, which places the Republican Party in a more dangerous position to survive.

[Hotler]

35. Bravo! Well said and so true. n/t

[CarmanK]

36. Rick Scott has to go! He is an abomination. Crist can beat him, maybe? But FL is strange!

Been holding back on my opinion because I really want to see Rick Scott ousted. He is the GOP/TPARTY poster child. Master Thief, corporate bot and anti democracy. So, I am willing to see just how much democratic support Crist can conjure. Should hear more from Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this before drawing any conclusions.

[brooklynite]

38. So you think we should kick out eveyone not as ideologically pure as you?

...because that strategy has worked so well for the Republicans. The Democratic Party has always been "Center Left". That means you have to include the "Center".

[Baitball Blogger]

43. We can actually keep Crist honest.

[fascisthunter]

59. No, that is NOT what the poster is saying

way to spin her post. In fact, this country politically is so far to the right that our party no longer resembles the democratic party of 20-30 years ago. Madhound isn't asking for purity of ideology, just some representation. You may be happy with the current position of the party because it represents your centrist views... well bully for you, but this country isn't made up of just centrists, and since money has corrupted and coopted our representation in this country, it is NOT a reflection of the majority's views on political/social issues. In FACT, the reason Obama won twice, is because he ran as more liberal politically, economically and culturally... so stop implying it is the OP's extreme or skewed view that is the issue here; the implication is disengenous, dismissive and a bit insulting.

[MrSlayer]

125. It has worked well for the Republicans.

They've had their way for 30+ years and dominated political discourse to the point that the Democratic Party is the Republican party of Reagan and the Republicans are now the Bircher party. The center has moved so far right that they'd consider Ike a fucking communist.

We should have never sold out our principles but we did. Everytime we compromise with them the center moves right. It NEVER moves left.

A guy like Kucinich who would have been considered a standard pro-labor, pro-working class Democrat in the days before Reagan is now a far left "crazy". He should be the center of this party. The things he stands for should be our basic, default position.

We've been sold out time and again and we keep eating the shit sandwich because hey, the other guy is even worse.

[Baitball Blogger]

40. Very happy to see this hasn't been hidden yet.

So, I'll weigh in. Here is what you have to be concerned about Crist: He has Republican baggage. It's just the way they network in Florida. There are Republican rainmakers which he is beholden to, because they financially supported him when he was a Republican Governor.

Here is the problem for us who live in Florida: These rainmakers are corrupt. They don't give gobs and gobs of money to a candidate for nothing. There are past secrets that continue to get protected because no one will call the dogs to investigate the issues. Someone is always making a phone call to keep the system locked in the kennel. So that means that many of us will continue to be oppressed by these corrupt networks, since people are being rewarded for protecting the secrets.

So, if Crist becomes governor again, all the old guard ways are going to continue because he's bringing along that baggage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. The alternative is a the formation of a new and large centrist political party

That would be a greater threat to progressives right now than haing moderate Republicans defect to the Democratic Party. A coalition including people like Charlie Christ, Doug Pruor, Mayor Bloomberg, Colin Powell, Ben Nelson, and Chris Christie would likely become the new dominant political party. We are better off if sane moderates join the current Democratic Party.

[bluestate10]

134. I totally agree. Without Moderates, the democratic party doesn't have power.

It is better to welcome Moderates and former republicans in and go about the process of having adult debates with those people about why our core values are important. Some of the most progressive people on DU now are people that identify themselves as former republicans or from republican families. Those people saw the light and like former smokers, become strong advocates for eliminating what they once took part in. I have always been a moderate democrat, but given a choice, always align with Progressive policy over conservative policy.

[Crowman1979]

44. The Democratic party needs to stop accepting converts from the Rethug party.

They are nothing but snakes in my opinion. I wouldn't trust them AT ALL!

[jsr]

58. Amen

[Safetykitten]

45. Ah, the awfull truth comes out at time. Nice post.

[Skidmore]

46. Crist must be really powerful for you to go to that space.

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

The man has been repudiated by the GOP and has been very vocal about no longer being able to embrace its leadership or its platform. He comes to the left for an ideological home and the first thing you can do is spit on him? Are events and ideas always static in your world or is there no room for change? Why not help him further leftward in his search rather than burden him and others with your assumptions about motivations?

[mountain grammy]

50. My opinion: It's all about the money. "money makes the world go around,

the world go around, the world go around" from "Cabaret," a very chilling play, reminds me of America. Conservatives have the money, always have, and money controls the masses. FDR, JFK, and a few others were exceptions (and exceptional.) When the people start feeling their power and manage to make some progress, they are eventually crushed. It doesn't matter if it's with pepper spray and lasers or unemployment, the corporations have the power either way. A rich robber baron once said he had enough money to pay half the poor population to kill the other half, and we are headed in that direction. The people elected the politicians who gave away vast chunks of American wealth to the top 1% at the expense of the 99% and we're still electing them because it's the only choice we have.
In my lifetime, I've witnesses and been involved in two large uprisings that succeeded, but not without unbelievable amounts of courage and sacrifice. The first was the Civil Rights movement, and the second, the anti Vietnam War movement. They were tied together by extraordinary leaders and reported by journalists who had not yet completely sold out to the corps. I still have hope for another great leader to rise up and lead us to the Promised Land. In the meantime, we will continue to take two steps forward and one step back and make progress ever so slowly. Much too slow for this old, raging socialist. Every time I hear someone call President Obama a socialist, I think, Obamacare?

[MotherPetrie]

55. K&R Crist's "conversion" is simply an FU to Repubs who don't want him

It made me sick to see him at the Dem convention. He's a lousy opportunist.

[thesquanderer]

57. I think you need to consider geography

In some races, a truly liberal Dem challenger would not stand a chance, the Republican would surely win. In those races, a right-leaning Dem may be the best outcome we could reasonably hope for.

I am among those who would like to see a viable third, more left wing party. But it will be very hard for such a party to take hold as long as the two major parties make all the rules. So as the saying goes, we are often stuck trying to make sure that the perfect does not become the enemy of the good.

[socialist_n_TN]

61. It's not advocating for a third party IF......

you posit that's a left wing third party is an inevitability given the way things are going now. At some point, the reasoning is going to be there's not enough difference between the two parties to even vote BECAUSE VOTING WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. And the boogeyman of a hard right Republican presidency won't work when people believe that even a candidate with a "D" behind his name is the same as a hard right Republican. Even if he or she is slightly different on a few social issues, that won't be enough except for the one issue voters on those issues. THIS IS AN INEVITABILITY! It WILL happen. I just hope when it does happen it will be a coalition party led by the workers. That will be the progressive bloc that would stand the best chance of becoming a challenge to the fascist wing of the Republicans.

What actually would be best providing the Democrats still insist on moving rightward, would be for the Republicans to split first. But regardless of whether they do or don't, the vacuum on the left WILL be filled by a grouping at some point. The country is already center-left regarding issues, especially economic ones. All it will take is a party that gives voice to those center-left positions on issues and the game WILL be on.

[Zorra]

62. Excellent post, I agree, thank you.

1

[DCBob]

63. In the current political environment.. yes, winning is everything.

We risk losing everything if we keep losing Governors in purple states. Crist can win in Florida and thats a very very good thing.

[madfloridian]

66. The Democratic party moved rightward all by itself in spite of many of us pleading and begging.

Charlie Crist had nothing to do with that rightward movement. Can you say DLC, Third Way think tanks and gullible leaders who feared losing campaign funds?

Charlie Crist vetoed SB6. The bill that would have put Democratic policies in place in Florida education....such as eliminating tenure.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1087675.ece

" Under the bill, half of a teacher's evaluation would depend on students' learning gains. Good gains would equal positive evaluations and pay raises, which teachers said failed to factor the work that doesn't show up on tests — and ignores other forces that affect kids.

Tenure would have been out of the question for new teachers, which Crist highlighted in his problems with the bill. "

So if he vetoed Democratic education policies, what does that say about Crist and about our party?

Now there is no more tenure in Florida, and merit pay rules supreme. And Arne approves.

There is no Democrat waiting in the wings in FL who is very much to the left of Crist.

[leftstreet]

88. +1

[Starry Messenger]

146. Hell, he's left of Cory Booker on education. Yep, I said it.

If anything Crist might pull certain center-right Dems left on a few things. I'm not getting the anti-Crist threads here today. He's moved left on abortion and has a good environmental track record from a cursory glance. If we're worried about rightist influences on the D Party, that horse left the barn ages ago. At least with Crist as a Dem, he's accountable to a certain constituency.

[madfloridian]

153. Oh yeh, way left of Cory Booker.

I don't understand it either...the anti-Crist stuff here today. No one has to embrace him, but why be negative about a major Republican joining our party?

The shift was done long ago.

[Egalitarian Thug]

171. Not all by itself. Not by a long shot. n/t

[historylovr]

67. +1. nt

[savebigbird]

70. It's post makes me wonder...

...if the Republican Party will gradually dissipate and the Democratic Party will split into two separate parties...

[Odin2005]

74. IMO the GOP is about to die and the Democratic Party will split.

The only thing keeping the different factions in the Democratic Party together is the need to get rid of the fucking Teabaggers and their Koch-head backers. Once the GOP is made irreverent the Democratic Party will split. and we Progressives can quit humoring the Third Way idiots.

[bluestate10]

136. I agree. The democratic party will continue to grow then split into two parties that will contest

future elections. The people who will have the most difficult time in a few years will be Moderates, who will have to choose which side they move to.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. Didn't the leaders in both parties agree to give hundreds of billions to the banksters instead of

prosecuting them?

Didn't the leaders in both parties agree to let's-send-American-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements? Isn't President I-will-repeal-NAFTA Obama ready to sign the pending TPP, the NAFTA of the Pacific?

Didn't the leaders in both parties agree to optional endless wars in the Middle-East at our expense? Didn't they agree to put the cost on credit so that not only we but our grand-children, out great grand-children and their great grand-children, will be obligated to pay for these wars forever?

[rhett o rick]

81. Excellent thread. Some heads will explode here in Rivercity tho.

Some think that the war is between Republicans and Democrats. This is the easy rationalization. Easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. These sadly naive Democrats will welcome Crist thinking that it shows that the Democrats are winning. They openly call for the death of the REpublican Party thinking that if the party dies then their right-wing ideology will also die. Really? REALLY? I guess they are seeking Democrat Heaven where everyone is a happy Democrat and they can go back to watching American Idol.

I hate to break their warm reality bubbles but the war is not between Democrats and Republicans. Those that wish to gain wealth and power are smart enough to understand that if there is no Republican Party to carry their water................they will just have to buy the Democratic Party.

Someone above said that maybe Crist had an epiphany. I assume meaning that he changed his ideology. I believe he, like lots of other Republicans abandoning a party sinking into fascism, that he could promote his ideology via the DEmocratic Party.

Would those here that welcome Crist and other right-wingers into the Democratic Party also welcome Jeb Bush should he make the same decision?

[John2]

98. They are

welcome, but they will never win in a Democratic primary with those ideas either. They have to change their ideas to fit us. The difference between the Republican Party and Democratic party is that we are the majority if you look at the Demographics which are growing. They have no answer for those changes. That is why Obama is President. I expect, the Democratic Party will produce, the first woman President and Hispanic President, because skin color doesn't matter. The ideas matter. Think of Star Trek and the Federation.

[jpak]

82. What? - more anti-Democratic Party horseshit?

Who knew?

[rhett o rick]

90. Snark w/o substance. nm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. ''Moderation in temper is always a virtue. Moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

[rhett o rick]

94. Some here dont care about a politician's principles. If they are Democratic they are golden.

This makes life soo much easier. Democrats good and Republicans bad. Life would be perfect if everyone was a Democrat.

[thucythucy]

84. How much of this is the culmination of another

great trans-party migration, that of the mid-'60s to mid-'70s?

At that time, segregationist southern Democrats, "Dixiecrats" and their supporters, people like Strom Thurmond, Jessie Helms and (to a lesser extent) John Connally left the Democratic Party in response to the national party supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This moved the GOP rightward, and the Democratic Party leftward to such an extent that George McGovern became the candidate in 1972. The national Democratic Party quickly returned to the center with Jimmy Carter in 1976, but by 1980 the GOP had gone far to the right of where it was in 1968, '72, and '76, and that rightward drift has continued ever since.

I have no idea how all this will play out in the long run, but in the short term it would seem to give Democrats room to move to the left and reinvigorate the New Deal and the Great Society by, for instance, raising the cap on Social Security payroll taxes (which FDR kept low as a compromise to get SS passed in the first place) and adding a public option to the HCAA. And maybe, just maybe, with all this talk of a "fiscal cliff" and "budget crisis," we can FINALLY begin scaling back on military spending.

Don't know if that will happen though, but it sure would be nice.

[SidDithers]

86. More "not a dime's worth of difference" "lesser of two evils" nonsense...

Sid

[rhett o rick]

89. More "Let's have one big happy Democratic Party", nonsense...

Do you think when Republicans change parties that their ideologies change? Or that maybe they think they can influence the ideologies of the Democrats. Or dont you care?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

131. I'm not sure that the Canadian is saying that. I think that he is saying "Those of you in the States

should have one big happy Democratic Party."

[rhett o rick]

154. I stand corrected. I think he is just trying to be helpful. nm

[great white snark]

112. Even the addition of Warren & Grayson doesn't matter to some.

Purge enough and our big tent will become a shabby lean to.

[freshwest]

170. Warren, Grayson, the AFL-CIO and Sanders who votes with the Democrats are all fools!

Shut up and listen to the experts who tell you it's hopeless!

Hey, it's always worked so well in the past.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

127. As a Canadian, are you eligible to be a Democrat?

[LWolf]

87. It's happening now.

And it will get bigger, more and more of the left abandoning the D.

[sendero]

91. I'm not sure...

where I stand on this. Is it a case of pols wanting to infiltrate our party and move it their direction OR is it a case of pols seeing which way the wind blows and wanting to front-run it?

IMHO we are seeing the left-right pendulum at the beginning of it's leftward traverse. The last rightward traverse lasted about 30 years. It's reasonable to assume the leftward one will last a similar time.

This election was the first seismic shift in decades, since Reagan. And the smart pols know it too. Going forward we are going to see lots of "adjustments" that only a few years ago would have been unthinkable. The Tea Party morons don't get it at all and think doubling-down on failure is the correct course, they will make themselves irrelevant in a very short period of time. The Repugs that aren't stupid will start moderating their positions. Democrats SHOULD start moving left but I don't think Obama will, it's just not in him. But someone down the road will.

All of this has been brought on by the Great Recession that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the economic and regulatory policies of the right, as put into practice circa 1980, have failed the country utterly and completely. Even though you will never hear it challenged on the MSM, people are realizing that the "tax cuts for the rich create jobs" idea is total fiction. And since is was, is and always be "the economy stupid", people are ready for a new approach.

Another learning moment has to have been experienced by those who thought that if you throw enough money behind a bad idea, people will go for it. Didn't work.

[LynneSin]

95. Outside of possibly defeating Mark Rubio in 2016, I don't know what impact this will have

At this point Christ is a far better option any day of the week over Rubio but still not my favorite choice.

[TomClash]

97. I get the argument but . . .

. . . you need enough votes to win elections and govern. We need more than just socialists or progressives to govern.

Just remember Republicans under Eisenhower had posters like this:

http://digproj.libraries.uc.edu:8180/luna/servlet/detail/CORNELL~9~1~78217~3265:Labor-Day-1956--Young-Republicans-S

[forestpath]

99. I agree with every word! Crist knew what the Republican Party was when he

was part of it. But gee, now he's all surprised at what a hateful cesspit it is. Puhleeze! He didn't just suddenly have a miraculous conversion. It's an opportunistic and calculated political move.

[dsc]

103. Florida does have primaries last time I checked

and he would have to win a primary with those views, or far more likely change those views.

[Recursion]

105. As a straight white male with a decent job, I also have that luxury

I have the luxury of complaining about the more conservative wing of the Democratic party, or considering the Democratic party the lesser of two evils. That's privilege. For a lot of women, people in poverty, LGBTQ people, and others without that privilege I have, growing the Democratic coalition is a matter of their livelihood, even their lives.

[Zorra]

109. The Democratic coalition is growing inspite of, and not because of, conservative intervention in our

Democratic party affairs.

The reason we are so far behind so many other countries with respect to social issues is because the few conservatives in the Democratic party have had inordinate amounts of control in the Dem party, as well as having had full control of the GOP. Conservatives have been holding social progress back forever. In recent times, with respect to the Democratic party, most notably beginning with the Reagan Democrats in 1980.

It could accurately be said that conservative Democrats have been largely responsible for holding back progress on social issues in the US for the past 30+ yrs.

And Clinton signed DOMA, DADT, and NAFTA into law, for godsake.

Conservatives have almost universally prevented minorities from gaining equal rights throughout American history.

As a liberal LGBT brown skinned female Democrat, I would greatly prefer that conservatives had absolutely no power over my life and affairs whatsoever, and do not appreciate advocacy or support of any conservatives or conservative ideas in this progressive Democratic forum in any way shape or form whatsoever.

There is a reason why the GOP is completely made up of conservatives.

Conservatives are the people that the GOP totally exists for.

[Zambero]

106. The public sentiment has changed on many of those issues

With time, politicians will also change to reflect the views of constituents. Crist is no longer bound by the Republican party line. His support of President Obama and hard work to help him secure FLorida in the last election was a good start. Religions seek converts, and political parties who aspire to a competitive position will also wish to do so. Time will tell, but for now I see his switch as a golden opportunity to oust dickhead Rick Scott in a couple years.

[Prophet 451]

107. Littler Evilism has it's merits

OK, the Dems are a long way from perfect but the other side are, to a man, either evil or clinically insane.

That said, you guys need a third party in the worst way. We have three here (UK) although the LibDems have now destroyed themselves by propping up the scumbag Tories. Most European nations have several more.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

120. Here across the pond, we got rid of "the scumbag Tories" a long time ago.

[Egalitarian Thug]

108. Turned from a civic duty to determine how our nation conducts itself and for whom, into a team sport

That's another of the ways that we keep circling the drain.

[madfloridian]

117. A major Republican who bucked the GOP has joined our party.

So how can that be so bad? Crist stood for teachers here when our Democrats were not doing so. That will be remembered.

[bluestate10]

138. I supported Crist against Rubio, because of his Moderate record.

And because the democrat had no chance of winning the Senate seat. If people like Crist accept our core principles, which in Crist's case, he has shown he has, I welcome them to the democratic party, they will only make the party stronger.

[madfloridian]

151. We did also..

FL is a sad but special case in politics right now.

[bluestate10]

126. I completely disagree with you Hound.

If we insist on absolute purity, we will become the republican party, inept and losing power. Crist is a good addition. We won't lose people in Florida that vote with us, but Crist will bring over moderate democrats and republicans. The arc of Florida is toward Blue in national elections, we need to change it to blue in the critical local elections and US House and Senate elections. Crist has the potential to bring 15-25% of republicans over to vote with us. Over time, I expect those people to agree more soundly that we are right as their eyes are opened.

[jeff47]

129. Because Crist is now the leader of the party, and every Democrat must follow him

There's absolutely no possibility of a single politician being pulled left. Only the entire party pulled right.

Crist is an immovable rock who has held exactly the same position for his entire life, and can't possibly be convinced to change ever. And since he holds no elected office nor position of authority in the party, all Democrats have no choice but to follow him.

Or perhaps you could step off the ledge and return to reality. This is one guy who's changing party affiliation for his own personal gain. Now that he's pandering to Democrats, he's going to have to move left in order to return to the Governor's office.

[Skittles]

141. CORRECT

there are actually some DUers who see this as a positive thing

[stevenleser]

142. Except that I have met and talked with Charlie Crist numerous times and have friends who have known

him for 30+ years. He never really was a Republican. He certainly was nothing like 99.9% of Republicans in Florida.

He has to recant his views on gay rights before I can support him, but I am not going to say the sky is falling because he decided to become a Democrat. Anyone can become a Democrat, it does not affect the party one bit.

Romney, Gingrich and Rubio can go down to wherever it is that one registers in their respective states, and register as Democrats, that does not affect the ideology of the party.

[Spider Jerusalem]

143. Sorry, but you're wrong, actually

firstly, the Democratic Party has always been more of an ideological "big tent" than the Republican Party. You've apparently never heard of the Blue Dogs. Pro-NRA, pro-capital punishment, anti-gay marriage? Allow me to introduce you to pretty much any elected Democrat from the South, for a start. Secondly, the idea that the Democratic Party is somehow more likely to go the way of the Whigs than the Republicans (who are increasingly a regional, Southern party of white evangelical Christians) is just silly. And the Democratic Party has been a party of the political centre since, at least, Clinton.

[hay rick]

145. Patrick Murphy was a Republican in 2011.

I worked on his campaign: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021798362

His opponent was Allen West. We got rid of him. Now Murphy can establish his own track record. I got to know and like the guy, but I am quite willing to work for an opponent in a primary if he looks like he is going back to his Republican roots.

In his Republican past, Murphy supported Crist and, in 2008, financially supported Mitt Romney's unsuccessful Presidential primary run against John McCain. That was before Romney reinvented himself to cater to Republican Neanderthals.

Concerning Eisenhower- he was positioned well to the left of the ground occupied by most Democrats today. I agree that there is a huge empty space on the left side of the American political spectrum. If the Democrats don't move there somebody else will.

[Capt. Obvious]

148. Look at the bright side

everyone is now free to openly support Crist whithout getting the special permission like his last election.

[Hippo_Tron]

150. You're assuming he brings those views with him

Party switchers actually tend to move right towards the mainstream of their new party the second they switch. Look at how Jim Jeffords voted before his switch in 2001 and after his switch in 2001. Before the switch, he voted a lot like Ben Nelson. After the switch he voted a lot more like Russ Feingold than like Ben Nelson.

Regardless, this is why we have primaries. If Charlie Crist is really still holding Republican positions, Florida Democrats are free to nominate someone else for whatever he might run for.

[ProSense]

155. When Democrats become Republicans,

do they move the GOP to the left?

For example, Artur Davis or Zell Miller?

There are some right-leaning Democrats who were never Republicans. As most people learned this year, there are some racist Democrats who were never Republican.

Oh, the drama!

[Utopian Leftist]

159. At first I thought . . .

the Democrats are just standing back and allowing the Republicon Party to be foisted on their own petard: allowing them to display their ignorance and arrogance before the world with their extremist views.

But the more I think about it, I can't understand why, if the Tea Party can so easily push their agenda into the Republicons', as they have been doing for the past two years, why can't liberals push theirs into the Democrat's? In fact, why does the Democratic Party not promote or even form their own leftist version (without the poorly-spelled signs and extremist demagogues)? Liberals are the heart of the Democratic Party. So why can't the Democratic Party adopt them into their fold as easily as the Tea Party assimilated into the Republicon? Wouldn't that pull America back from the brink of insanity, help pull the country left like in a tug of war game? We need more weight on our side . . . something of substance . . . ooh, how about REAL PROGRESSIVE VALUES!

[limpyhobbler]

160. They are creating a political vacuum but there is no telling what is going to fill it.

There isn't going to be a leftist or progressive grassroots movement in this country unless it has African Americans and working class whites united at it's core. Right now most progressives seem to be buying what Obama is selling.

It's not inevitable that there will be any new movement or party to pull us back to the left. It could happen. Or the Koch Bros. could fill the political vacuum with astro-turf and we could descend into a neo-feudal dark age lasting for centuries. Either way it should be interesting.

[TeamPooka]

161. Real Democrats Don't Vote Crist. nt

[Swede Atlanta]

162. I'm torn here......

On the one hand you are arguing for ideological purity - a pure progressive orientation by suggesting Crist not be accepted. On the other we have always been the party of the "big tent". That is why we are the party of young, old, white, black, hispanic, asian, native-american, gay, straight, bisexual, handicapped, men, women, transgendered, christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, buddhist, atheist, etc.

I hear what you are saying but I think we need to fight against ideological purity. We need to look at the value potential additions to the party can bring.

Crist may have been disingenuous in that he publicly held these radical views while personally opposing many of them. Does that make him a bad man? Well....arguably yes.

But we need to build on momentum. We need all the voices, legs, hands, etc. that we can get.

We need to rally around a voice that is pluralistic, sometimes chaotic, but truly "big tent".

[PatrynXX]

163. Kinda ironic

Bush Sr and the discusion over abortion pulled me left when I was almost 13.. that same pastor is now going up against a an idea Sr put forth to the UN on disabilities as something pro abortion. So wait a minute.. 1988 Bush Sr was anti abortion but 2 years later hes pro abortion. anything sound odd here. Frankly Obama is the Republican that Reagan always wanted to be but messed up on the 2nd term.. Frankly what did the new UN thing have to do with providing abortion to the rest of the world. more likely it would have prevented more abortions in the rest of the world. the reason it went down in some odd form of defeat was because of sovernty which makes no sense but oh well..

[ProSense]

164. Please respond to this poll:

How long should an ex-Republican be a Democrat before running for office
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021948444

Thanks

[bvar22]

167. DURec!

It just keeps getting worse.
The Working Class Party of FDR/LBJ has lurched so far to the Conservative Right that Eisenhower & Nixon are NOW to the Left of the New Democrat Centrist Party on most issues.

Republican Arlen Specter "crossed over" (changed the letter after his name) and got the White House endorsement in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary in 2010.
Its enough to make this old FDR Democrat cry.




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[fascisthunter]

173. such a large degree of support... centrists are a minority here

[WCGreen]

176. Anyone can be a democrat....

Anyone can be a republican.

There is no true democrat because, in the end, it's how you get on a ballot.

All you have to do is get declare you are a democrat when you vote in a primary. That is all that truly means.

[fleabiscuit]

177. Time to eliminate the party primary.

“Learning from California”
Russell Sadler

http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/09/learning_from_c/

“...The party primary was an Oregon innovation, passed by initiative in 1904, at a time when the two political parties were controlled by party “bosses” who determinedly ignored the problems of everyday life. The idea was to give rank and file voters in those parties the ability to nominate their own candidates. It worked as long as party candidates were attractive enough to win the crossover vote needed to win office.

That system has lost its utility as Republicans and Democrats represent smaller percentages of the whole electorate. The solution is not a third party. The election laws -- written by Republicans and Democrats -- are deliberately rigged against third parties and independents as Ben Westlund’s unsuccessful run demonstrates. The first step toward election reform is elimination of the primaries and one all-comers race in the fall where all voters have a real choice.”

[cali]

178. "it's happened time and time again". it has?

please name all the repubs who have become dems in the last few years. your post is almost entirely bullshit. And by the way, the 2008 and 2012 Dem platforms are liberal.

[quaker bill]

179. The force is not with Charlie Crist

He is a symptom not a cause.

What is this "democratic party" of which you speak? You speak of it in terms that gives it a separate sentient existence, you almost give it a soul, in that this disembodied entity can make decisions distinct from its members, and somehow cause its members to comply. Parties do not lead. They are the product of the people who join them. They have no mind or free will.

Bottom line in a two party system is when you make one party smaller, the other gets bigger. This happens usually at first by moving the dividing line between the two.

There is no alternative state. Social change does not arise from political parties. Social change arises from the people and the political parties simply change as a byproduct of the fact that the members who create them now hold different opinions and priorities. Society is not a product of political parties. Political parties and their positions are the product of movements in the culture.

I have met Charlie Crist, and he is not capable of this in any dimension or direction.

[Le Taz Hot]

182. MH,

as usual, you are RIGHT ON. There IS a vacuum and there will be someone or something to fill that void and personally, it will be a happy day for me. After 30 years of being a Democrat, I changed in 2004 to Decline to State, now No Party Affiliation and this is exactly why. The Democrats don't represent me anymore.

Clinton started this bullshit because the Republicans were outspending the Democrats by a 3 to 1 ratio so he stole their ideas -- their corporate-friendly ideas and they've never looked back. I can think of only a handful of legislation that has benefited We the People in the last 20 years. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE has benefited the 1%. Our Constitution is ripped to shreds, our safety nets have been eliminated, our protections against the 1% have been worn away and there are Democrats who not only don't fight for it, they're actively engaged in supporting the erosion of these protections. The Patriot Act is the most obnoxious example but there are hundreds more. The Bankruptcy Act, the Fairness Doctrine, the elimination of Glass-Steagall, the IWR, NAFTA, the War on (Some) Drugs -- all supported by most Democrats. And now? SS & Medicare -- the Sacred Cows that are, all of a sudden, and with our President leading the way, now in real peril. NONE of this represents FDR Democrats and NONE of this represents liberals. All of this legislation represent the 1% and our Democrats cheerily vote them in knowing that the Party Faithful have nowhere else to go. Right up until the time they do have somewhere else to go. It's been too long since Liberals have had a voice and the fact is, that the two major parties will not be able to keep third parties out forever. When that happens BOTH parties will have some reckoning to do. They can adjust and decide to represent We the People again or they can go into obscurity. It's their choice.

[Douglas Carpenter]

188. the party of FDR, Kennedy and Humphrey was also the party of Lester Maddox and George Wallace

and the vast majority of southern segregationist. For that matter the Nixon/Reagan party was once the party of Robert La Follette and Henry Wallace.

There was NEVER - NEVER NEVER a time when the Democratic Party was solidly liberal or progressive. It is only a post-Reagan phenomena - that the Republicans became a solidly right-wing party.

Liberal Republicans are now a memory of the past and even traditional conservatives are not wanted there anymore. They don't have the option to fight to take back their party.

We would do a lot more good by working to strengthen the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than trying to purge the right-wing of the party - Both wings have always been part of the Democratic Party. Progressive ideas - like real universal healthcare, a stronger - not weaker safety net and a major reduction in America's imperial ambitions are all very popular issues. Push the issues, articulate the causes - We don't have to work that hard at convincing people because most people already agree with us - regardless how they describe themselves. Instead of waisting time by telling disaffected Republicans that they are not wanted - build an ISSUE ORIENTED PROGRESSIVE WING - If we build it - They will come.